Öğretim elemanlarının aktif öğrenmeye ilişkin algıları, uygulamaları ve karşılaştıkları engeller: Karma yöntem araştırması

Öz

Bu çalışma, öğretim elemanlarının aktif öğrenmeye ilişkin algılarını, kullandıkları öğretim tekniklerini ve uygulamada karşılaştıkları engelleri belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Karma yöntem yaklaşımının benimsendiği araştırmada, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi öğretim elemanlarından anketler ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Kota örneklemesiyle belirlenen birimlerde görev yapan 219 öğretim elemanından elde edilen nicel veriler betimsel istatistiklerle, maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesiyle seçilen 14 öğretim elemanından elde edilen nitel veriler ise içerik analiziyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, çoğu katılımcının aktif öğrenmeye yönelik olumlu bir algıya sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte öğretim elemanları, öğrenci merkezli yaklaşımların önemini kabul etseler de, öğretim sürecinde liderlik rollerini sürdürmeleri gerektiğini düşünmektedir. Ders anlatımı yaygın biçimde kullanılmaya devam etmekte; ancak bu yöntem, soru-cevap, tartışma ve beyin fırtınası gibi tekniklerle desteklenerek etkileşim artırılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Aktif öğrenmenin uygulanmasını güçleştiren başlıca engeller arasında kalabalık sınıflar, zaman yönetimi sorunları, yüksek ders yükü, motivasyon eksikliği ve altyapı yetersizlikleri yer almaktadır. Öğretim elemanları, aktif öğrenmenin etkili biçimde uygulanabilmesi için hizmet içi eğitimlerin artırılması ve kurumsal destek mekanizmalarının güçlendirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışmanın bulguları, öğretim elemanlarının farkındalıklarını artırmanın, mesleki gelişimlerini desteklemenin ve aktif öğrenmeyi teşvik edici kurumsal politikalar geliştirmenin önemine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aktif öğrenme
• Yükseköğretim
• Öğretim teknikleri
• Öğrenci merkezli öğrenme
• Karma araştırma yöntemi

Faculty members’ perceptions, practices, and challenges related to active learning: A mixed methods study

Öz

This study aims to identify faculty members’ perceptions of active learning, the instructional techniques they use, and the challenges they encounter during implementation. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from faculty members at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University through surveys and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data obtained from 219 faculty members selected through quota sampling were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data from 14 faculty members selected through maximum variation sampling were analyzed using content analysis. The findings indicate that most participants hold positive perceptions of active learning. However, although faculty members acknowledge the value of student-centered approaches, they also believe that they must maintain their leadership roles throughout the teaching process. Lecturing remains a widely used instructional method; yet it is frequently supplemented with techniques such as question-and-answer, discussion, and brainstorming to enhance interaction. The primary barriers hindering the implementation of active learning include large class sizes, time management difficulties, heavy teaching loads, low motivation, and inadequate infrastructure. Faculty members emphasize the need to expand in-service training opportunities and strengthen institutional support mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of active learning. Overall, the study highlights the importance of increasing faculty awareness, supporting their professional development, and establishing institutional policies that promote and sustain active learning practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Active learning
• Higher education
• Teaching techniques
• Student-centered learning
• Mixed methods research

Kaynakça

1. Abildinova, G., Abdykerimova, E., Assainova, A., Mukhtarkyzy, K. ve Abykenova, D. (2024). Preparing educators for the digital age: teacher perceptions of active teaching methods and digital integration. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1473766
2. Akşit, F., Niemi, H. ve Nevgi, A. (2016). Why is active learning so difficult to implement: The Turkish case. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 94-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n4.6
3. Alemnew, B. (2018). An assessment of practice of active learning approach in Wolita Sodo University health science college, Southern Ethiopia: the case of preclinical classes. [Master Thesis], Addis Ababa University.
4. Altınyelken, H. K. (2011). Student-centred pedagogy in Turkey: conceptualisations, interpretations and practices. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 137-160.
5. Barnawi, A., Sonbol, A. M., Al-Shawwa, L., Abulaban, A., Asiri, K., Bagasi, A., Alafi, R. ve Alamoudi, A. A. (2024). Employing students’ evaluations and tutors’ perceptions to evaluate a faculty development program on problem-based learning at the faculty of medicine, king abdulaziz university. BMC Medical Education, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05662-1
6. Bonwell, C. C. ve Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning; Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
7. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
8. Carroll, L. J., Reeping, D., Finelli, C. J., Prince, M. J., Husman, J., Graham, M. ve Borrego, M. J. (2023). Barriers instructors experience in adopting active learning: Instrument development. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(4), 1079-1108.

9. Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., ve Brooks, D. C. (2013). “It's Not You, It's the Room”—are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it?. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82-88.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry ve research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
12. Creswell, J. W. ve Creswell, J. D. (2021). Araştırma tasarımı: nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları. (E. Karadağ, Çev.Ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.
13. Crisol-Moya, E., Romero-López, M. A. ve Caurcel-Cara, M. J. (2020). Active methodologies in higher education: perception and opinion as evaluated by professors and their students in the teaching-learning process. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01703
14. Edwards, S. (2015). Active learning in the middle grades classroom. Middle Grades Research Journal, 10(1), 65.
15. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E. ve Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: a critical relationship. Computers ve education, 59(2), 423-435.
16. European Commission (2021). Digital Education Action Plan: policy background. 11 Kasım 2025 tarihinde https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/plan adresinden erişildi.
17. ESG (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. 11 Kasım 2025 tarihinde https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf adresinden erişildi.
18. Estridge, K. M. ve Owens, J. K. (2018). Effectiveness of interteaching with senior baccalaureate nursing students. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 84(5), 14-25.
19. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational research, 38(1), 47-65.
20. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. ve Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
21. Foord-May, L. (2006). A faculty’s experience in changing instructional methods in a professional physical therapist education program. Physical Therapy, 86(2), 223-235.
22. Gibbs, G. ve 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.
23. Gonzalez‐Cortes, J. J., Cantero, D. ve Ramírez, M. (2025). Project‐based learning in bioprocess engineering: Matlab Software as a tool for industrial‐scale bioreactor design. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22811
24. Goradia, T., Blackley, S., Southam, D. C. ve Lareu, R. R. (2023). The effectiveness of evidence-based teaching practices in biomedical sciences on students’ learning experience: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 31(1), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.30722/IJISME.31.01.005
25. Gravetter, J. F., ve Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. (4th ed.). Linda Schreiber-Ganster.
26. Heck, A. J., Cross, C. E., Tatum, V. Y. ve Chase, A. J. (2023). Active learning among health professions’ educators: perceptions, barriers, and use. Medical Science Educator, 33(3), 719-727.
27. Heiberger, R. ve Robbins, N. (2014). Design of diverging stacked bar charts for Likert scales and other applications. Journal of Statistical Software, 57(5), 1-32.
28. Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudon Martinez, J. C., Hernandez Alcantara, D. ve Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13, 909-922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8
29. Hoidn, S., ve Karkkainen, K. (2014). Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: a literature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching behaviours. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en
30. İlhan, E. (2022). Active learning in higher education from the perspectives of faculty members. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal), 6(2), 382-405.
31. İlhan, E. ve Çam, Ş. S. (2023). Öğretim elemanları için aktif öğrenme uygulamaları ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 91-107.
32. Kassa, T., Andualem, T., Desie, Y., Admas, F., Minaye, A., Teklu, F., Habtamu, K. ve Zeleke, S. (2024). Practices of active learning in public universities in Ethiopia: student and faculty perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 50(3), 494-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2343953
33. Kember, D. ve Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026569608656
34. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
35. Kitchens, B., Means, T. ve Tan, Y. (2018). Captivate: building blocks for implementing active learning. Journal of Education for Business, 93(2), 58-73.
36. Mancır, H. (2014). Eğitim fakültesi öğretim elemanlarının öğrenci merkezli eğitimi algılama ve uygulama düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi.
37. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51-57.
38. Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167.
39. Michael, K., Alemu, M., Desie, Y., Atnafu, M., Assefa, S., Regassa, C., Wodaj, H. ve Abate, A. (2023). Understanding and practice of active learning among upper primary school science and mathematics teachers. Heliyon, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16854
40. McDermott Jr, J. F., ve Anderson, A. S. (1991). Retraining faculty for the problem-based curriculum at the University of Hawaii, 1989-1991. Academic Medicine, 66(12), 778-9.
41. Niemi, H., Nevgi, A. ve Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning promoting student teachers’ professional competences in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 471-490.
42. Özer, Ş. K. (2023). A study on investigating faculty members' perceptions and practices of active learning at a private university. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
43. Özen, Y., ve Gül, A. (2007). Sosyal ve eğitim bilimleri araştirmalarinda evren-örneklem sorunu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (15), 394-422.
44. Patrick, L. E., Howell, L. A. ve Wischusen, W. (2016). Perceptions of active learning between faculty and undergraduates: differing views among departments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3), 55-63.
45. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research ve evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. (4th ed.). Sage publications.
46. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
47. Pundak, D., Herscovitz, O., Shaham, M. ve Wiser-Biton, R. (2009). Instructors' attitudes toward active learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 215-232.
48. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
49. Salter, M. M. (2023). Faculty beliefs on active learning strategies in higher education: identification of predictors for use of active learning. [Doctoral Thesis], University of South Alabama.
50. Sethusha, M. J. (2013). A vision of improvement of learning: South African teachers’ conceptions of classroom assessment. Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 14-21.
51. Stanley, C. A. ve Porter, M. E. (Eds.) (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Anker Publishing Company.
52. Sturtevant, H., ve Wheeler, L. (2019). The STEM faculty instructional barriers and identity survey (FIBIS): Development and exploratory results. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(35), 1–22.
53. Şimşek, H., Hırça, N., Coşkun, S. ve Coşkun, S. (2012). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerini tercih ve uygulama düzeyleri: Şanlıurfa ili örneği. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(18), 249-268.
54. Şimşek, H., Kuzu, Y., Elyıldırım, E. ve Mermer, Ş. E. (2022). Öğrenci merkezli eğitim: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19 (Özel Sayı), 88-107.
55. Tarekegne, W. M. (2019). Higher education instructors perception and practice of active learning and continuous assessment techniques: the case of Jimma University. Bulgarian Journal of Science ve Education Policy, 13(1), 50-70.
56. Tekindal, M. ve Arsu, Ş. U. (2020). Nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak fenomenolojik yaklaşımın kapsamı ve sürecine yönelik bir derleme. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 20(1), 153-172.
57. Thornburg, D. (1995). Student-centered learning. Electronic Learning, 14(7), 18–19.
58. Uçkun, G., Demir, B., Uçkun, S. ve Konak, O. (2013). Bologna sürecindeki Myo’larda öğrenci merkezli eğitim (öme) “öğretim elemanı görüşleri”. Ejovoc (Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges), 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1501/OTAM_0000000415
59. United Nations (2015).Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 09 Kasım 2025 tarihinde https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda adresinden erişildi.
60. Uygur, M. ve Yelken, T. Y. (2019). Yükseköğretimde öğrenci merkezli öğretme-öğrenme süreçlerinin incelenmesi (Uzman temelli odak grup görüşmesi). Journal of Advanced Education Studies, 1(1), 12-31.
61. Wetzel, E. M. ve Farrow, C. B. (2023). Active learning in construction management education: faculty perceptions of engagement and learning. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(8), 1417-1425.
62. YÖK (2025). 2030’a doğru Türk yükseköğretiminin yol haritası. 09 Kasım 2025 tarihinde https://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/documents/68e652769d934.pdf adresinden erişildi.
63. YÖK (2023). Yükseköğretim Kurulu 2024–2028 stratejik planı. 09 Kasım 2025 tarihinde https://strateji.yok.gov.tr/documentFiles/17531814922.Yuksekogretim%20Kurulu%202024-2028%20stratejik%20planı.pdf adresinden erişildi.
64. Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J., ve Van Os, W. (2011). Conceptions and practices in teaching and learning: implications for the evaluation of teaching quality. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 151-161.