Farklı alanlardaki doktora öğrencilerinin etkili öğretime ilişkin tanımlarına eğitim derslerinin katkısı

Year 2013, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 82 - 89, 01.08.2013

Gülsen Ünver

Abstract

Öğretim elemanlarının öğretim becerileri bazı dersler ya da seminerlerle geliştirilmektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiyede verilmekte olan iki eğitim dersiyle (Gelişim ve Öğrenme; Öğretimde Planlama ve Değerlendirme), doktora öğrencilerinin etkili öğretim kavramına ilişkin tanımlarında oluşan değişiklikleri belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Farklı alanlarda öğrenim gören 71 doktora öğrencisi, bu eğitim derslerini almadan önce ve aldıktan sonra, etkili öğretim yapılan bir sınıfı betimlemiştir. Veriler üzerinde klasik içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Doktora öğrencilerinin etkili öğretim kavramına ilişkin tanımları öğretici merkezli ve öğrenen merkezli olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Doktora öğrencilerinin yarısından fazlasının etkili öğretim kavramına ilişkin tanımında eğitim sonrasında değişiklik görülmemiştir. Bununla birlikte, öğretim elemanlarının yaklaşık üçte birinin etkili öğretim tanımı öğretici merkezliden öğrenen merkezliye doğru değişmiştir. Sonuç olarak, bu derslerin doktora öğrencilerinin etkili öğretimi, öğrenen merkezli yönde tanımlamalarına yeterince katkı getirmediği görülmektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçları ülke genelindeki hedeflerle kurumsal ve bireysel hedeflerin uyumsuzluğundan kaynaklanmış olabilir. Bu derslerin merkezi bir kurum tarafından oluşturulan yoğun içeriklerinin öğrenilmesi için, eğitim süresinin yetersiz olduğu düşünülmektedir. Doktora öğrencilerinin derslere yönelik tutum düzeylerinin düşük olması da etkili öğretim kavramı üzerinde düşünmelerini olumsuz etkilemiş olabilir. Makalede, doktora öğrencilerinin etkili öğretimi öğrenen merkezli kavramsallaştırmalarına yardımcı olabilecek bazı öneriler bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Etkili öğretim, öğrenci merkezli yaklaşım, öğretim elemanı, yükseköğretim.

The Effects of the Educational Training Courses on the Doctoral Students’ Conceptions of Effective Teaching

Abstract

The education of the instructors for teaching is carried out through some postgraduate courses or seminars. This study aims to find out the changes in doctoral students conception of effective teaching through the two educational courses (Development and Learning, and Instructional Planning and Evaluation) taught in Turkey. Seventy-one doctoral students described a class in which effective teaching is conducted before and after taking these educational courses. The classical content analysis was administered on the data. The doctoral students conceptions of the effective teaching were categorized within instructor-centred and learner-centred conceptions. The analysis revealed that the conceptions of the effective teaching of more than a half of the doctoral students were not changed by the training about teaching. What the analysis also revealed, however, was that the changes in their conceptions from instructor-centred category to learner-centred category were higher than those from learner-centred category to instructor-centred category. In conclusion, these courses were not influential sufficiently for the doctoral students in improving learner-centred conceptions of the effective teaching. These conclusions might be attributed to the inconsistency in the national, institutional, and individual objectives. Time dedicated to studying these courses is thought to be short for learning the intensive contents of the courses determined by a central institution. The low attitudes of doctoral students also might have affected their thinking about the conception of the effective teaching. Following the evaluation of the data, some proposals are recommended for doctoral students to conceptualize the effective teaching within the learner-centred way.

Keywords

Effective teaching, higher education, instructor, learner-centred approach.

References

• Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics’ understandings of the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(6), 633-644.
• Åkerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.
• Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher – variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375-390.
• Akpınar-Wilsing, N., and Paykoç, F. (2004). Needs of future faculty members in relation to instructional planning, effective teaching and evaluation: A case study. Education and Science, 29(133), 71-82.
• Altıparmak, M., and Nabikoğlu, M. (2004). The opinions of Biology stu- dent teachers about teaching strategies of university teachers. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 15, 101-107.
• Aypay, A., and Kalaycı, S. S. (2008). Assessing institutionalization of edu- cational reforms. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 723-736.
• Bigge, M. L., and Shermis, S. S. (2004). Learning theories for teachers (6th ed.). Boston: Person Education.
• Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of edu- cational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman.
• Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., and Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of edu- cational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 2: Affective domain. London: Longman.
• Bosch, W. C., Hester, J. L., MacEntee, V. M., MacKenzie, J. A., Morey, T. M., Nichols, J. T., Pacitti, P. A., Shaffer, B. A., Tomascak, P. B., Weber, S. P., and Young, R. R. (2008). Beyond lip-service: An oper- ational definition of “Learning-Centered College”. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 83-98.
• Bümen, N. T. (2006). The evaluation of doctoral level “Development and Learning” and “Instructional Planning and Evaluation” courses. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6(1), 7-52.
• Carnell, E. (2007). Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: extending the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 25-40.
• Chisholm, L., and Leyendecker, R. (2008). Curriculum reform in post- 1990s sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 195-205.
• Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evalu- ating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). NJ: Person Education.
• Dall’ Alba, G. (2005). Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being univer- sity teachers. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 361-372.
• Donnelly, R. (2008). Lecturers’ self-perceptions of change in their teach- ing approaches: Reflections of a qualitative study. Educational Research, 50(3), 207-222.
• Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Le´onard, R., and Lowyck, J. (2007). Student- centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think? Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 105-117.
• European University Association [EUA]. (2007). Lisbon decleration. Accessed through <http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/ Lisbon_Convention/Lisbon_Declaration.pdf> on July 17th, 2008.
• Fanghanel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher educa- tion environments. Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 575-590.
• Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-163.
• Girgin, K. Z., and Stevens, D. D. (2005). Bridging in-class participation with innovative instruction: Use and implications in a Turkish uni- versity classroom. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 93-106.
• Grossman, G. M., Önkol, P.E., and Sands, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkish teacher education: Attitudes of teacher educators towards change in an EU candidate nation. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 138-150.
• Günel, M. (2008). Critical elements for the science teacher to adopt a student-centered approach: the case of a teacher in transition. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 209-224.
• Hativa, N., Barak, R., and Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teach- ers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699-729.
• Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for programme design. The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(30), 30-41.
• Ho, A., Watkins, D., and Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143-169.
• Hodkinson, S., and Taylor, A. (2002). Initiation rites: the case of new university lecturers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 256-264.
• Hu, S., Scheuch, K., and Gayles, J. G. (2009). The influences of faculty on undergraduate student participation in research and creative activ- ities. Innovative Higher Education, 34(3), 173-183.
• Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
• Kember, D., and Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Kürüm, D. (2007). Evaluation of instructional development program for fac- ulty candidates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eskişehir: University of Anadolu.
• Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., and Troy, J. (2003). Higher education stu- dents’attitudes to student-centred learning: Beyond ‘educational bulimia’? Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321-334.
• Lecouteur, A., and Delfabbro, P.H. (2001). Repertoires of teaching and learning: A comparison of university teachers and students using Q methodology. Higher Education, 42, 205-235.
• Maclellan, E., and Soden, R. (2004). The importance of epistemic cogni- tion in student-centred learning. Instructional Science, 32, 253-268.
• Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., and Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how they teach it? Instructional Science, 28, 387-412.
• McCombs, B. L., and Whisler, J. S. (1997). The student-centered classroom and school. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Murray, K., and Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lectur- ers’ conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Education, 33, 331-349.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2009). Review on quality teaching in higher education. Accessed through <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/2/43136035.pdf>on June 26th, 2009.
• Orsmond, P., and Stiles, M. (2002). University teaching: A challenges to staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 253-255.
• O’Sullivan, M. (2004). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A Namibian case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 585-602.
• Pill, A. (2005). Models of professional development in the education and practice of new teachers in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 175-188.
• Postareff, L., Katajavuoria, N., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., and Trigwell, K. (2008). Consonance and dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 49-61.
• Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., and Martin E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 37–48.
• Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching environment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 25-35.
• Roberts, G. (2003). Teaching using the Web: Conceptions and approaches from a phenomenographic perspective. Instructional Science, 31, 127-150.
• Roche, L. A., and Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of univer- sity teacher self-concept: Construct validation and the influence of students’ evaluations of teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 439-468.
• Ryan, G. W., and Bernard, R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. M. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qual- itative research (pp. 769-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41, 833-846.
• Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93-111.
• Sherman, T. M., Armistead, L. P., Fowler, F., Barksdale, M. A., and Reif, G. (1987). The quest for excellence in university teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 48(1), 66-84.
• Soran, H., Akkoyunlu, B., and Kavak, Y. (2006). Life-long learning skills and training faculty members: A project at Hacettepe University. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 201-210.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learn- ing. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
• Ünver, G. (2010). Faculty members’ efficiency in learner-centred approach: perspectives from the social sciences faculties. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 41, 183-199.
• Ünver, G. (2012). Faculty members’ appreciation level to evaluation of the teaching by the students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 472-484.
• Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effective- ness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-211.
• Yılmaz, K. (2009). Democracy through learner-centered education: A Turkish perspective. International Review of Education, 55, 21-37.
• Young, S., and Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profiles of effective college and uni- versity teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670-686.
• Yükseköğretim Kurulu [Higher Education Council]. (2007). Türkiye’nin yükseköğretim stratejisi. Accessed through <http://www.yok.gov.tr/ duyuru/yok_strateji_kitabi.pdf> on May 7th, 2007.