ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ VE ÖĞRETİM ÜYELERİNİN İŞBİRLİKÇİ ÖĞRENMEYE YÖNELİK TUTUMLARI

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 1 - 21, 09.06.2020

Karolin Candan Kenan Dikilitaş

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin İngilizce derslerinde işbirlikçi çalışmaya karşı tutumlarını ve varsa erkek ve kadın öğrenciler arasındaki algısal farklılığı incelemektir. Öğrencilerin işbirlikçi çalışmaya karşı tutumlarını incelemeyi amaçlayan anket 100 öğrenci tarafından cevaplanmıştır. Sonrasında en olumsuz ve en olumlu tutum sergileyen iki öğrenciyle işbirlikçi öğrenmeyle ilgili röportaj yapılmıştır. Ayrıca, farklı sınıflarda İngilizce öğreten üç öğretmenle de röportaj yapılmıştır. Veri toplama ve analiz evresinde “tabandan-yukarıya” süreci izlenmiştir çünkü tüm kavram ve temalar adım adım şekillenmiştir. Sonuç olarak anket sonuçları erkek ve kadın öğrenci grupları arasında büyük bir algısal farklılık olmadığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, öğrenciler işbirlikçi çalışmanın birbirleriyle fikir alışverişi yaparak ve birbirlerinden öğrenmelerini sağladığını belirtti. Ancak, grup halinde çalışırken etkinliğe karşı ilgisiz olan öğrencilerin onları endişelendirdiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Son olarak da öğretmenler işbirlikçi öğrenmenin İngilizce derslerinde etkileşimi artırdığını ve eğlenceli olduğunu belirtmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

işbirlikçi çalışma, işbirlikçi öğrenme, grup çalışmaları

THE PERCEPTION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTORS TOWARDS COOPERATIVE LEARNING

Öz

The aim of this study was to investigate how students and teachers perceive cooperative learning in English classes and to see if there is any perceptional difference towards it between male and female students. A survey which attempted to examine perceptions towards collaborative work was responded by 100 students. Next, interview sessions were held with the two learners who have the most negative and positive attitudes regarding the collaborative work in class. In addition, three instructors teaching English to different classrooms were interviewed on collaborative work. Data collection and analysis had bottom-up” process as the concepts or themes are built step by step. Consequently, survey results showed that there is no big perceptional difference between the male and female student groups. Also, students stated that collaborative work enabled them to negotiate and learn from each other. However, it was found that they felt worried about some off-task students while working as a group. Finally, the study revealed teachers believed collaborative work is fun, and it facilitates interaction in English lessons.

Anahtar Kelimeler

collaborative work, cooperative learning, group work activities

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Anfara, V. A. Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangiona, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Carpenter, S., & McMillan, T. (2003). Incorporation of a cooperative learning technique in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 330.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
• Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ellison, C. M., & Boykin, A.W. (1994). Comparing outcomes from differential cooperative and individualistic learning methods. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 91-104.
• Essien, A. M. (2015). Effectiveness of cooperative learning methodology in improving students’ learning attitudes towards English language. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8, 119-127.
• Farzaneh, N., & Nejadansari, D. (2014). Students’ attitude towards using cooperative learning for teaching Reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(2), 287-292.
• Fenwick, G. D., & Neal, D. J. (2001). Effect of gender composition on group performance. Gender, Work, and Organization, 8(2), 205–225.
• Frykedal, K. F. (2011). Management of group work as a classroom activity. World Journal of Education, 1, 3-16.
• Gallos, J. V. (1995b). On management education for women: Faulty assumptions, new possibilities. Selections, 11(2), 24–33.
• Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Instructors’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Instructor Education, 26, 933–940.
• Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1).
• Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method on teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.
• Granström, K. (1998). Classroom management in Sweden. In N. Shimahara (Ed.), Politics of classroom life. Classroom management in international perspective, 136–162. New York: Garland Publisher.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 105-117. London: Sage.
• Gupta, M. L. (2004). Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical sciences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 63–73.
• Hammar Chiriac, E., & Granström, K. (2012). Instructors’ leadership and students’ experience of group work. Instructors and Teaching, 18(3), 345-363.
• Hancock, B. (1998). An introduction to Qualitative research. UK: Trent Focus Group.
• Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
• Hass, M. A. (2000). Student-directed learning in the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(8), 1035-1038.
• Inglehart, M., Brown, D.R., & Vida, M. (1994). Competition, achievement, and gender: A stress theoretical analysis. In P.R. Pintrich, D.R. Brown, & C.E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilbert. J. McKeachie (pp.311-330). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Jacobs, G. M. (1997). Cooperative learning or just grouping students: The difference makes a difference, Paper presented at the RELC Seminar, Singapore.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, Ed., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry: London: Sage.
• Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science instructor beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning. School Science and Mathematics, 98(3), 123-135.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ng, M. & Lee, C. (1996). What's different about cooperative learning? - and its significance in social studies teaching. Teaching and Learning, 17(1), 15-23.
• Ro, H., & Choi, Y. (2011). Student team project: gender differences in team project experience and attitudes toward team-based work. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 11, 149-163.
• Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 42(48), 71-82.
• Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future-Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
• Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
• Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Tanveer, A. (2008) Group Work vs. Whole Class Activity. BNU. Beaconhouse National University.
• Tucker, R., & Abbasi, N. (2016). Bad attitudes: Why design students dislike teamwork. Journal of learning design, 9(1), 1-20.
• Ulloa, B. C. R., & Adams, S. G. (2004). Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming. Team Performance Management, 10(7), 145-151.
• Webb N. M., & Palincsar A. S. (1996). “Group processes in the classroom,” in Handbook of Educational Psychology (eds) Berliner D. C., Calfee R. C., editors. New York: Macmillan 841–873.
• White, F., Lloyd, H., Kennedy, G., & Stewart, C. (2005). An investigation of undergraduate students' feelings and attitudes towards group work and group assessment. Research and Development in Higher Education, 28, 616-623.
• Wichadee, S. (2007). The effect of cooperative learning on English reading skills and attitudes of the first-year students at Bangkok University. Presented at the conference of languages for specific purposes in Higher Education — Searching for Common Solutions organized by Brno University of Technology, Czech Republic. November, 29-30-2007.
• Williamson, V. M., & Rowe, M. W. (2002). Group Problem-solving versus lecture in college-level quantitative analysis: The Good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 1131-1134.
• Yazici, H. J. (2004). Student perceptions of collaborative learning in operations management classes. Journal of Education for Business, 80(2), 110-118.