TERSİNE ÇEVRİLMİŞ SINIF MODELİNİN ÖZEL GEREKSİNİMLİ ÇOCUKLARIN MOTİVASYON VE ÖZ YETERLİK DÜZEYLERİNE ETKİSİ

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, tersine çevrilmiş sınıf modelinin özel gereksinimli çocukların motivasyon ve öz yeterlik düzeylerine etkisini incelemektir. Çapraz desen araştırma modeline göre tasarlanan araştırmaya 13 zihinsel yetersizliği olan, 14 özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan ve 16 tipik gelişim gösteren öğrenci olmak üzere toplam 43 katılımcı dahil edilmiştir. Müdahale sürecinde katılımcılar iki ay boyunca geleneksel yöntemle, iki ay boyunca da tersine çevrilmiş sınıf modeli ile beden eğitimi ve spor dersini işlemişlerdir. Araştırma verileri Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Beden Eğitimi Motivasyon Ölçeği ve Çocuklar İçin Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Veriler grup içi karşılaştırmalarında Paired t-testi, tekrarlı ölçümler için iki yönlü ANOVA (3x3) testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre tersine çevrilmiş sınıf modeli ile işlenen dersler sonunda katılımcıların içsel, dışsal ve motivasyonsuzluk alt boyutları ile akademik, sosyal, duygusal ve toplam öz yeterlik puanlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak tersine çevrilmiş sınıf modeli hem zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylerde hem de özel öğrenme güçlüğü yaşayan bireylerde motivasyon ve öz yeterlik düzeylerini artırmada etkilidir. Tersine çevrilmiş sınıf modelinin, kapsayıcı eğitim uygulamalarında alternatif bir yaklaşım olarak kullanılmasının yanı sıra, gelecek çalışmalarda farklı engel türleri, yaş grupları ve disiplinlerde modelin etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tersine çevrilmiş sınıf
• motivasyon
• öz yeterlik

THE EFFECT OF THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM MODEL ON THE MOTIVATION AND SELF-EFFICACY OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Öz

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of the flipped classroom model on the motivation and self-efficacy levels of children with special needs. The study was designed using a crossover research design and included a total of 43 participants, consisting of 13 with intellectual disabilities, 14 with specific learning disabilities, and 16 with typical development. During the intervention, physical education and sports classes were delivered through traditional instruction for two months and through the flipped classroom model for another two months. Data was collected using the Personal Information Form, the Physical Education Motivation Scale, and the Self-Efficacy Scale for Children. For within-group comparisons, paired t-tests were employed, while repeated measures were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA (3x3). The findings demonstrated statistically significant differences across participants’ intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and lack of motivation subdimensions, as well as in their academic, social, emotional, and total self-efficacy scores, with results favoring the flipped classroom model. These results indicate that the flipped classroom approach is effective in enhancing both motivation and self-efficacy among individuals with intellectual disabilities and those with learning difficulties. In addition to its potential as an alternative strategy in inclusive education practices, future studies are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of this model across different disability groups, age levels, and subject areas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• flipped classroom
• motivation
• self-efficacy

Kaynakça

1. 1. Sürer AG. (2020). Eğitimde dijitalleşme çağı. Kapadokya Eğitim Dergisi. 1(1), 28-34.
2. 2. Ferriz-Valero A., Østerlie O., Penichet-Tomas A., Baena-Morales S. (2022). The effects of flipped learning on learning and motivation of upper secondary school physical education students. Frontiers in Education. 7, 832778.
3. 3. Botella ÁG., García-Martínez S., García NM., Olaya-Cuartero J., Ferriz-Valero A. (2021). Flipped learning to improve students' motivation in physical education. Acta Gymnica. 51, e2021.012.
4. 4. Abeysekera L., Dawson P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development. 34, 1–14.
5. 5. McNally B., Chipperfield J., Dorsett P., Del Fabbro L., Frommolt V., Goetz S., Lewohl J., Molineux M., Pearson A., Reddan G. (2017). Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education. 73, 281–298.
6. 6. Inga E., Inga J. (2019). Innovación educativa para gestión y planeación de la educación superior basado en responsabilidad social. İçinde: Estrategias Didácticas para la Innovación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento. CIMTED. Antioquia, Colombia, 13–35.
7. 7. Zheng XL., Kim HS., Lai WH., Hwang GJ. (2020). Cognitive regulations in ICT-supported flipped classroom interactions: An activity theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology. 51, 103–130.
8. 8. Bergmann J., Sams A. (2014). Nuestra historia:¿ Cómo crear una “clase al revés?”. Dale la vuelta a tu clase, (23), 13–23.

9. 9. Enfield J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends. 57, 14–27.
10. 10. Er SA. (2024). Fen eğitiminde ters yüz öğretim uygulamasının etkililiği. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, [Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Konya.
11. 11. Nwankwo BC. (2024). The role of self-efficacy in the academic achievement of students with special needs: A social psychological perspective. Review of Education. 36(1).
12. 12. Kausik NH., Hussain D. (2020). Self-determination, nurtured heart approach, and motivation: Development and testing of an intervention strategy for students with learning disabilities. Current Psychology. 39, 1454–1465.
13. 13. Wong B., Graham L., Hoskyn M., Berman J. (2008). The ABCs of learning disabilities. 2. Baskı. Academic Press.
14. 14. Tabassam W., Grainger J. (2016). Self-concept, attributional style and self-efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2, 141–151.
15. 15. Heward WL., Alber-Morgan SR., Konrad M. (2017). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Pearson Education. Boston.
16. 16. Lackaye T., Margalit M., Ziv O., Ziman T. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched peers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 21, 111–121.
17. 17. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2015). Mesleki eğitim ve öğretim sisteminin güçlendirilmesi projesi: Çocuk gelişimi ve eğitimi (Zihinsel engelliler). http://www.megep.meb.gov.tr/mte_program_modul/moduller_pdf/Zihinsel%20Engelliler.pdf. [Erişim tarihi: 20.05.2025].
18. 18. Akçin N. (2013). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan çocuklar. İçinde: Vuran S. (editör). Özel eğitim. Maya Akademi. Ankara, 323–361.
19. 19. Olçay Gül S., Vuran S. (2015). Children with special needs’ opinions and problems about inclusive practices. Education and Science. 40(180).
20. 20. Yeleussizkyzy M., Zhiyenbayeva N., Ushatikova I., Abdrakhmanova A., Alipbek A. (2023). E-learning and flipped classroom in inclusive education: The case of students with the psychopathology of language and cognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 52, 2721–2742.
21. 21. Villanueva J. (2016). Flipped classroom: An action research. 21st Annual Technology, Colleges and Community Worldwide Online Conference. 19 April.
22. 22. Sulz L., Temple V., Gibbons S. (2016). Measuring student motivation in high school physical education: Development and validation of two self-report questionnaires. Physical Educator. 73(3), 530–554.
23. 23. Akbulut V., Öncü E. (2023). Beden eğitimi motivasyon ölçeği’nin türkçe’ye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Sportive. 6(2), 139–152.
24. 24. Muris P. (2001). A brief questionnaire for measuring self-efficacy in youths. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 23, 145–149.
25. 25. Muris P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 32, 337–348.
26. 26. Telef BB., Karaca R. (2012). Çocuklar için öz-yeterlik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 32, 169–187.
27. 27. Hopkins WG., Marshall SW., Batterham AM., Hanin J. (2009). Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 41, 3–12.
28. 28. Bergmann J., Sams A. (2012). Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.
29. 29. Altemueller L., Lindquist C. (2017). Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning. British Journal of Special Education. 44(3), 341–358.
30. 30. Bergstresser MB. (2018). Teaching students with dyslexia using the flipped classroom method. [Doktora Tezi]. Northcentral University.
31. 31. Østerlie O. (2018). Can flipped learning enhance adolescents' motivation in physical education? An intervention study. Journal of Research in Arts Sports Education. 2, 1–15.
32. 32. Torres MP. (2019). Mathematics in a flipped classroom for students with disabilities: An exploratory case study. [Doktora Tezi]. University of Phoenix.
33. 33. López Belmonte J., Fuentes Cabrera A., López Núñez JA., Pozo Sánchez S. (2019). Formative transcendence of flipped learning in mathematics students of secondary education. Mathematics. 7(12), 1226.
34. 34. Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman. New York.
35. 35. Ahmed MMH., Indurkhya B. (2020). Investigating cognitive holding power and equity in the flipped classroom. Heliyon. 6(8).
36. 36. Choi JI. (2014). A case study of flipped learning at college: Focused on effects of motivation and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Technology.
37. 37. Latorre-Cosculluela C., Suárez C., Quiroga S., Anzano-Oto S., Lira-Rodríguez E., Salamanca-Villate A. (2021). Facilitating self-efficacy in university students: An interactive approach with flipped classroom. Higher Education Research and Development. 41(5), 1603–1617.
38. 38. Jdaitawi M. (2020). Does flipped learning promote positive emotions in science education? A comparison between traditional and flipped classroom approaches. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 18, 516–524.
39. 39. Rose DH., Meyer A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 55(5), 521-525.
40. 40. Ryan RM., Deci EL. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
41. 41. Sweller J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.