Year 2017, Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 1055 - 1070 2017-05-15

Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları
Practices of Prospective Teachers Based on Constructivism

Canay DEMİRHAN İŞCAN [1] , Serkan KELEŞOĞLU [2]

187 0

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adayları tarafından gerçek sınıf ortamında gerçekleştirilen etkinliklerin yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma uygunluğunu belirlemektir. Çalışma, bir eğitim fakültesinde Hayat Bilgisi ve Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi derslerini alan 3. sınıf öğrencileri ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının sınıf içi uygulamaları 5E modeline uygunluk açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının bu model aşamaları arasından en çok açıklama aşamasına uygun olan davranışlara yöneldikleri gözlenmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra 5E modelinin en önemli aşamalarından biri olan bilgiyi derinleştirme aşamasına ilişkin davranışlar en az gözlenmiştir. 

The purpose of this study is to determine the relevance of activities applied by prospective teachers, in a real classroom setting, to the constructivist approach. The study sample consists of third year students taking Life Studies and Social Studies Teaching courses at a faculty of education in Turkey. Among the 5E learning model cycles, prospective teachers mostly exhibited behaviours associated with “the explanation” cycle. It is thought-provoking that the elaboration cycle, considered one of the most important of the 5E learning cycles, was among the least observed. 

  • Al Majali, Y.D.S. (2013). The Impact of (5Es) learning cycle on the outcome and the development of creative thinking among students of seventh grade in Arabic language course in Alqaser/ karak brigade. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), 31-40.
  • Atasoy, B. (2004). Teaching and Learning of Science Education [Fen Eğitiminde Öğretme ve Öğrenme]. Ankara: Asil Yayıncılık.
  • Aydın, N. & Yılmaz, A. (2010). The impact of constructivist approach to meta cognitive skills of students. [Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın öğrencilerin üst düzey bilişsel becerilerine etkisi]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39, 57-68.
  • Aykaç, N. & Ulubey, O. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ opinions about the application level of elementary school program. [Öğretmen adaylarının ilköğretim proramının uygulanma düzeyine ilişkin görüşleri]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1), 63-82.
  • Boddy, N., Watson, K. & Aubusson, P. (2003). A trial of the five E’s: A referent model for constructivist teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 27-42. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1023606425452#page-1
  • Brooks,J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for The Constructivist Classroom. Newyork: ASCD.
  • Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Bybee, R. W., Buchwald, C.E., Crissman, S., Heil, D. R., Kuerbis, P. J., Matsumoto, C. & Melnerney, J.D. (1989). Science and Technology Education for The Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314237.pdf
  • Bybee, R. W. & Landes, N.M. (1990). Science for life & living: An elementary school science program from biological sciences curriculum study. The American Biology Teacher, 52(2), 92-98. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4449042?sid=21 106284130683&uid=4&uid=2
  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P.V., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A. & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorada: Springs BSCS. Retrieved from http://bscs.org/sites/default/files/_legacy/BSCS_5E_Instructional_Model-Full_Report.pdfCarr, Malcolm, Barker, Miles, Bell, Beverly,Biddulph, Fred, Jones, Alister, Kirkwood, Valda
  • Demir, S., Önen, F., & Şahin, F. (2012). Investigating science education pre-service teachers’ level of self-efficacy towards using constructivist approach. [Fen Bilgisi öğretmen aday- larının yapılandırmacı yaklaşımı uygulamaya yönelik öz yeterlilik inanc düzeylerinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma]. Paper presented at the Congress of 10th National Science and Mathematics Education, Turkey: Niğde. Retrieved from http://KongreNigde.Edu.Tr/Xufbmek/Dosyalar/Tam_Metin/Pdf/2323-29_05_2012-16_43_44.Pdf
  • Dikici, A., Türker, H.H. & Özdemir, G. (2010). The impact of 5e learning cycle to meaningful learning. Journal of Education Faculty of Cukurova University 39, 100-128.
  • Doğanay, A. & Tok, S. (2007). Contemporary Approaches for Teaching. In A. Doğanay (Eds.), In Methods and Principle of Learning. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık.
  • Driver, R. Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Retrieved from http:// calteach.ucsc.edu/aboutus/documents/Driver-Constructionofscikn.pdf
  • Er Nas, S., Çoruhlu, T. S. & Çepni, S. (2010). An assessment on the effectiveness of the material developed for the elaborate stage of the 5e model. Journal of Education Faculty of May 19 University,29 (1), 17-36. Retrieved from http://www.arastirmax.com/system/files/1066/uvt_116622.pdf
  • Ev, H. (2006). Active learning and approaches of measurement and assessment.Paper presented at the Symposium of Seeking New Paradigm in Turkish Education System (November 5-6), Turkey: Ankara.
  • Fensham, P.J., Gunstone, R. & White, R. (1994). Science Content and Constructivist Views of Learning and Teaching. In P.J. Fensham, R. Gunstone & R. White (Eds.), In the content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 147-160). London: The Falmer Press.
  • Gelbal, S. & Kelecioğlu H. (2007). Teachers’ proficiency perceptions of about the measurement and evaluation techniques and the problems they confront. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 135-145.
  • Gökçe, E., İşcan Demirhan, C. & Erdem, A. (2012). The observation of teacher candidates on appropriate studies for constructive classroom. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching,1(1), 111-127. Retrieved from http://jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/12.gokce.pdf
  • Gould, J.S. (2007). Dil becerilerinin öğrenimi ve öğretimine oluşturmacı bir perspektif. [A constructive perspective to learning and teaching of language skills]. In Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.), Durmuş, S. Translated by Yapılandırmacılıkta Teori, Perspektifler ve Uygulama. Ankara: Nobel Yayın–Dağıtım.
  • Gray, A. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning. SSTA Research Centre Report. Retrieved fromhttp://www.saskschoolboards.ca/old/ResearchAndDevelopment/ResearchReports/Instruction/97-07.htm
  • Karplus, R. (1980). Teaching for the development of reasoning. Research in Science Education, 10, 1-10. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02356303#page-1
  • Kaya, N. (2013). The attitude of class teachers to constructivism and self-efficacy belief on constructivist practices (Afyonkarahisar sample). [Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yapılandırmacılığa ilişkin tutumu ve yapılandırmacı uygulamalara ilişkin öz yeterlik inancı: Afyonkarahisar örneği]. (Unpublished master thesis), Afyonkocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar.
  • Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R. & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. National Association for Rese- arch in Science Teaching, College of Education, University of Cincinnati, Cincin- nati, OH45221.Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED324204.pdf (ED324204).
  • Leinhardt, G. (1992). What research on learning tells us about teaching. Educational Leaders- hip, 49 (7), 20. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/ el_199204_leinhardt.pdf
  • Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching High School Science Through Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Matthews,
  • M.R. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science and Education, 6(1-2), 5-14.
  • Metin, M. & Özmen, H. (2009). Difficulties of pre-service teachers in developing and implementing teaching activities based on 5e model in constructivist approach. [Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımda 5e modeline dayalı etkinliklerin geliştirilmesi ve uygulanmasında öğretmen adaylarının karşılastığı zorluklar]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 3(2), 94-123.
  • Newby, D.E. (2004). Using inquiry to connect young learners to science. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nationalcharterschols.org/uploads/pdf/resource20040617125804using%20Inguiry.pdf
  • Öz, F. (2006). Practical with Turkish Teaching-Improved According to the New Curriculum. [Yeni Programa Göre Geliştirilmiş Uygulamalı Türkçe Öğretimi]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Pınar, M. A. (2013). The views of science and technology teachers toward classroom practices of constructivist approach (Diyarbakir sample). [Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın sınıf uygulamalarına ilişkin Fen ve Teknoloji öğretmenlerinin görüşleri: Diyarbakır örneği]. (Unpublished master thesis), Mus Alparslan University, Mus.
  • Rainer, J., Guyton, E. & Bowen, C. (2000). Constructivist pedagogy in primary classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, USA: New Orleans, LA, (April 24-28). Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440760.pdf (ED 440 760).
  • Richardson V. (1997). Constructivist Teacher Education. New York: Falmer Press.
  • Savaşçı, F. & Berlin, F. D. (2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education,23 (1), 65-86. doi: 10.1007/s10972-011-9262-z.
  • Schunk, H.D. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspectives. (4th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Settlagh, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.
  • Simpson, L. T. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory?. The Educational Forum, 66, 633-662. doi: 10.1080/00131720208984854.
  • Tanner, K. D. (2010). Order matters: Using the 5e model to align teaching with how people learn. CBE Life Science Education, 9(3),159-164. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082.
  • Tsai, C.C. (1998). Science learning and constructivism. Curriculum and Teaching, 13,31-52. Ün Açıkgöz, K. (2005). Effective Teaching and Learning. [Etkili Öğretme ve Öğrenme]. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası.
  • Vermette, P., Foote, C., Bird, C., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, S. & Battaglia, C. (2001). Understanding constructivism(s): a primer for parents and school board members.Education, 122(1), 87.
  • Wilder, M. & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). 5E learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 41 (1), 25-31. doi: 10.3200/SATS.41.4.37-43.
  • Wilson, B.G. (1996). Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Author: Canay DEMİRHAN İŞCAN

Author: Serkan KELEŞOĞLU

Bibtex @research article { kefdergi320522, journal = {Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {2147-9844}, address = {Kastamonu University}, year = {2017}, volume = {25}, pages = {1055 - 1070}, doi = {}, title = {Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları}, key = {cite}, author = {DEMİRHAN İŞCAN, Canay and KELEŞOĞLU, Serkan} }
APA DEMİRHAN İŞCAN, C , KELEŞOĞLU, S . (2017). Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25 (3), 1055-1070. Retrieved from http://dergipark.org.tr/kefdergi/issue/29417/320522
MLA DEMİRHAN İŞCAN, C , KELEŞOĞLU, S . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 25 (2017): 1055-1070 <http://dergipark.org.tr/kefdergi/issue/29417/320522>
Chicago DEMİRHAN İŞCAN, C , KELEŞOĞLU, S . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 25 (2017): 1055-1070
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları AU - Canay DEMİRHAN İŞCAN , Serkan KELEŞOĞLU Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - DO - T2 - Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 1055 EP - 1070 VL - 25 IS - 3 SN - -2147-9844 M3 - UR - Y2 - 2016 ER -
EndNote %0 Kastamonu Education Journal Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları %A Canay DEMİRHAN İŞCAN , Serkan KELEŞOĞLU %T Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları %D 2017 %J Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi %P -2147-9844 %V 25 %N 3 %R %U
ISNAD DEMİRHAN İŞCAN, Canay , KELEŞOĞLU, Serkan . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımı Temel Alan Uygulamaları". Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 25 / 3 (May 2017): 1055-1070.