To use of campus garden as a learning environment in the preservice science teacher education

Öz

Garden-based teaching plays an important role in bringing the formal and informal learning environments together and is applied at different educational levels. Teachers are expected to use multiple teaching technique in different learning environments align with the contemporary educational approaches. However, educational research shows that teacher education programs still mainly focus on the classrooms and teachers are not prepared or do not feel prepared to take their students out of the classroom. This case study aimed to introduce the educational use of school gardens to the pre-service science teachers and to improve their subject knowledge, the subject teaching competency and provide the confidence of teaching outside the classroom, school garden. The study was conducted in a public university with the participation of 38 pre-service science teachers in the 2014-2015 academic year. Three preservice science teachers prepared the lecture based on the “lesson study” model and gave the lecture to their classmates in an outdoor learning environment (campus garden) enriched with the mobile technology. The preservice teachers stated that they are aware of the importance of using the scientific name of plants, but they do not feel themselves competent. The results show that the lesson study model can contribute to the preservice teachers' subject knowledge and professional competencies. The results of the study are expected to contribute to the pre-service science teachers’ awareness of the outdoor learning environments, support the practice-based subject teaching and their general professional competencies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biology Education
• Lesson Study
• Outdoor Learning Environment
• Pre-service teacher education.

Fen bilgisi öğretmeni eğitiminde yerleşke bahçesinin öğrenme ortamı olarak kullanılması

Öz

Bahçe temelli eğitim, örgün ve yaygın öğrenme ortamlarının bir araya getirilmesinde önemli rol oynamakta ve farklı eğitim düzeylerinde uygulanmaktadır. Eğitimde güncel yaklaşımlarla, öğretmenlerin farklı öğrenme ortamlarında birden çok öğretim tekniği kullanmaları beklenmektedir. Ancak, eğitim araştırmaları, öğretmen eğitimi programlarının hala ağırlıklı olarak sınıf içi ortamlara odaklandığını ve öğretmenlerin öğrencilerini sınıf dışına çıkarmak için hazır olmadıklarını veya kendilerini hazırlıklı hissetmediklerini göstermektedir. Bir durum araştırması olan bu çalışmada, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarını okul bahçelerinin eğitimsel kullanımıyla tanıştırmak, alan öğretimi becerilerini geliştirmek ve onlara sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamlarında güven kazandırmak amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma 2014-2015 akademik yılında Bahar döneminde 38 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayının katılımıyla bir devlet üniversitesinde yürütülmüştür. Ders araştırmaları modeli takip edilerek hazırlanan ders, mobil teknoloji ile zenginleştirilmiş sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamında (yerleşke bahçesi) üç fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı tarafından verilmiştir. Öğretmen adayları, bitkilerin bilimsel isminin kullanmasında farkındalıklarının olduğunu ancak kendilerini yeterli hissetmediklerini belirtmişlerdir. Sonuçlar, ders araştırmaları modelinin öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterliliklerine ve alan bilgilerine katkısını göstermiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarının, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamlarında alan öğretimi ve genel mesleki yeterliliklerine katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoloji eğitimi
• Ders araştırmaları
• Öğretmen adayı eğitimi
• Sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamları

Kaynakça

1. den Brok, P. J., Wubbels, T., ve van Tartwijk, J. W. F. Exploring beginning teachers’ attrition in the Netherlands. Teachers and Teaching, 23, 881–895.doi:10.1080/13540602.2017.1360859 (2017)
2. Harmsen, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., ve van Veen, K.. The relationship between beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behaviour and attrition. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 626-643. (2018)
3. Kim, H., ve Cho, Y. Preservice teachers’ motivation, teacher efficacy, and expectation of reality shock. Asia-pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 67-81. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2013.855999 (2014).
4. Räsänen, K., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., ve Väisänen, P. Why leave the teaching profession? A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. Social Psychology of Education. doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09567-x. (2020).
5. Varah, L. J., Theune, W. S., ve Parker, L. Beginning teachers: Sink or swim?.Journal of teacher education, 37(1), 30-34. (1986).
6. Bulunuz, N., ve Bulunuz, M. Öğretmen adaylarının mesleki gelişimi için iyi öğretmenlik uygulamaları: Klinik danışmanlık modeli. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(2), 401-429. (2016)
7. Gürsoy, E., Bulunuz, N., Göktalay, S. B., Bulunuz, M., Kesner, J., ve Salihoğlu, U. Clinical supervision model to improve supervisory skills of cooperating teachers and university supervisors during teaching practice. Hacettepe Üniversity Journal of Education, Özel sayı, 1, 191-203. (2013)
8. Mansfield, C., ve Beltman, S. Promoting resilience for teachers: pre-service and in-service professional learning. The Australian Educational Researcher 46:583–588 (2019).

9. Mansfield, C., ve Gu, Q. “I’m finally getting that help that I needed”: Early career teacher induction and professional learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46(4), 639-659. (2019).
10. Ballantyne, J., Flynn, L., ve Olm-Madden, T. Problem-seeking in teacher education: Empowering students to grapple with the complexities of the profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5). (2020)
11. Akben, N.. Uygulamaya dayalı fen öğretimine ilişkin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 51(3) 145-167, (2018)
12. Akin, S. ve Sözen-Özdogan, S. Öğretmen Eğitiminde Yapıtaşı: Türkiye, Singapur ve Hong Kong’da Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 1-43. (2020)
13. Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., Howse, R. B., Wilkie, H., ve Annas, K. Research Synthesis of Meta-Analyses of Preservice Teacher Preparation Practices in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies, 10(1), 29-47. (2020)
14. Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., ve Soini, T. Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher–student interaction, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45 (3), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2016.1169505. (2017)
15. Fraser, B. J., ve Walberg, H. J. Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press. (1991)
16. Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., ve Haertel, E. H. Socio-psycological environments and learning: A quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 27–36. (1981)
17. Mercin, L. Müze Eğitimi, Bilgilendirme ve Tanitim Açisindan Görsel İletişim Tasarimi Ürünlerinin Önemi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 46 (214), 209-237. (2017).
18. Şimsek, G., Acar, E., Atalan-Çayirezmez, N., ve Elitok-Kesici, A. Exploring the role of the city as a learning environment for heritage education. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 30(2),105-135. (2013).
19. DeWitt, J., ve Osborne, J. Supporting teachers on science‐focused school trips: Towards an integrated framework of theory and practice. International journal of science education, 29(6), 685-(2007)
20. Lane, J. F.; Ateşkan, A. ve Dulun, Ö. Turkish teachers’ use of the outdoors as a teaching resource: Perceived facilitators and obstacles, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 17:1, 14-28, DOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2017.1348272. (2018)
21. Köseoğlu, F., Tahancalıo, S., Kanlı, U., ve Yılmaz, Y. Ö. Öğretmenlerin Bilim Merkezlerinde Öğrenmeye Yönelik Mesleki Gelişim İhtiyaçlarının Araştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45 (203), 191-213. (2020).
22. [22] Ateşkan, A. ve Lane, J. F. Promoting field trip confidence: teachers providing insights for pre-service education, European Journal of Teacher Education, 39:2, 190-201, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2015.1113252, (2016)
23. Cox-Petersen, A. M., ve Pfaffinger, J. A. Teacher preparation and teacher-student interactions at a discovery center of natural history. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(2), 20-35. (1998)
24. Eshach, H. Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of science education and technology, 16(2), 171-190. (2007)
25. Olson, J. K., Cox-Petersen, A. M., ve McComas, W. F.. The inclusion of informal environments in scienceteacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 155-173. (2001)
26. Çıldır, Z., ve Karadeniz, C. Okul Öncesi Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri Bağlamında Müze ve Müzede Eğitim. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 46(214), 359-383. (2014)
27. Taşdemir, A., Kartal, T., & Özdemir, M. A. Using science centers and museums in teacher training. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 127, 298-308. (2013).
28. School Gardens Nature 61, 455–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/061455a0 (1900).
29. The Educational Value of the School Garden Nature 84, 220 https://doi.org/10.1038/084220a0. (1910).
30. Akdoğan, G. Beş Büyük Şehirde Çocuk Oyun Alanları, Okul Bahçeleri ve Spor Alanlarının Yeterlilikleri ve Planlama Prensipleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, 522. (1972)
31. Karakaya, B., ve Kiper, T. Edirne kent merkezindeki bazı ilköğretim okul bahçelerinin peyzaj tasarım ilkeleri açısından mevcut durumunun belirlenmesi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, (10)1,59-71. (2013)
32. Şişman, E. E., ve Gültürk, P. İlköğretim okul bahçelerinin peyzaj planlama ve tasarım ilkeleri açısından incelenmesi: Tekirdağ örneği. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(3), 53-60. (2011).
33. Akpınar, A. How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and health?. Urban forestry & urban greening,16, 1-8. (2016)
34. Özer, E. J. (2007). The effects of school gardens on students and schools: Conceptualization and considerations for maximizing healthy development. Health Education & Behavior, 34(6), 846-863.
35. Suri, S. Nutrition Gardens: A Sustainable Model for Food Security and Diversity. ORF issue brief, (369). (2020).
36. Kim, S. O., ve Park, S. Garden-Based Integrated Intervention for Improving Children’s Eating Behavior for Vegetables. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1257. (2020).
37. Karatekin, K., ve Çetinkaya, G. Okul Bahçelerinin Çevre Eğitimi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (Manisa İli Örneği). Journal of International Social Research, 6 (27). (2013)
38. Carrion, C. A. "Do students gain scientific inquiry knowledge and practices by participating in a school garden inquiry unit?." Dissertation, Georgia State University, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/mse_diss/101 (2020)
39. Ürey, M. ve Çepni, S. Serbest Etkinlik Çalışmaları Dersine Yönelik Bir Program Önerisi: Okul Bahçesi Programı. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 44(202), 37-58. (2014).
40. Passy, R. School gardens: teaching and learning outside the front door, Education 3-13, 42:1, 23-38, DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2011.636371. (2014).
41. Ürey, M. Bahçe temelli öğrenme yaklaşımına yönelik eğilimler: Okul bahçesi uygulamaları örneği (2000-2015). Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (1), 1054-1080. (2018)
42. Yıldırım, A. Teacher education research in Turkey: Trends, issues and priority areas. Egitim ve Bilim, 38(169). (2013)
43. Graham, H., Beall, D. L., Lussier, M., McLaughlin, P., ve Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Use of school gardens in academic instruction. Journal of Nutrition Education and behavior, 37 (3), 147-151. (2005)
44. van Dijk-Wesselius, J. E., van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., ve Hovinga, D. Green Schoolyards as Outdoor Learning Environments: Barriers and Solutions as Experienced by Primary School Teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2919. (2020).
45. Elliott, J. What is lesson study? European Journal of Education, 54(2), 175-188. (2019)
46. Takahashi, A., ve Yoshida, M. Lesson-study communities. Teaching children mathematics, 10 (9), 436-437. (2004).
47. Watanabe, T. Japanese lesson study in the United States. Educational Designer, 3(11), 1-13. (2018).
48. Takahashi, A. The Role of the Knowledgeable Other in Lesson Study: Examining the Final Comments of Experienced Lesson Study Practitioners. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1), n1. (2014).
49. Borasi, R., ve Fonzi, J. Professional development that supports school mathematics reform. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, Foundation Series. (2002)
50. Cerbin, W., ve Kopp, B. Lesson study as a model for building pedagogical knowledge and improving teaching. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 18 (3), 250-257. (2006)
51. Fernandez, C., ve Yoshida, M. Lesson Study: A case of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (2004)
52. Stigler, J., ve Hiebert, J. Closing the teaching gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100307. (2009).
53. Özdemir, S. M. Implementation of the Lesson Study as a Tool to Improve Students' Learning and Professional Development of Teachers. Participatory Educational Research, 6(1), 36-53. (2019).
54. Wolthuis, F., van Veen, K., de Vries, S., ve Hubers, M. D. Between lethal and local adaptation: Lesson study as an organizational routine. International journal of educational research, 100, 101534. (2020).
55. Takahashi, A., ve McDougal, T. Collaborative lesson research: Maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 48(4), 513–526. (2016).
56. Çetin, G. Field trip to Kazdagi National Park: Views of prospective Biology teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(19), 823. (2014)
57. Çetin, G. Prospective Biology Teachers’ Views about Field Trip to National Park. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(4). (2020)
58. Butler, D. L., ve Winne, P. H. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, 65(3), 245-281. (1995)
59. MEB (Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı). Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlilikleri Erişim 18.02.2021 http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf (2017a)
60. MEB (Ministry of National Education). Teaching strategy paper. Erisim 18.02.2021 http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_05/25170118_Teacher_Strategy_Paper_2017- 2023.pdf (2017b).
61. Bayram, İ., ve Canaran, O. An Investigation of Turkish Novice EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Lesson Study. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11(1), 172-189. (2019)
62. Coenders, F., ve Verhoef, N. Lesson study: professional development (PD) for beginning and experienced teachers. Professional development in education, 45(2), 217-230. (2019)
63. de Vries, S., Roorda, G., ve van Veen, K.. Lesson Study: Effectief en bruikbaar in het Nederlandse onderwijs? (pp. 405-17). Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek. (2017)
64. Dudley, P. How Lesson Study works and why it creates excellent learning and teaching. Lesson study: Professional learning for our time, 1-28. (2015)
65. Lewis, C., Perry, R., Foster, D., Hurd, J., ve Fisher, L. Lesson study: Beyond coaching. Educational Leadership, 69 (2), 64-68. (2011).
66. Godfrey, D., Seleznyov, S., Anders, J., Wollaston, N., ve Barrera-Pedemonte, F.. A developmental evaluation approach to lesson study: exploring the impact of lesson study in London schools. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 325-340. (2019)
67. Bayram-Jacobs, D. Professional development of Japanese science and physics teachers and Japanese approach in professional development:" lesson study". Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 45 (2), 33. (2012)
68. Günay, R., Yücel-Toy, B., ve Bahadir, E. Öğretmen Eğitiminde Ders Araştırması Modeli ve Türkiye’de Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmenlik Uygulamalarına Yönelik Bir Model Önerisi. Journal of International Social Research, 9 (42). (2016)
69. Pektas, M. Effects of lesson study on science teacher candidates teaching efficacies. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(6), 164-172. (2014).
70. Yalcin-Arslan, F.. The role of lesson study in teacher learning and professional development of EFL teachers in Turkey: A case study. TESOL Journal. DOI: 10.1002/tesj.409. (2019)
71. Yılmaz, N. Öğretmen Adaylarının İstatistiği Öğretme Bilgilerinin Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Temelli Ders Araştırmaları Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. (2019)
72. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., ve Wiebe, E. Encyclopedia of case study research. London, England: Sage. (2010).
73. Yin, R. K. Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage (2014).
74. Acar, E.. Proje ve Portfolyo Değerlendirme S. Baştürk (Ed.), Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (sf. 229-251). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. (2014)
75. Yıldız, M. A. COMU 3D . http://egitim.comu.edu.tr/fakultemiz/fakultemiz-hakkinda.html (Erişim Tarihi:13/06/2020) (2012)
76. ÇOMÜ Tanıtım Filmi (Kısa) (2015) https://www.comu.edu.tr/haber-13401.html
77. Kirazlı'dan Anafartalar'a Öğretmen Okulları(24 Kasım 2017) http://tv.comu.edu.tr/haberler/kultur-sanat/kirazli_dan_anafartalar_a_ogretmen_okullari (Erişim Tarihi: 01/04/2021)
78. Patton, M. Q. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (2015).
79. Miles, M. B., ve Huberman, A. M. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. (1994).
80. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. Nitel veri analizi (Trans. Ed. S. Akbaba ve A-A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. (2015).
81. Patton, M. Q. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283. (2002).
82. Cohen, L., Mansion, L. ve Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education.6th ed. London: Routledge. p.25 (2007)
83. O’Connor, C., ve Joffe, H.. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. (2020)
84. Orman Atlası T.C. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanlığı Orman Genel Müdürlüğü http://www.orkoop.org.tr/link/atlas.pdf (Erişim Tarihi:02/Mart/2021) (2020)
85. Akar-Öztürk, E. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ conceptions of systematics and taxonomy. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13 (2), 37-48. (2016)
86. Amprazis, A., ve Papadopoulou, P. Plant blindness: a faddish research interest or a substantive impediment to achieve sustainable development goals?. Environmental Education Research, 1-23. (2020)
87. Bebbington, A. The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 63-67. (2005)
88. Minaz, A., ve Bozkurt, Ö. Ç. Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Akıllı Telefon Bağımlılık Düzeylerinin ve Kullanım Amaçlarının Farklı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(21), 268-286. (2017).
89. Ballantyne, J. Using Mobile Technologies and Problem-Seeking Pedagogies to Bridge Universities and Workplaces. In The Oxford Handbook of Technology and Music Education. (2017)
90. Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., ve Lonsdale, P. Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53(2), 286-299. (2009).
91. Zhang, B., Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L. H., Chen, W., ... ve Norris, C. Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55 (4), 1504-1523. (2010).
92. Schleicher, A. The Impact of Covid-19 on education insights From Education At a Glance 2020. (2020).
93. TEDMEM COVID-19 Sürecinde Eğitim Analiz A7 Uzaktan Öğrenme, Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri https://tedmem.org/yayin/covid-19-surecinde-egitim-uzaktan-ogrenme-sorunlar-cozum-onerileri (Erişim 01.04.2021) (2020)
94. Bayram, İ., ve Bıkmaz, F. Ders imecesi modeli ve modelin öğretmen mesleki gelişimine katkısı üzerine bir inceleme. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 52 (2), 577-610. (2019)
95. Handayani, R. A. D., Wilujeng, I., Prasetyo, Z. K., ve Triyanto. Building an indigenous learning comunity through lesson study: challenges of secondary school science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 281-296. (2019)
96. Fernandez, M. L., ve Robinson, M. Prospective Teachers’s perspective on Microteaching Lesson Study. Education, 127(2). (2006)
97. Incikabi, L., ve Kacar, A.. Analyzing Prospective Mathematics Teachers' Development of Teaching Practices in Mathematics: A Lesson Study Approach. In Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development (pp. 206-225). IGI Global. (2017)
98. TALIS. Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publications. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/berlin/43541636.pdf (2009).
99. Aslan, B.. A comparative study on the teaching profession in Turkey and South Korea: Secondary analysis of TALIS 2008 data in relation to teacher self efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 61, 1-22. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.61.1 (2015)
100. Bjuland, R., ve Mosvold, R. Lesson study in teacher education: Learning from a challenging case. Teaching and Teacher education, 52, 83-90. (2015)
101. Stigler, J., ve Hiebert, J. The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press/Simon & Schuster (Updated 2009). (1999).
102. Bartalo, D. B. Closing the teaching gap: Coaching for instructional leaders. Corwin Press. (2012)