Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Year 2015, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 209 - 229, 08.09.2015
https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379

Abstract

Bu makale, Öğretmenlik Uygulaması derslerinde uygulanan ders imecesi modelinin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının alanı öğretme bilgilerine etkisini izlemek amacıyla yapılan bir araştırmanın bir bölümünü yansıtmaktadır. Makalede alanı öğretme bilgisinin alt bileşenlerinden olan öğrenme öğretme sürecini planlama boyutuna odaklanılmış ve ‘Ders imecesi uygulaması sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bir öğrenme öğretme sürecini planlama bilgilerinin gelişimini nasıl etkilemektedir?’ sorusunun cevabı aranmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak video kayıtları, gözlem, alan notları, mülakat, ders planları kullanılmıştır. Ders imecesi grubunun bir dersin planlamasında nelere dikkat edilmesi gerektiği konusunda kendilerini geliştirdikleri ve bu adayların, etkinliklerin sayısını ayarlama, öğrenme öğretme sürecini bir kazanım dâhilinde tamamlama ve etkinlikleri uygun sırada sıralama konularında diğer grubun adaylarına göre daha iyi oldukları belirlenmiştir.

References

  • Ann, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145-172.
  • Baki, M. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematiği öğretme bilgilerinin gelişiminin incelenmesi: Bir ders imecesi (lesson study) çalışması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33( 8), 3-15.
  • Cochran- Smith, M., & Lytler, S. (1999). Relationship of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Reviev of Research in Education, 24, 249-305
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010).Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
  • Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers ‘knowledge and its impact. In Dauglas A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 147-164). New York : Macmillan,
  • Fernandez, C., Yoshida, M., Chokshi, S., & Cannon, J. (2001). An overview of lesson study. Retrieved from http://www.teacherscollege.edu/lessonstudy/presentations_slides.html.
  • Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Fernandez, M. L., & Zilliox, J. (2011). Investigating approaches to lesson study in prospective mathematics teacher education. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. (pp. 85-102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Gökçe, E. ve Demirhan, C. (2005). Öğretmen eğitiminde yenilikçi yaklaşım mı yoksa geleneksel bir anlayış mı? Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 187-195.
  • Goodell, J., E. (2006). Using critical incident reflections: A self study as a mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 221-248
  • Kranier, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In Ubuz, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35 th Conference of the International for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol.1, pp. 47-62). Ankara, Turkey: PME.
  • Leinhardt, G., & Greeno.J.(1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional Improvement?: The case of lesson Study. Educational Researcher, 35(3) 3-14.
  • Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajik, J. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Mapolelo, D. C. (1999). Do pre-service teachers who excel in mathematics become good mathematics teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 715-725.
  • Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3-11.
  • Murata, A. (2011). Introduction: Conceptual overview of lesson study. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 1-12). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  • Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299.
  • Paker, T. (2008). Öğretmenlik Uygulamasında öğretmen adaylarının uygulama öğretmeni ve uygulama öğretim elamanının yönlendirmesiyle ilgili karşılatıkları sorunlar. Pamukkale Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 132-139.
  • Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professional research. Research in science Education, 38, 261- 284.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002) .Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). London: Sage Publications.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673- 695.
  • Watanabe, T. (2005). Knowledgeable others: What are your roles and how do you become more effective? An invitation to lesson study: A Facilitator’s Guide-Handout13.1 Translating Lesson Study for a U.S. Context. Retrieved from www.educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/821.
  • Yeşildere, S. ve Akkoç, H. (2010). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının sayı örüntülerine ilişkin pedagojik alan bilgilerinin konuya özel stratejiler bağlamında incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 29(1), 125-149.
  • Yoshida, M., & Jackson, W., C. (2011). Ideas for developing mathematical pedagogical content knowledge through lesson study. In L, C, Hart., A. Alston and A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 279-288). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Examining the Effect of Lesson Study on Prospective Primary Teachers’ Knowledge of Lesson Planning

Year 2015, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 209 - 229, 08.09.2015
https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379

Abstract

This article reflects a special part of a research conducted to examine the effect of lesson study on prospective classroom teachers’ mathematical pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK). In this article, the special part consists of prospective teachers’ knowledge of lesson planning including a mastery of planning an affective lesson taking into account student’s current knowledge, understanding and difficulties within mathematics. Therefore, the research question is how lesson study practices affect prospective classroom teachers’ knowledge of lesson planning as a sub component of MPCK. The research is conducted with 12 prospective classroom teachers, six of them have already assisted to lesson study and the others have not. Data collection tools consist of video records, class observations, field notes, interviews and lesson plans prepared and used by prospective teachers participated in lesson study. Findings indicated that the prospective classroom teachers who participated in lesson study improved their knowledge in terms of planning an affective lesson taking student’s current knowledge and understanding into consideration. They appeared to be aware of selecting and ordering appropriate activities related to the actual objectives of the mathematical topics. They also appeared to be better in lesson organization and lesson presentation comparing to the other group of prospective teachers who did not participated in lesson study.

KeywordsPedagogical content knowledge, lesson study, prospective teacher

References

  • Ann, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145-172.
  • Baki, M. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematiği öğretme bilgilerinin gelişiminin incelenmesi: Bir ders imecesi (lesson study) çalışması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33( 8), 3-15.
  • Cochran- Smith, M., & Lytler, S. (1999). Relationship of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Reviev of Research in Education, 24, 249-305
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010).Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.
  • Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers ‘knowledge and its impact. In Dauglas A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 147-164). New York : Macmillan,
  • Fernandez, C., Yoshida, M., Chokshi, S., & Cannon, J. (2001). An overview of lesson study. Retrieved from http://www.teacherscollege.edu/lessonstudy/presentations_slides.html.
  • Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Fernandez, M. L., & Zilliox, J. (2011). Investigating approaches to lesson study in prospective mathematics teacher education. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education. (pp. 85-102). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  • Gökçe, E. ve Demirhan, C. (2005). Öğretmen eğitiminde yenilikçi yaklaşım mı yoksa geleneksel bir anlayış mı? Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 187-195.
  • Goodell, J., E. (2006). Using critical incident reflections: A self study as a mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 221-248
  • Kranier, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In Ubuz, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35 th Conference of the International for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol.1, pp. 47-62). Ankara, Turkey: PME.
  • Leinhardt, G., & Greeno.J.(1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75-95.
  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional Improvement?: The case of lesson Study. Educational Researcher, 35(3) 3-14.
  • Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajik, J. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Mapolelo, D. C. (1999). Do pre-service teachers who excel in mathematics become good mathematics teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 715-725.
  • Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3-11.
  • Murata, A. (2011). Introduction: Conceptual overview of lesson study. In L. C. Hart, A. Alston & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 1-12). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
  • Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299.
  • Paker, T. (2008). Öğretmenlik Uygulamasında öğretmen adaylarının uygulama öğretmeni ve uygulama öğretim elamanının yönlendirmesiyle ilgili karşılatıkları sorunlar. Pamukkale Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 132-139.
  • Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professional research. Research in science Education, 38, 261- 284.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002) .Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). London: Sage Publications.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673- 695.
  • Watanabe, T. (2005). Knowledgeable others: What are your roles and how do you become more effective? An invitation to lesson study: A Facilitator’s Guide-Handout13.1 Translating Lesson Study for a U.S. Context. Retrieved from www.educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/821.
  • Yeşildere, S. ve Akkoç, H. (2010). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının sayı örüntülerine ilişkin pedagojik alan bilgilerinin konuya özel stratejiler bağlamında incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 29(1), 125-149.
  • Yoshida, M., & Jackson, W., C. (2011). Ideas for developing mathematical pedagogical content knowledge through lesson study. In L, C, Hart., A. Alston and A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 279-288). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
There are 28 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Müjgan Baki

Selahattin Arslan

Publication Date September 8, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 6 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Baki, M., & Arslan, S. (2015). Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(2), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379
AMA Baki M, Arslan S. Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). September 2015;6(2):209-229. doi:10.16949/turcomat.02379
Chicago Baki, Müjgan, and Selahattin Arslan. “Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 6, no. 2 (September 2015): 209-29. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379.
EndNote Baki M, Arslan S (September 1, 2015) Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 6 2 209–229.
IEEE M. Baki and S. Arslan, “Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi”, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 209–229, 2015, doi: 10.16949/turcomat.02379.
ISNAD Baki, Müjgan - Arslan, Selahattin. “Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 6/2 (September 2015), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379.
JAMA Baki M, Arslan S. Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2015;6:209–229.
MLA Baki, Müjgan and Selahattin Arslan. “Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi”. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 6, no. 2, 2015, pp. 209-2, doi:10.16949/turcomat.02379.
Vancouver Baki M, Arslan S. Ders İmecesinin (Lesson Study) Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Matematik Dersini Planlama Bilgilerine Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). 2015;6(2):209-2.