Important Physical Characteristics for Quality Teacher Education: The Delphi Study

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 23 - 33, 30.12.2017

Dürdane Lafcı-tor

https://doi.org/10.32433/eje.360591

Cited By: 1

Öz

The main purposes
of this study were to identify the essential characteristics of physical
environment to access quality teacher education and to discuss the importance
and role of these physical characteristics for effective and efficient teacher
education. A Delphi study with three phases was utilized as a research
methodology. In the first phase of the study, data was obtained by one open
ended question from 33 teacher candidates in four universities at Ankara and
content analysis was used to analysis data. Then, the questionnaire developed
according to the results of the first phase, was applied in two times in a one
month internal. Data obtained by the second and the third phases of the study
was analyzed by descriptive analysis and comparison between two applications
was presented. As a result of the study, technology, ambient environment of
the building and classrooms, the cleanliness of environment, the size of the
classrooms, furniture and materials, spaces for social and academic activity were
emerged as the most important physical characteristics and the importance and
role of these physical characteristics were discussed in the paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Delphi study, teacher education

Important Physical Characteristics for Quality Teacher Education: The Delphi Study

Öz

The main purposes
of this study were to identify the essential characteristics of physical
environment to access quality teacher education and to discuss the importance
and role of these physical characteristics for effective and efficient teacher
education. A Delphi study with three phases was utilized as a research
methodology. In the first phase of the study, data was obtained by one open
ended question from 33 teacher candidates in four universities at Ankara and
content analysis was used to analysis data. Then, the questionnaire developed
according to the results of the first phase, was applied in two times in a one
month internal. Data obtained by the second and the third phases of the study
was analyzed by descriptive analysis and comparison between two applications
was presented. As a result of the study, technology, ambient environment of
the building and classrooms, the cleanliness of environment, the size of the
classrooms, furniture and materials, spaces for social and academic activity were
emerged as the most important physical characteristics and the importance and
role of these physical characteristics were discussed in the paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Delphi study, teacher education

Kaynakça

• Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. Newyork, NY: Oxford University Press. Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision‐making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Globalisation & pedagogy: Space, place and identity. Canada: Routledge. Gee, L. (2006). Human-centered design guidelines. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Washington: EDUCAUSE. Gordon, T. & Lahelma, E. (1996). School is like an Ant’s Nest: Spatiality and embodiment in schools. Gender and Education, 8(3), 301-310. Graetz, K. A., & Goliber, M. J. (2002). Designing collaborative learning places: Psychological foundations and new Frontiers. In N.V.N. Chism & J. Deborah (Eds.), The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments: New directions in teaching and learning (92, pp.13-22). Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Jamieson, P. (2003). Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: a role for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1-2), 119-133.Jessop, T., Gubby, L., & Smith, A. (2011). Space frontiers for new pedagogies: a tale of constraints and possibilities. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 189–201. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.503270 King, H. (2000). The Academic library in the 21st Century - what need for physical space? Iatul Proceedings, 10. Retrieved from http://educate.lib.chalmers.se/IATUL/proceedcontents/ qutpap/king_full.html Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2009). Priorities in teacher education: The 7 key elements of preservice preparation. Oxford: Routledge. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Retrieved from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/index.html Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In , D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces (pp.12-15). Washington, DC: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/research-andpublications/books/learning-spaces Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks. Sage. Milne, A. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces. Washington: EDUCAUSE. Moore, G. T. (1987). The physical environment and cognitive development in child-care center. In C. S. Weinstein, & T. G. David (Eds), Spaces for children: the built environment and child development (pp. 41-72). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pellegrino, J. W., & Altman, J. E. (1995). Information technology and teacher preparation: Some critical issues and illustrative solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 89-121. Popenici, S. & Brew, A. (2013). Reading walls on university corridors: transitional learning spaces in campus. In M. Vicars & T. McKenna (Eds.), Discourse, power, and resistance (pp. 145- 156). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Quinton, S. (2006). A brief critique on the future of learning: Assessing the potential for research. In M. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: World views (p. 543- 578). Singapore: World Scientifc. Sanoff, H., Pasalar, C., & Hashas, M. (2001). School building assessment methods. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6(1), 1-21. Temple, P. (2007). Learning spaces for the 21st century: A review of the literature. Higher Education Academy, London. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/research/Learning_ spaces_v3.pdf Temple, P. (2009). From space to place: University performance and its built environment. Higher Education Policy, 22, 209–223. doi:10.1057/hep.2008.30 Temple, P. (Ed.). (2014). The physical university: Contours of space and place in higher Education. London: Routledge. Tor, D. (2015). Exploring physical environment as hidden curriculum in higher education: A grounded theory study (Unpublished PhD thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Uhl, J. O. (2007). The curriculum materials center: Library support for a teacher education program. Collection Building, 26(2), 44-47. Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp.16-27). Washington: EDUCAUSE. Walden, R. (2009). The school of the Future: Conditions and Processes - Contributions of Architectural Psychology. In R. Walden (Ed.), Schools for the future: Design proposals from Architectural Psychology (p. 75-122). Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Zeichner, K. (2008). Introduction: Setting for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. Mclntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing 13 contexts (p. 263-268). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Frances and the Association of Teacher Educators