Farklılaştırılmıs Ögretim Araştırmalarının Eğilimi: Bibliyometrik ve İçerik Analizi

Abstract

Toplumların eğitim ile ilgili temel amaçlardan biri şüphesiz ki her bireyin uyum içerisinde hayata katılmasına ve topluma katkıda bulunmasını saglamaktır. Toplumun çok yönlülüğünün göz ardı edilmesi de bu çeşitliliğin dezavantaja dönüşmesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu durumda öğrencilerin bireysel farklılıklarının gözetilmesi, öğrencilerin kendi ilgi ve ihtiyaçlarının ön planda tutulması bireyin topluma uyumu ve bireysel gelişimi adına oldukça önemlidir. Buna yönelik olarak farklılaştırılmış öğretimin amacı ise tüm öğrencilere maksimum düzeyde öğrenme fırsatı sunarak öğretmen, öğrenciler ve diğer paydaşlar için bu zorlukları ortadan kaldırmaktır. Bu çalışma ile günümüzde önemi giderek artan farklılaştırılmış öğretim hakkında yapılan çalışmaları inceleyerek konu ile ilgili eğilimleri belirlemek ve genel bir çerçeve oluşturmak amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaçla Web of Science, YÖK Tez, Sobiad, DergiPark ve TR Dizin veri tabanlarında yayımlanan toplam 1,222 farklılaştırılmış öğretim konulu bilimsel araştırmaların incelemelerinde, bibliyometrik yöntem ve doküman analiz yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Bulgulara göre en çok atıf yapılan anahtar kelimeler sırasıyla farklılaştırılmış öğretim, ortaöğretim, kaynaştırma, öğretmenler/öğretmen adayları, ilköğretim şeklindedir. Bahsedilen veri tabanlarında 1981-2021 yılları arasında farklılaştırılmış öğretim konulu çalışmaların araştırma eğilimlerinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Web of Science veri tabanındaki makalelerin çözümlenmesinden elde edilen bulgulara göre 1981 yılından bu yana, en fazla 2019 yılında çalışmanın yayımlandığı, en fazla atıfın 2021 yılında yapıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Farklılaştırılmış öğretim konusunda en sık nicel yöntem, yarı deneysel desen, tutum ve algı testlerinin sıklıkla kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları doğrultusunda boyutlarla ilgili bulgular ilgili alan yazın ışığında tartışılmıştır ve ileriki araştırmalara yönelik bazı öneriler sunulmuştur.

The Trend of Differentiated Instruction Research: Bibliometric and Content Analysis

Abstract

Unquestionably, one of the primary purposes of education in societies with several facets is to ensure that each individual participates in life in harmony and contributes to society. Ignoring the adaptability of society also causes this variety to deteriorate into a disadvantage. In this situation, it is crucial to consider the unique differences of the students, keeping the students' personal interests and needs in the foreground for the sake of social adaptation and individual growth. Consequently, the objective of differentiated instruction is to reduce these challenges for the instructor, students, and other stakeholders by offering learning opportunities to all students in a maximum level. Examining the studies on differentiated instruction, the significance of which is steadily growing today, the purpose of this study is to determine the subject's current trends and to establish a broad framework. To this end, the bibliometric method and the document analysis method were applied to the assessments of scientific research published in the Web of Science, YOK Thesis, Sobiad, DergiPark, and TR Index databases on a total of 1,222 diverse instructional themes. The presentation of findings is presented with bibliometric maps, tables, graphs, and figures. According to the results of an analysis of the publications in the Web of Science database, the majority of research was published in 2019 and the majority of citations were produced in 2021. In accordance with the study findings, the dimensions findings were analyzed in light of the related literature, and ideas for further research were provided.

Keywords

• Differentiated teaching
• Bibliometric analysis
• Content analysis
• Literature-based review
• VOS viewer.

References

1. Abbant, D. G. (2012). Differentiated instruction: Understanding the personal factors and organizational conditions that facilitate differentiated instruction in elementary mathematics classrooms [Doctoral Dissertations]. University of California.
2. Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: What and how. Reading Horizons, 48 (1), 133-146.
3. Al, U., & Tonta, Y. (2004). Citation analysis: The cited sources in the theses of the Department of Librarianship of Hacettepe University. Information World, 5(1), 19-47. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2004.497
4. Altınpulluk, H. (2018). Examination of the theses prepared about augmented reality in Turkey by bibliometric analysis method. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 8(1), 248-272. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.337347
5. Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49-54. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54
6. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009) Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: an introductory overview. Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics 9(1), 230–241.
7. Bender, W. N., & Waller, L. (2011). The teaching revolution: RTI, technology, and differentiation transform teaching for the 21st century (5d ed.). Corwin Press.
8. Buheji, M., ve Ahmed, D. (2020). Foresight of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Opportunities for a Better World, 10(2), 97-108.

9. Bush, G. (2006). Differentiated instruction. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 23(3), 43-45.
10. Buyukozturk, S., Kılıc Cakmak, E., Akgu, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2020). Egitimde Bilimsel Arastırma Yontemleri [Scientific Research Methods] Pegem Akademi.
11. Chen, Y. H. (2007). Exploring the assessment aspect of differentiated instruction: college EFL learners’ perspectives on tiered performance tasks (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), The University of New Orleans.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Karma Yontem Arastırmaları: Tasarımı ve Yurutulmesi (Cev. Ed. Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir). [Mixed Method Research: Design and Execution] (2nd ed.). Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara.
13. Cristensen, L. B, Jhonsen, L. B., & Turner, L. A. (2020). Research methods design and analysis (3rd ed. Ed; Aypay, A.) Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara
14. Coban, H. (2022). Differentiated instruction: Bibliometric map of literature. MANAS Journal of Social Research, 11(1), 46-62 . https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.869766
15. Demos, S. E., & Foshay, J. (2009). Differentiated instruction: Using a case study. The NERA Journal, 44(2), 26-30.
16. Erdogan, T., & Senemoglu, N. (2014). Problem-based learning teacher education: Views on its promises and challenges. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 (3), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.240
17. Ericson, C. (2010). Differentiated instruction: Applying the work of C. A. Tomlinson in the primary literacy classroom [Master’s Thesis]. The University of Victoria.
18. Effendi, D. N., Irwandani, Anggraini, W., Jatmiko, A., Rahmayanti, H., Ichsan, I. Z., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of scientific literacy using VOS viewer: Analysis of science education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1796,1-11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012096
19. Fanjul, N. J., Machado, A., & Lopez, R. B. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of the mathematics education journals in the SSCI. International Journal of Research In Social Sciences, 2(3), 26-32. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/20204
20. Fiore, T., & Cook, R. (1994). Adopting textbooks and other instructional materials. Remedial and Special Education, 15(6), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259401500603
21. George, P. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_2
22. Good, M. E. (2006). Differentiated instruction: Principles and techniques for the elementary grades [Master’s Thesis]. California University.
23. Goktas, Y., Kucuk, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, O., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoglu, İ. (2012). Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 191-196.
24. Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2020). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all ([Farklılastırılmıs ogretim stratejileri: Tek beden herkese uymuyor]3rd Ed.) (Trans. Sozer, M.A.). Pegem Akademi.
25. Guclu Nergiz, H. (2014). Bibliometric profile of graduate tourism theses in Turkey (1990-2013). VII. Postgraduate Tourism Students Research Congress, 4(5), 212-221.
26. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2002). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. NCAC Effective Classroom Practices, 7(3), 2-22.
27. Haughton, V. V. (2015). The effect of differentiated instruction on the achievement of low-performing fifth-grade students of low socioeconomic status [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.
28. Karakas, E. (2019). Reflections from the teaching process organized in accordance with the differentiated instruction approach in elementary mathematics course. Master's Thesis, Trabzon University, Trabzon.
29. Law, R., & Cheung, P. (2008). An analysis of publications in leading tourism journals and its implications. Journal of China Tourism Research, 4(1), 78-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160802099840
30. Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 34-62.
31. Luis Ortega, J., & Aguillo, F. I. (2013) Institutional and country collaboration in online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
32. Mcgarvey, B., Marriott, S. Morgan, V., & Abbott, L. (1997). The role of the core subject coordinator in supporting differentiation in Northern Ireland primary schools. School Leadership and Management, 17(3), 375-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439769926
33. Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Roeper Review,18(4), 263-269. Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the curriculum (6nd ed.). Harper Collins.
34. Orbay, M., Karamustafaoglu, O., & Miranda, R. (2021). Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category. Education Information, 37, 315-336. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-200442
35. Ozmen, E., & Ulku-Kan, A. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of theses on distance education in Turkey between 2015-2020. Turkish Studies–Education, 16(4), 2005-2027. http://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.51788
36. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitatıve Research and Evalution Methods (Cev, Butun, M. & Demir, S.B.). Pegem Akademi.
37. Ricciardi, C., Haag-Wolf, A., & Winsler, A. (2020). Factors associated with gifted identification for ethnically diverse children in poverty. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220937685
38. Richards, M.R.E. & Omdal, S. N. (2007). Effects of Tiered Instruction on Academic Performance in a Secondary Science Course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3),424-456. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-499
39. Roberts, J. L., & Inman, T. F. (2007). Strategıes for differentiating instruction best practices for the classroom (3.nd ed.). Inman Prufrock.
40. Sak, U. (2011). Ustun yetenekliler egitim programları modeli (UYEP) ve sosyal gecerligi. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 213-229.
41. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2006). International preference, co-authorship, references and citations. Dec. Scientometrics 69, 409-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0160-7
42. Soler-Costa, R., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., López-Belmonte, J., & Marín-Marín, J.-A. (2021). Co-word analysis and academic performance of the term TPACK in Web of Science. Sustainability, 13(3), 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031481
43. Sonmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. G. (2018). Orneklendirilmis Bilimsel Arastırma Yontemleri [Exemplified Scientific Research Methods ] (8nd ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
44. Springer, R., Pugalee, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Improving mathematics skills of high school students. The Clearing House, 81(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.1.37-44
45. Staruss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3d ed.). Sage Pub.
46. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999a). Educational leadership. Personalized Learning, 57(1), 12-16.
47. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999b). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (12nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
48. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49. Tomlinson, C.A., (2007). Differentiated Education According to Student Requirements. SEV Printing and Publishing.
50. Toy, B. Y., & Tosunoglu, N. G. (2007). The Scientific Research Process, Statistical Techniques and Mistakes Made in Research in the Field of Social Sciences. Journal of Faculty of Commerce and Tourism Education, 1(20.), 1-20.
51. Url-1. https://vu.nl/nl
52. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
53. VanTassel-Baska, J., Hubbard, G. F., & Robbins, J. I. (2020). Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. Roeper Review, 42(3), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1765919
54. WHO. (2020). Covid19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Situation Report, 72. World Health Organization. https://pers.droneemprit.id/covid19/
55. Winthrop, R. (2020). Top 10 risks and opportunities for education in the face of COVID-19. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/education-plus-development/2020/04/10/top-10-risks-andopportunities-for-education-in-the-face-of-covid-19/
56. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences.] (12nd ed.). Seckin Pub.
57. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (8nd ed.). Sage.
58. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
59. Zurita, G., Merigó, J. M., & Lobos-Ossandón, V. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of journals in educational research. In the Proceedings of the World Engineering Congress, (1), 403-408. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.672517