AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ'NDE UYGULANAN UZMAN ÖĞRETMENLİK SERTİFİKASI PROGRAMININ FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN MESLEKİ GELİŞİMLERİNDEKİ ROLÜNÜN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, performans değerlendirme sistemine dayalı olan uzman öğretmenlik sertifika programına katılmanın, fen öğretmenleri için ne mana ifade ettiği konusunu inceledi. Dört tane tecrübeli uzman fen öğretmeni ile yapılan niteliksel araştırmanın sonuçları, uzmanlık sertifikası değerlendirme sürecinin öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerinde teyit edici bir rol oynadığını göstermiştir. Bundan, öğretmenlerin uzmanlık sertifika programını, fen öğretimi ile ilgili varolan düşünce ve yöntemlerine olan güvenlerini perçinlemiş bir şekilde tamamladıkları sonucuna ulaşabiliriz. Fakat, bu sonuç, öğretmenlerin fen öğretimi ile ilgili varolan düşünce ve uygulamalarının mutlaka fen eğitimindeki çağdaş reform hareketlerinde savunulan düşünceler ile uyumluluk gösterdiği anlamına gelmez. Bundan yapılabilecek çıkarım, uzmanlık sertifikası programına devam etmenin, bazı öğretmenlerin fen eğitimi reform dökümanlarında savunulan görüşlere olan yakınlıklarını arttırmaları için yeni açılımlar geliştirmelerine olanak sağlamak yerine fen öğretimindeki geleneksel düşüncelerin daha da güçlenmesini sağladığı şeklinde ifade edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uzman öğretmenlik sertifikası, uzman fen bilgisi öğretmenleri, öğretmen kalitesi, fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişimleri, performansa dayalı değerlendirme

Kaynakça

1. Beck, D.E., & Cowan, C.C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership, and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
2. Burroughs, R., Schwartz, T.A., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). Communities of practice and discourse communities: Negotiating boundaries in NBPTS certification. Teachers College Record, 102, 344-374.
3. Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
4. Chittenden, E., & Jones, J. (1997). An observational study of National Board candidates as they progress through the certification process. In K. Kowalski, E. Chittenden, W. Spicer, J. Jones, & C. Tocci, Professional development in the context of National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification: Implications beyond certification (pp. 14-31). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
5. Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
7. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999a). Reshaping teaching policy, preparation, and practice: Influences of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999b). Professional development for teachers: Setting the stage for learning from teaching. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching & Learning.

9. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Teacher testing and the improvement of practice. Teaching Education, 12, 11-34.
10. Delandshere, G., & Arens, S.A. (2001). Representations of teaching and standards-based reform: Are we closing the debate about teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 547-566.
11. Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the standards-based reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1-15.
12. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Gadamer, H.G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D.G. Marshall, Trans.). New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Corp.
14. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher quality and student achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477271).
15. Goldhaber, D., Perry, D., & Anthony, E. (2003). NBPTS certification: Who applies and what factors are associated with success? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED475841).
16. Guba, E.G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E.G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp.17-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
17. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
18. Hallinan, M.T., & Khmelkov, V.T. (2001). Recent developments in teacher education in the United States of America. Journal of Education for Teaching, 27, 175-185.
19. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close the gap. Thinking K-16, 3, 1-14. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457260).
20. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
21. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. assessment and
22. Johnson, W.R. (1987). Empowering practitioners: Holmes, Carnegie, and the lessons of history. History of Education Quarterly, 27, 221-240.
23. Keiffer-Barone, S., Mulvaney, C., Hillman, C., & Parker, M. (1999). Toward a professional development community: A descriptive study of the experiences of National Board candidates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Spring Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, Cincinnati, OH.
24. King Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
25. 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, 77-97.
26. Lustick, D. (2002). National Board Certification as professional development: A study that identifies a framework and findings of teachers learning to manage complexity, uncertainty, and community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
27. Lustick, D., & Sykes, G. (2006). National board certification as professional development: What are teachers learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14, 1-46.
28. Milanowski, A., Odden, A., & Youngs, P. (1998). Teacher knowledge and skill assessments and teacher compensation: An overview of measurement and linkage issues. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 83-101.
29. Kelley, C., & Kimball, S.M. (2001). Financial incentives for National Board Certification. Educational Policy, 15, 547-574.
30. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
31. Mitchell, K.J., Robinson, D.Z., Plake, B.S., & Knowles, K.T. (2001). Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1989). Toward high and rigorous standards for the teaching profession. Detroit, MI: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
33. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2003a). A candidate’s guide to National Board Certification 2003-04. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association.
34. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2003b). Adolescence and young adulthood science standards (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
35. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved June 04, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
36. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
37. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
38. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
39. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
42. Pool, J.E., Ellett, C.D., Schiavone, S., & Carey-Lewis, C. (2001). How valid are the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards assessments for predicting the quality of actual classroom teaching and learning? Results of six mini case studies. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 31-48.
43. Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.
44. Schacter, J. (2001). Teacher performance-based accountability: Why, what and how. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation.
45. Shaker, P. (2001). Teacher testing: A symptom. Teaching Education, 12, 65- 80.
46. Vandevoort, L.G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D.C. (2004). National Board certified teachers and their students’ achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 1-117.
47. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
48. Wilber, K. (1997). The eye of spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc.