Yansıtma Seviyelerini Konu Alan Çalışmalara Yönelik Betimsel İçerik Analizi

Öz

En basit şekliyle deneyimlerden öğrenme olarak tanımlanan yansıtma (reflection) kavramının, öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerinin ayrılmaz bir parçası olduğu söylenebilir. Öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının ne derece yansıtıcı düşündüklerini ortaya koyan çalışmaların bütünsel olarak ele alınması, öğretmen eğitiminin planlanmasına rehberlik edeceği için önemlidir. Buradan yola çıkılarak, bu çalışma kapsamında ERIC veri tabanında yer alan dergilerde yayımlanmış öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının yansıtma seviyelerini konu alan makalelerin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma, betimsel içerik analizi çerçevesinde yürütülmüş olup ilgili çalışmalar yayın yılı, örneklem grubu, çalışmada kullanılan yansıtma kategorileri, katılımcıların yansıtma seviyeleri ve çalışmalarda sunulan öneriler çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Bu kapsamda incelenen çalışmalarda öğretmen veya öğretmen adaylarıyla çalışılmış olması, çalışmaların 2018-2021 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilmiş olması ve ERIC veri tabanında taranmış olması kriterleri dikkate alınmıştır. Veri tabanında “reflection level”, “level of reflection” ve “reflective thinking level” anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak taramalar gerçekleştirilmiş ve ilgili 16 makale çalışma kapsamına dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaların sayısının 2018’den 2021’e kadar artış gösterdiği ve katılımcıların çoğunlukla öğretmen adaylarından oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca yansıtma seviyelerini değerlendirmek için çalışmalarda 10 farklı kategorinin kullanıldığı ve katılımcıların çoğunlukla orta düzeyde yansıtma seviyesine sahip oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Çoğu çalışmada katılımcıların yansıtıcı düşünmeye yönelik eğitim almadıkları ve yansıtıcı yazılarını yazmaları için kendilerine herhangi bir yönlendirici soru verilmediği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmaların önerileri incelendiğinde araştırmacıların, öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında yansıtıcı düşünmeye yönelik uygulamalara daha fazla yer verilmesinin gerekliliğine vurgu yaptıkları belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yansıtma seviyeleri
• öğretmen
• öğretmen adayı
• betimsel içerik analizi

Descriptive Content Analysis of Studies on Reflection Levels

Öz

Reflection is recognized as a learning tool and an inseparable part of professional practice (Plack, Driscoll, Blissett, McKenna, & Plack, 2005). Teachers need to reflect on themselves as a teacher in order to understand the real meaning of a situation related to their teaching (Korthagen, 2004). Developing reflective thinking skills of teachers is important not only to increase the quality of their teaching (Cengiz & Karataş, 2016), but also to enable their students to acquire reflective thinking skills (Duban & Yelken, 2010). For this reason, studies evaluating the quality of teachers' and pre-service teachers' reflections are important in determining the current situation. Reflective writing and journals are the most commonly used reflection tools (Chan, Wong, & Luo, 2021). When the literature is examined, it is seen that content analysis studies on reflective thinking have been carried out in recent years. Beveren, Roets, Buysse, and Rutten (2018) conducted a literature review on why reflection is used in higher education. Eğmir (2019) examined the studies conducted in Turkey on reflective thinking practices in teacher education. Marshall (2019), conducted a literature review to determine how the concept of reflection is explained in professional practices. Eğmir, Beycan, and Dede (2020) analyzed the postgraduate theses examining the effect of reflective thinking practices. Ustabulut (2021), investigated the trends of research on reflective thinking practices in Turkish teaching. However, there is no study in the literature that compiles studies investigating reflective thinking levels of teachers and pre-service teachers. For this reason, within the scope of this study, the articles published in the journals in the ERIC database were scanned and it was aimed to examine the articles on the reflection levels. The study was carried out within the framework of descriptive content analysis. Descriptive content analysis includes the evaluation of disposition and results of all studies conducted within the framework of a determined subject (Jayarajah, Saat & Rauf, 2014; Lin, Lin & Tsai, 2014). In this framework, the relevant database was searched with the keywords "reflection level", "level of reflection" and "reflective thinking level". 16 articles were included in the study. The articles were analyzed using the content analysis method. The basic approach in content analysis is to gather similar data within the framework of certain themes and categories, and to analyze and interpret them (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2006). The publication year, sample group, reflection level models, reflection levels and suggestions of the studies included in the review were combined together and each dimension was grouped within itself according to their similarities. Each of the researchers analyzed the data separately, then a comparison was made and consistency was provided. Findings from the study showed that studies on reflectivity levels tended to increase from 2018 to 2021. The increase in the demand for reflective educators by educational institutions in the world today (Krishnaratne, White, & Carpenter, 2013) may be the reason for the increase in the number of studies. Pre-service teachers were mostly preferred as the study group. The reason for preferring to conduct studies with pre-service teachers may be because of the importance of determining the education applied in education faculties is whether sufficient at graduating reflective teachers (Duban & Yanpar Yelken, 2010). It was determined that there were 10 different models utilised to analyse the reflection levels of the writingsThe most preferred model was the model developed by Lee (2005) and Kember (2009). When the studies examined it was seen that the participants of the studies could not reflect at a high levels of reflection. Cengiz (2020) asked pre-service teachers to write free and then structured reflective journals. The result of the study showed that the pre-service teachers write descriptively in their independent journals, but they can reflect in the structured journals. Prompt questions enable pre-service teachers to evaluate their time efficiently and focus better on the subject that they need to write (Wilson, Roberts, Gill, Ross & Åkerlind, 2014). When the suggestions of the researches included in the studies were examined, it was determined that the most emphasised suggestion was to include reflective thinking programs to the scope of the teacher training program.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• reflection levels
• teacher
• pre-service teacher
• descriptive content analysis

Kaynakça

1. Alp, S., & Taşkın, Ş. Ç. (2008). “Eğitimde yansıtıcı düşüncenin önemi ve yansıtıcı düşünceyi geliştirme”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 178, 311-320.
2. Altın, G. (2020). “Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulamalarına yönelik öz değerlendirme ve yansıtıcı düşünme becerilerinin incelenmesi” (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
3. Altınok, H. (2002). “Yansıtıcı öğretim: önemi ve öğretmen eğitimine yansımaları”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (8), 66-73.
4. Aragon, S. R. (2003). “Creating social presence in online environment”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.
5. Aras, B., Park, İ., & Park, F. (2019). “Öğretmen adaylarının yansıtıcı düşünme düzeyleri ve bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi”, Uluslararası Bilim ve Eğitim Dergisi, 1(2), 119-130.
6. Barnhart, T., & Van Es, E. (2015). “Studying teacher noticing: examining the relationship among preservice science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.
7. Bayrak, F., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). “Ağ günlük uygulamasının yansıtıcı düşünme becerisi üzerine etkis”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 93-104.
8. Borg, S. (2003). “Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do”, Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.

9. Boud, D. (2001). “Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 9-18.
10. Bozan, S. (2021). “Determining students' reflective thinking levels and examining their reflections on science concepts”, African Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 544-550.
11. Cengiz, C. (2020). “The effect of structured journals on reflection levels: with or without question prompts?”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(2), 23-43.
12. Cengiz, C., & Karataş, F. Ö. (2016). “Yansıtıcı düşünme ve öğretimi”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 45(211), 5-27.
13. Cengiz, C., & Karataş, F. Ö. (2014). “Yansıtıcı düşünmeyi geliştirme: fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları ile gerçekleştirilen yansıtıcı günlük tutma uygulamasının etkileri”, Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(4), 120-129.
14. Chamoso, J. M., & Cáceres, M. J. (2009). “Analysis of the reflections of student-teachers of mathematics when working with learning portfolios in Spanish university classrooms”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 198–206.
15. Chan, C. K., Wong, H. Y., & Luo, J. (2021). “An exploratory study on assessing reflective writing from teachers’ perspectives”, Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 706-720.
16. Chang, C. C. & Chou, P. N. (2011). “Effect of reflection category and reflection quality on learning outcomes during web-based portfolio assessment process: a case study of high school in computer application course”, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 101-114.
17. Chang, M. M. & Lin, C. M. (2014). “The effect of reflective learning e-journals on reading comprehension and communication in language learning”, Computers and Education, 71, 124-132.
18. Chye, S., Zhou, M., Koh, C., & Liu, W. C. (2021). “Levels of reflection in student teacher digital portfolios: a matter of sociocultural context?”, Reflective Practice, 22(5), 577-599.
19. Costa, S. L. R., Broietti, F. C. D., & Passos, M. M. (2020). “The levels and nature of pre-service chemistry teachers' reflections in a public university in southern brazil”, Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(2), 147-166.
20. Çarkıt, C. (2020). “Reflective thinking in Turkish language education”, Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 1078-1090.
21. Çarkıt, C., & İplik, Y. (2021). “Ortaokul türkçe derslerinde yansıtıcı düşünme becerisinin geliştirilmesine yönelik öğretmenlerin görüş ve uygulamaları”, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 497-524.
22. Davis, E. A. (2006). “Characterizing productive reflection among pre-service elementary teachers: Seeing what matters”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 281-301.
23. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement Of The Relation Of Reflective Thinking To The Educative Process. Boston: DC Heath and Company.
24. Duban, N., & Yelken, T. Y. (2010). “Öğretmen adaylarının yansıtıcı düşünme eğilimleri ve yansıtıcı öğretmen özellikleriyle ilgili görüşleri”, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 343-360.
25. Durdukoca, Ş. F., & Demir, M. (2012). “İlköğretim öğretmenlerin bazı değişkenlere göre yansıtıcı düşünme düzeyleri ve düşüncelerindeki öğretmen niteliklerinin yansıtıcı öğretmen niteliklerine uygunluğu”, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(20), 357-374.
26. Eğmir, E. (2019). “Öğretmen eğitiminde yansıtıcı düşünme uygulamalarına ilişkin türkiye’de yapılmış çalışmaların analizi”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 194-212.
27. Eğmir, E. (2019). “Öğretmen eğitiminde yansıtıcı düşünme uygulamalarına ilişkin türkiye’de yapılmış çalışmaların analizi”, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 194-212.
28. Eğmir, E., Beycan, F., & Dede, A. (2020). “Yansıtıcı düşünme uygulamalarının etkisinin incelendiği lisansüstü tezlerin analizi”, Researcher, 8(2), 62-80.
29. Elmalı, Ş., & Kıyıcı, F. B. (2018). “Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının yansıtıcı düşünme eğilimleri ve yansıtıcı düşünmeye ilişkin düşünceleri”, İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1706-1718.
30. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). “Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
31. İlin, G. (2020). “Reflection or description: A document analysis on ELT student teachers’ reflective journals”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 1019-1031.
32. Jayarajah, K., Saat, R. M. & Rauf, R. A. A. (2014). “A review of science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) education research from 1999–2013: A malaysian perspectiv”, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(3), 155-163.
33. Kallarackar T. J., & Thomas, P. J. (2020). “Framework for structured reflective journal for professional development of student teachers at secondary level”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, 5(6), 92-99.
34. Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). “A four category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369-379.
35. Kolarova, T., Hadjiali, I. & Vasilev, V. (2009). “Reflective approach to studying of genetics in 9 th -10 th grade”, Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 23, 53-57.
36. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37. Korthagen, F. & Wubbes, T. (2008). Characteristics of reflective teachers education. Korathagen, F. (Ed.), Linking practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education” New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum, 133-144.
38. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). “In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97.
39. Krishnaratne, S., White, H., & Carpenter, E. (2013). Quality education for all children? What works in education in developing countries? New Delhi, India: International Initiative for IMsPAct Evaluation.
40. Larrivee, B. (2008). “Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practic”, Reflective practice, 9(3), 341-360.
41. Lee, H. J. (2005). “Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699-715.
42. Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2014). “Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals”, International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346-1372.
43. Lin, C. H. & Liu, E. Z. F. (2012). The effect of reflective strategies on students’ problem solving in robotics learning. Fourth IEEE International Conference. NW Washington, DC: United States.
44. Liu, M., Kitto, K., & Shum, S. B. (2021). “Combining factor analysis with writing analytics for the formative assessment of written reflection”, Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 1-16.
45. Marshall, T. (2019). “The concept of reflection: a systematic review and thematic synthesis across professional contexts”, Reflective Practice, 20(3), 396-415.
46. McKnight, D. (2002). Field Experience Handbook: A Guide For The Teacher İntern And Mentor Teacher. College Park: University of Maryland.
47. Menzi Çetin, N., Telli, E., Dağhan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2019). “Determining reflectivity levels of prospective teachers through blogs”, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 6(3). 582-596.
48. Engelbertink, M. M. J., Colomer, J., Woudt- Mittendorff, K. M., Alsina, Á., Kelders, S. M., Ayllón, S., & Westerhof, G. J. (2021). “The reflection level and the construction of professional identity of university students”, Reflective Practice, 22(1), 73-85.
49. Moon, J. (2004). “Using reflective learning to improve the impact of short courses and workshops”, The Journal of Conrinuing Education in The Health Profession, 24, 4-11.
50. Moon, J. (2009). “The Use of graduated scenarios to facilitate the learning of complex and difficult-to-describe concepts”, Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 8(1), 57-70.
51. Muir, T., & Beswick, K. (2007). “Stimulating reflection on practice: Using the supportive classroom reflection process”, Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 8, 74-93.
52. Orakçı, Ş. (2021). “Teachers’ reflection and level of reflective thinking on the different dimensions of their teaching practice”, International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 5(1), 118-149.
53. Özüdoğru, M. (2021). “Reflective thinking and teaching practices: A study on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and improvement of reflection in the curriculum development course: Reflective thinking and teaching practices”, International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(3), 2195-2214.
54. Plack, M. M., Driscoll, M., Blissett, S., McKenna, R., & Plack, T. P. (2005). “A method for assessing reflective journal writing”, Journal of allied health, 34(4), 199-208.
55. Pollard, V. (2008). Ethics and reflective practice: Continuing the conversation”, Reflective Practice, 9(4), 399-407.
56. Abdul Rabu, S. N., & Badlishah, N. S. (2020). “Levels of students’ reflective thinking skills in a collaborative learning environment using Google docs”, TechTrends, 64(3), 533-541.
57. Sarıçoban, A., & Kırmızı, Ö. (2021). “A Study on the reflection levels of pre-service EFL teachers”, Eurasian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 14-29.
58. Slade, M. L., Burnham, T. J., Catalana, S. M., & Waters, T. (2019). “The impact of reflective practice on teacher candidates' learning”, International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 15.
59. Sunra, L., & Nur, S. (2020). “Teachers' reflective practice and challenges in an indonesian EFL secondary school classroom”, International Journal of Language Education, 4(2), 289-300.
60. Taggart, L. G., & Wilson, P.W., (2005). Promoting Reflective Thinking in Teachers: 50 Action Strategies. USA: Corwin Press.
61. Tajeddin, Z., & Aghababazadeh, Y. (2018). “Blog-mediated reflection for professional development: Exploring themes and criticality of L2 teachers' reflective practice”, TESL Canada Journal, 35(2), 26-50.
62. Tiainen, O., Korkeamäki, R.L., & Drehe, M.J. (2016). “Becoming reflective practitioners: a case study of three beginning pre-service teachers”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 586– 600.
63. Tuncer, H., & Özkan, Y. (2018). “A case study on assessing reflectivity levels of pre-service language teachers through journals”, Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(2), 173-186.
64. Ustabulut, M. Y. (2021). “Türkçe öğretiminde yansıtıcı düşünme uygulamalarına ilişkin araştırmaların eğilimleri”, Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 10(3), 1089-1104.
65. Ünver, G. (2003). Yansıtıcı düşünme. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
66. Wilson, A., Roberts, P., Gill, B., Ross, P., & Åkerlind, G. (2014). Teaching Research-Evaluation And Assessment Strategies For Undergraduate Research Experiences. Australian National University.
67. Wong, F. K., Kember, D., Chung, L. Y., & Yan, L. (1995). “Assessing the level of student reflection from reflective journals”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(1), 48–57.
68. Valli, L. (1997). “Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the united states”, Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88.
69. Van Beveren, L., Roets, G., Buysse, A., & Rutten, K. (2018). “We all reflect, but why? A systematic review of the purposes of reflection in higher education in social and behavioral sciences”, Educational Research Review, 24, 1-9.
70. Varol Şanlı, Ş. (2016). “Öğretmen adaylarının yansıtıcı düşünme eğilimlerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi” (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya.
71. Voulgari, R., & Koutrouba, K. (2021). “Examining the depth of primary schoolteachers’ reflection through the critical incident technique”, Educational Studies, 1-19.
72. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). “Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri”. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
73. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). “Qualitative Research Methods İn The Social Sciences”. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
74. Yıldırım Ekinci, H., & Köksal, E. A. (2011). “İlköğretim fen ve matematik öğretmenleri için ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterlikleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi”, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 167-184.