The Effect of Project-Based Learning Approach on Prospective Teachers' Adopted Learning Approach, Self-Efficacy and Level of Knowledge

Yıl 2020, , 761 - 786, 30.06.2020

Sinem Dinçol Özgür , Ayhan Yilmaz

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.673060

Cited By: 3

Öz

This study aims to investigate the effects of project-based learning (PBL) on the adopted learning approach of prospective chemistry teachers, on their self-efficacy in project-based teaching and on their levels of knowledge about chemical elements. This study uses “one group pretest-posttest research design”. The study was conducted with the participation of prospective chemistry teachers who attended the chemistry education department of a state university in Turkey. It was found with PBL application that there was a rise in the rate of prospective teachers who adopted a deep learning approach while there was a fall in the rate of prospective teachers who adopted a surface approach. It was also found that PBL application had significant effects on improving the self-efficacy in “domination guidance on the project process”, “feedback, alternative evaluation” and “group process and high-level learning”, which were the self-efficacy factors of project-based teaching. However, no significant differences were found between the pre-test and post-test scores for the factors of “planning, preparation and reflection” and “implementation and evaluation”. In addition to that, it was also found that the application had statistically significant effects on prospective teachers’ levels of knowledge about chemical elements. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

project-based learning, self-efficacy, learning approaches, chemical elements, prospective teachers

Proje Tabanlı Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Öğretmen Adaylarının Tercih Ettikleri Öğrenme Yaklaşımına, Öz-Yeterlik ve Bilgi Düzeyine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmada, proje tabanlı öğrenme (PTÖ) yaklaşımı uygulamalarının kimya öğretmen adaylarının tercih ettikleri öğrenme yaklaşımına, proje tabanlı öğretime ilişkin öz-yeterliklerine ve elementler konusunda bilgi düzeylerine etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada “tek grup ön test-son test araştırma deseni” kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya bir devlet üniversitesinde okuyan kimya öğretmen adayları katılmıştır. Verilerin toplanmasında “Ders Çalışma Yaklaşımı Ölçeği”, “Proje Tabanlı Öğretime İlişkin Öz-yeterlilik Ölçeği” ve “Elementler Doğru-Yanlış Testi” uygulanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, PTÖ uygulamaları ile derin öğrenme yaklaşımını tercih eden öğretmen adaylarının oranlarında yükselme, yüzeysel yaklaşımı tercih eden öğretmen adaylarının oranlarında ise düşme olduğu belirlenmiştir. PTÖ uygulamalarının proje tabanlı öğretime ilişkin öz-yeterlik faktörlerinden; “proje sürecine hâkimiyet, rehberlik etme”, “dönüt verme ve alternatif değerlendirme” ile “grup süreci ve üst düzey öğrenme” öz-yeterliklerini geliştirmede ve öz-yeterlik toplam puanlarının artmasında anlamlı etkisinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ancak “planlama, hazırlık ve yansıtma” ile “uygulama ve değerlendirme” faktörü ön test-son test puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır. Ayrıca yapılan uygulamaların öğretmen adaylarının elementler konusundaki bilgi düzeylerine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

proje tabanlı öğrenme, öz-yeterlik, öğrenme yaklaşımları, elementler, öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

• Adibelli-Sahin E., Deniz H., & Topçu M.S. (2016). Predicting Turkish preservice elementary teachers’ orientations to teaching science with epistemological beliefs, learning conceptions, and learning approaches in science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11 (5), 515-534. DOI:10.12973/ijese.2016.333a.
• Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
• Akdeniz, A.R. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi. S. Çepni, S. (Ed.). Problem çözme, bilimsel süreç ve proje yönetiminin fen eğitiminde kullanımı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Alsop, S., & Watts, M. (2000). Facts and feelings: Exploring the affective domain in the learning of physics. Physics Education, 35, 132-138. DOI:10.1088/0031-9120/35/2/311.
• Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32. DOI:10.1177/002248718403500507.
• Aydoğdu, B., & Ergin, Ö. (2010). The effects of different laboratory techniques on students’ learning approaches in science and technology course. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, (s.1019-1027). Antalya, Turkey.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. DOI:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
• Baran, M., & Maskan, A.(2010). The effect of project-based learning on pre-service physics teachers’electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5 (4), 243-257.
• Baysura, O.D., Altun, S., & Yücel-Toy, B. (2015). Perceptions of teacher candidates regarding project-based learning. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 15-36. DOI:10.14689/ejer.2016.62.3.
• Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-12. DOI:10.1080/096392897331587.
• Beausaert, S.A.J., Segers, M.S.R., & Wiltink, D.P.A. (2013) The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: the student perspective. Educational Research, 55 (1), 1-15. DOI:10.1080/00131881.2013.767022.
• Benzer, E. (2010). Proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımıyla hazırlanan çevre eğitimi dersinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığına etkisi. Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Bıyıklı, C. (2016). The relationship between university students’ approaches to learning and their time spared for studying. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(3), 98-119. DOI:10.17679/iuefd.17345407.
• Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8 (4), 381-394. DOI:10.1007/BF01680526.
• Biggs, J. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 3-19. DOI:10.10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x.
• Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149. DOI:10.1348/000709901158433.
• Bloom, B. S. (2012). İnsan nitelikleri ve okulda öğrenme. (Çeviren: D. A. Özçelik) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Blumenfeld, P. C, Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369-398. DOI:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.
• Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. Professional Educator, 26 (1), 13-22.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer self-efficacy (CSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between CSE, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26 (2), 133-153. DOI:10.2190/JGJR-0KVL-HRF7-GCNV.
• Cyprian, T.E. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy in a project-based learning (PBL) classroom. Doctoral Dissertation. The University Of Texas At Arlington.
• Dart, B.C., Burnett, P.C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students' conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262-270. DOI:10.1080/00220670009598715.
• Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough – Future teachers also need to learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23-35.
• Diffily, D. (2002). Project-based learning: Meeting social studies standards and the needs of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40-59. DOI:10.4219/gct-2002-69.
• Dinçol Özgür, S. (2019). The effect of learning approaches on prospective chemistry teachers’ self-regulated learning skills: The survey research. SHS Web of Conferences, 66, 01018. DOI:10.1051/shsconf/20196601018.
• Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (8), 1907-1920. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.020.
• English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting Student Self-Regulated Learning in Problem-and Project-Based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7, 128-150. DOI:10.7771/1541-5015.1339.
• Entwistle, N.J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
• Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/entwistle2000.pdf.
• Erdem, M. (2002). Proje tabanlı öğrenme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 172-179.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw- Hill.
• Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
• Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5 (1), 87-100. DOI:10.1177/1469787404040463.
• Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569.
• Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13. DOI:10.3102/0013189X033003003.
• Gordon, C., Lim, L., McKinnon, D., & Nkala, F. (1998). Learning approach, control orientation and self-efficacy of beginning teacher education students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education & Development, 1 (1), 53-63.
• Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5, 1-17.
• Güven, E. (2011). Çevre eğitiminde tahmin-gözlem-açıklama destekli proje tabanlı öğrenme yönteminin farklı değişkenler üzerine etkisi ve yönteme ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Doktora tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, Texas A & M University.
• Herron, S., Magomo, D., & Gossard, P. (2008). The wheel garden: Project-based learning for cross curriculum education. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 44-51.
• Hong, L., Yam.,S., & Rossini, P. (2010). Effectiveness of project-based learning as a strategy for property education. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 16 (3), 291-313. DOI:10.1080/14445921.2010.11104306.
• İlkörücü, Ş. (2017). Evaluation of Pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of learning science through approaches to learning. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 138-154. DOI:10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.5c3s6m.
• Korkmaz, H. (2002). Fen eğitiminde proje emelli öğrenmenin yaratıcı düşünme, problem çözme ve akademik risk alma düzeylerine etkisi. Doktora tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (5), 483-497. DOI:10.1086/461779.
• Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
• Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 585-610. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199603)33:3<303::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-X.
• Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8. (2nd Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.
• McMahon, P. (2008). Increasing achievement through assessments: A study of the effects of administering ongoing formative assessments during a project-based unit of study. Unpublished master’s thesis. Caldwell College, New Jersey: NY.
• Mergendoller, J. R., & Thomas, J. W. (2001). Managing project-based learning: principles from the field. Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/images/uploads/general/f6d0b4a5d9e37c0e0317acb7942d27b0.pdf.
• Moursund, D. (1999). Project based learning using information technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
• Nelson Laird, T.F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G.D., & Schwarz, M.J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469-494. DOI:10.1007/s11162-008-9088-5.
• Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, N. J., (1986). Learning styles and approaches: Implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20(3), 162-175. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01163.x.
• Oğuz, A., & Karakuş, G. (2017). Investigating the relationship between anxiety levels and learning approaches among preservice teachers. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(2), 1831-1847. DOI:10.14687/jhs.v14i2.4321.
• Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved from http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/banduratheory.pdf.
• Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353. DOI:10.1007/s11165-005-9007-0.
• Panasan, M., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (2), 252-255.
• Papanikolaou, K., & Boubouka, M. (2010). Promoting collaboration in a project-based e-learning context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43 (2), 135–155. DOI:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782566.
• Pimparyon, P., Roff, S., MCaleer, S., Poonchai, B., & Pemba, S. (2000). Educational environment, student approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing School. Medical Teacher, 22(4), 359-364. DOI:10.1080/014215900409456.
• Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer.
• Reid, W. A., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2007). Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in year two medical students. Medical Education, 41(8), 754-762. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02801.x.
• Shahri, N., Rahman, R.A., & Hussain, N.H. (2017). Enhancing students’ deep approaches to learning among industrial mechatronics engineering technology students. Sains Humanika, 9 (1-2), 65-73. DOI:10.11113/sh.v9n1-2.1101.
• Smith, T. W., & Colby, S. A. (2007). Teaching for deep learning. The Clearing House, 80(5), 205-210.
• Teyfur, M. (2018). Çağdaş öğretme-öğrenme yaklaşımları-2. M.N. Gömleksiz (Ed.) Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (s 238-244), Ankara: Asos Yayınları.
• Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files1/aac48826d9652cb154e2dbf0033376fa.pdf.
• Thompson, T. L., & Mintzes, J. J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain: On knowing and feeling in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 645-660. DOI:10.1080/09500690110110115.
• Yalçın, S.A., Turgut, Ü., & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). The effect of project based learning on science undergraduates’ learning of electricity, attitude towards physics and scientific process skills. International Online Journal of Educational Science, 1 (1), 81 105.
• Yıldız-Fidan, N. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin proje tabanlı öğretim yapabilmelerine ilişkin özyeterlilikleri. Yüksek lisans tezi. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
• Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2011). Ders çalışma yaklaşımı ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 69-83.
• Zhang, L. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55. DOI:10.1080/00223980009600847.