BibTex RIS Cite

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Derste Can Sıkıntısına İlişkin Görüşleri: Öğretmen Adayları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 10 - 27, 01.04.2017

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının derste deneyimledikleri can sıkıntısının nedenleri, can sıkıntısı anında yaptıkları ve hissettikleri, can sıkıntısının devamsızlıklarına ve ders başarılarına etkisi, can sıkıntısı yaşadıkları derslerin özellikleri ve can sıkıntısıyla başa çıkmada kullandıkları stratejilerin neler olduğunun belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının derste deneyimledikleri can sıkıntısını, ona eşlik eden bazı duygu, davranış ve sonuçları ile birlikte anlamanın nitel araştırmanın keşifsel doğası ile mümkün olabileceği gerekçesiyle, bu araştırma türü seçilmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen ve yedi açık uçlu, bir çoktan seçmeli sorudan oluşan anket formu kullanılmıştır. Veriler, içerik analizi tekniği ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmaya Ankara'da bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim ve edebiyat fakültelerinde öğrenim görmekte olan öğretmen adaylarından 270 lisans öğrencisi katılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre öğrencilerin üçte biri derslerinin yarısını ve çoğunu, yarısından fazlası ise derslerinin bazılarını sıkıcı bulmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının en fazla öğretim elemanından kaynaklanan ve daha sonra kendilerinden/öğrencilerden kaynaklanan nedenler dolayısıyla can sıkıntısı yaşadıkları belirlenmiştir. Katılımcıların öznel değerlendirmelerine göre, öğretim elemanından kaynaklı nedenler, öğretmen adaylarının devamsızlıklarını tetiklemek yoluyla akademik performanslarında düşüşe neden olmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının derste can sıkıntısını yönetmede en sık başvurdukları iki yol; cep telefonunun oyun, müzik ve benzeri eğlence amaçlarıyla kullanılması ile yakınlarındaki arkadaşları ile sohbet etmektir. Öğretmen adaylarının üçte biri, can sıkıntısını yenip derse odaklanmaya çalışsa da, çoğunluğunun dersin konusu dışındaki etkinliklerle aktif ya da pasif olarak uğraştıkları belirlenmiştir.

References

  • Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J. I., Chu, H. N. R., Kim, ... Wicker F. W., and The Boredom Research Group. (2010). Academic boredom in under-and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 17–27.
  • Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., and Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150–161.
  • Altınkurt, Y. (2008). Öğrenci devamsızlıklarının nedenleri ve devamsızlığın akademik başarıya olan etkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 129–142.
  • Baş, T., ve Akturan, U. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Nvivo ile nitel veri analizi, örnekleme, analiz, yorum. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Breidenstein, G. (2007). The meaning of boredom in school lessons. Participant observation in the seventh and eighth form. Ethnography and Education, 2(1), 93–108.
  • Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39–44.
  • Crump, C. A. (1995). Motivating students: A teacher’s challenge. Paper pre- sented at the 6th Annual Sooner Communication Conference, Norman, OK. (ERIC Reproduction No. ED 378840)
  • Darden, D. K., and Marks, A. H. (1999). Boredom: A socially disvalued emotion. Sociological Spectrum, 19(1), 13–37.
  • Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., and Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school: Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 421–440.
  • Eren, A. (2013a). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of instrumentality, boredom coping strategies, and four aspects of engagement. Teaching Education, 24(3), 302–326.
  • Eren, A. (2013b). Profiles of prospective teachers’ boredom coping strate- gies. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 46(2), 69–90.
  • Eren, A., and Coşkun, H. (2015). Time perspectives and boredom coping strategies of undergraduate students from Turkey. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(1), 53–375.
  • Eren, A., and Coşkun, H. (2016). Students’ level of boredom, boredomcop- ing strategies, epistemic curiosity, and graded performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 574–588.
  • Farmer, R., and Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness--the devel- opment and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17.
  • Fisherl, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417.
  • Genç, E., Batmaz, H. Ç., Coşkuner, Z., Pala, R., Çınar, V. ve Biçer, S. Y. (2013). Güzel sanatlar ve spor lisesi, spor bölümü öğrencilerinin sayısal derslere karşı tutumları (Elazığ örneği). The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(3), 1163–1177.
  • Gökyer, N. (2012). Ortaöğretim okullarındaki devamsızlık nedenlerine iişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 913–938.
  • Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Hall, N. C., Nett, U. E., Pekrun, R., and Lipnevich, A. A. (2014). Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 401–419.
  • Hawkins, W., Heffernan, N., and Baker, R. S. (2013). Which is more responsible for boredom in intelligent tutoring systems: students (trait) or problems (state)? In Proceedings from ACII 2013: The 5th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, September 2-5, 2013, Geneva, Switzerland (pp. 618–623).
  • Jablonka, E. (2013). Boredom in mathematics classrooms from Germany, Hong Kong and the United States. In Proceedings from CERME 8: Eight Congress of European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, February 6-10, 2013, Antalya, Turkey (pp. 1885– 1894).
  • Kanevsky, L., and Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28.
  • Kenny, L. (2009). Boredom escapes us: A cultural collage in eleven storeys. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • Larson, R. W., and Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 418–443.
  • Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motiva- tion, self-regulation, and engagement in learning. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Malcolm, H., Wilson, V., Davidson, J., and Kirk, S. (2003). Absence from schools: a study of its causes and effects in seven LEAs. 13 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8655/1/RR424.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
  • Mann, S., and Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of bore- dom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258.
  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., and Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 49–59.
  • Newton, J. A. (2001). A boredom theory of youth criminality. 12 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334& context=theses_hons> adresinden erişildi.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Leech, N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualita- tive research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238–254.
  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., and Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–49.
  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qual- itative and quantitative research. Educational psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
  • Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., Goetz, T., and Perry, R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 696–710.
  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Small, R. V., Dodge, B. J., and Jiang, X. (1996). Dimensions of interest and bore- dom in instructional situations. In Proceedings of Annual Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. 13 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED397840. pdf> adresinden erişildi.
  • Svendsen, L. F. H. (2005). A philosophy of boredom. London: Reaktion Books.
  • Tze, M. C. (2011). Investigating academic boredom in Canadian and Chinese students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Tze, V. M., Klassen, R. M., and Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of bore- dom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engage- ment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 175–187.
  • van Tilburg, W. A., and Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 181–194.
  • Uğurlu, C. T., Usta, H. G. ve Şimşek, A. S. (2015). Yükseköğretimde devamsızlık olgusu ve nedenlerine ilişkin öğretim üyeleri ve üniversite öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3).
  • Yıldırım, İ. (2006). Akademik başarının yordayıcısı olarak gündelik sıkıntılar ve sosyal destek. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 258–267.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.

University students' opinions related to boredom at class: A research on prospective teachers

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 10 - 27, 01.04.2017

Abstract

In this research, it was aimed to determine the reasons of boredom experienced by prospective teachers during their courses at a public university, what they do and feel at the time of boredom, the influence of boredom on their absenteeism and academic performance, the characteristics of the courses that they intensely experience boredom and the strategies that they use to manage their boredom. The study was designed as qualitative since the boredom phenomenon that prospective teachers experience together with some emotions, behaviors and attitudes that accompany this experience during the courses can be best understood through the the heuristic nature of this design. As the data gathering instrument, a questionnaire was developed by the researcher that consisted of seven open-ended questions and one multiple-choice question. Data was analyzed by using content analysis. 270 prospective teachers among the undergraduate students from education and literature faculties were included to the study in a public university in Ankara. Results revealed that one-third of the participants found the "half of their courses" boring while more than half of the students found "some of their courses" boring. It was found that prospective teachers mostly experienced boredom because of the faculty-related factors and then came the student-related factors. According to the subjective evaluations of prospective teachers, the reasons caused by the faculty resulted a decrease in their academic performance in varying degrees by triggering their absenteeism. Two most frequently used strategies adopted by the students were; using the mobiles for the purposes of entertainment such as playing games, listening to music and chatting with their near friends. Although one-third of the participants tried to focus on the course to overcome their boredom, most of them were interested in irrelevant activities actively or passively.

References

  • Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J. I., Chu, H. N. R., Kim, ... Wicker F. W., and The Boredom Research Group. (2010). Academic boredom in under-and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 17–27.
  • Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., and Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150–161.
  • Altınkurt, Y. (2008). Öğrenci devamsızlıklarının nedenleri ve devamsızlığın akademik başarıya olan etkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 129–142.
  • Baş, T., ve Akturan, U. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Nvivo ile nitel veri analizi, örnekleme, analiz, yorum. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Breidenstein, G. (2007). The meaning of boredom in school lessons. Participant observation in the seventh and eighth form. Ethnography and Education, 2(1), 93–108.
  • Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39–44.
  • Crump, C. A. (1995). Motivating students: A teacher’s challenge. Paper pre- sented at the 6th Annual Sooner Communication Conference, Norman, OK. (ERIC Reproduction No. ED 378840)
  • Darden, D. K., and Marks, A. H. (1999). Boredom: A socially disvalued emotion. Sociological Spectrum, 19(1), 13–37.
  • Daschmann, E. C., Goetz, T., and Stupnisky, R. H. (2011). Testing the predictors of boredom at school: Development and validation of the precursors to boredom scales. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 421–440.
  • Eren, A. (2013a). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of instrumentality, boredom coping strategies, and four aspects of engagement. Teaching Education, 24(3), 302–326.
  • Eren, A. (2013b). Profiles of prospective teachers’ boredom coping strate- gies. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 46(2), 69–90.
  • Eren, A., and Coşkun, H. (2015). Time perspectives and boredom coping strategies of undergraduate students from Turkey. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 14(1), 53–375.
  • Eren, A., and Coşkun, H. (2016). Students’ level of boredom, boredomcop- ing strategies, epistemic curiosity, and graded performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(6), 574–588.
  • Farmer, R., and Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness--the devel- opment and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17.
  • Fisherl, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417.
  • Genç, E., Batmaz, H. Ç., Coşkuner, Z., Pala, R., Çınar, V. ve Biçer, S. Y. (2013). Güzel sanatlar ve spor lisesi, spor bölümü öğrencilerinin sayısal derslere karşı tutumları (Elazığ örneği). The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(3), 1163–1177.
  • Gökyer, N. (2012). Ortaöğretim okullarındaki devamsızlık nedenlerine iişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 913–938.
  • Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Hall, N. C., Nett, U. E., Pekrun, R., and Lipnevich, A. A. (2014). Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 401–419.
  • Hawkins, W., Heffernan, N., and Baker, R. S. (2013). Which is more responsible for boredom in intelligent tutoring systems: students (trait) or problems (state)? In Proceedings from ACII 2013: The 5th International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, September 2-5, 2013, Geneva, Switzerland (pp. 618–623).
  • Jablonka, E. (2013). Boredom in mathematics classrooms from Germany, Hong Kong and the United States. In Proceedings from CERME 8: Eight Congress of European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, February 6-10, 2013, Antalya, Turkey (pp. 1885– 1894).
  • Kanevsky, L., and Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28.
  • Kenny, L. (2009). Boredom escapes us: A cultural collage in eleven storeys. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • Larson, R. W., and Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 418–443.
  • Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motiva- tion, self-regulation, and engagement in learning. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Malcolm, H., Wilson, V., Davidson, J., and Kirk, S. (2003). Absence from schools: a study of its causes and effects in seven LEAs. 13 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8655/1/RR424.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
  • Mann, S., and Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of bore- dom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258.
  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., and Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 49–59.
  • Newton, J. A. (2001). A boredom theory of youth criminality. 12 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334& context=theses_hons> adresinden erişildi.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Leech, N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualita- tive research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238–254.
  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., and Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–49.
  • Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., and Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qual- itative and quantitative research. Educational psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
  • Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., Goetz, T., and Perry, R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 696–710.
  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Small, R. V., Dodge, B. J., and Jiang, X. (1996). Dimensions of interest and bore- dom in instructional situations. In Proceedings of Annual Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis, IN. 13 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED397840. pdf> adresinden erişildi.
  • Svendsen, L. F. H. (2005). A philosophy of boredom. London: Reaktion Books.
  • Tze, M. C. (2011). Investigating academic boredom in Canadian and Chinese students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
  • Tze, V. M., Klassen, R. M., and Daniels, L. M. (2014). Patterns of bore- dom and its relationship with perceived autonomy support and engage- ment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 175–187.
  • van Tilburg, W. A., and Igou, E. R. (2012). On boredom: Lack of challenge and meaning as distinct boredom experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 181–194.
  • Uğurlu, C. T., Usta, H. G. ve Şimşek, A. S. (2015). Yükseköğretimde devamsızlık olgusu ve nedenlerine ilişkin öğretim üyeleri ve üniversite öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3).
  • Yıldırım, İ. (2006). Akademik başarının yordayıcısı olarak gündelik sıkıntılar ve sosyal destek. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(30), 258–267.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Other ID JA98KE69VT
Journal Section Original Empirical Research
Authors

Nihan Demirkasımoğlu This is me

Publication Date April 1, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2017). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Derste Can Sıkıntısına İlişkin Görüşleri: Öğretmen Adayları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 7(1), 10-27.

Yükseköğretim Dergisi/TÜBA Higher Education Research/Review (TÜBA-HER) does not officially agree with the ideas of manuscripts published in the journal and does not guarantee for any product or service advertisements on both printed and online versions of the journal. Scientific and legal responsibilities of published manuscripts belong to their authors. Materials such as pictures, figures, tables etc. sent with manuscripts should be original or written approval of copyright holder should be sent with manuscript for publishing in both printed and online versions if they were published before. Authors agree that they transfer all publishing rights to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyrights of all published contents (text and visual materials) belong to the journal. No payment is done for manuscripts under the name of copyright or others approved for publishing in the journal and no publication cost is charged; however, reprints are at authors' cost.

To promote the development of global open access to scientific information and research, TÜBA provides copyrights of all online published papers (except where otherwise noted) for free use of readers, scientists, and institutions (such as link to the content or permission for its download, distribution, printing, copying, and reproduction in any medium, without any changing and except the commercial purpose), under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND3.0) License, provided the original work is cited. To get permission for commercial purpose please contact the publisher.