DURUMLU ÖĞRENME YAKLAŞIMINA DAYALI EĞİTİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ ÖĞRETİMİ

Yıl 2017, , 276 - 298, 11.07.2017

Sevda Küçük

https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.285539

Öz

Öğretmenlerin eğitim ortamlarıyla teknolojiyi
bütünleştirebilmelerinde üniversitede aldıkları eğitimin rolü büyüktür. Üniversite eğitimi onların gelecekteki dersleriyle teknolojiyi nasıl
bütünleştireceklerini iyi bir şekilde öğrenmelerini sağlayacak nitelikte olmalıdır.
Bu doğrultuda üniversitelerdeki eğitim teknolojileri öğretimiyle öğretmen
adaylarının gelecekte gerçekleştirecekleri uygulamalar arasında bağlantılar
kurulması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada da gerçek hayat durumlarıyla eğitim
arasındaki bağlantının kurulmasına dayalı olan öğretim yöntemlerinden durumlu
öğrenme yaklaşımına odaklanılmıştır. Bu yaklaşım birçok eğitim alanında ve
öğretmen eğitiminde kullanılmış olup etkili bir öğretim modeli olarak kabul
görmüştür. Çalışmada fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının eğitim teknolojilerini
gelecekteki sınıflarıyla etkili bir şekilde bütünleştirmelerini sağlamaya
yönelik olarak durumlu öğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı öğretim tasarımı yapılmıştır.
Bu kapsamda 2015-2016 güz ve bahar dönemlerinde 65 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayına
eğitim teknolojileri öğretimi gerçekleştirilmiştir.  Öğretim tasarım süreci öğrenen, öğretim
programı ve uygulama süreci başlıkları altında detaylıca açıklanmıştır. Çalışma,
öğretim sürecini detaylı olarak sunması ve durum temelli yaklaşımın alan
yazında belirtilen bileşenlerinin eğitim teknolojileri öğretimine nasıl dayanak
oluşturabileceğini göstermesi açısından önemlidir. Çalışmanın gelecekteki uygulamalar
için yol gösterici olabileceği düşünülmektedir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

Durumlu öğrenme; eğitim teknolojileri; öğretmen adayları; öğretim tasarımı

Kaynakça

• Anderson, S., & Maninger, R. (2007). Preservice teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151-172.
• Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Influential factors on preservice teachers’ intentions to use ICT in future lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 170-178.
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
• Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33(3), 10-15.
• Choi, J.I. & M. Hannafin. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology & Research Development. 43(2),53-69.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993a). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993b). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper Series as a case study. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck and D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 9-36.
• Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468.
• Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. L. B. Resnick (Ed), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillside, New Jersey: Erlbaum. 283-305.
• Dickey, M. (2008). Integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a web-based educational technology course for P-12 teacher education. Computers & Education, 51, 506-518.
• Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Griffin, M. M. (1995). You can’t get there from here: Situated learning, transfer and map skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 65-87.
• Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.
• Hernandez-Ramos, P., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2004). Situating teacher education: from the university classroom to the “real” classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(3), 121-128.
• Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia. In J. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.), Learning with technology (pp. 235-262). Parkville, Vic: University of Melbourne.
• Hoekstra, A., Beijaard, D., Brekelmans, M., & Korthagen, F. (2007). Experienced teachers’ informal learning from classroom teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 189–206.
• Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp.87-108.
• Huang, K., Lubin, I.A., & Ge, X . (2011).Situated learning in an educational technology course for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 (2011), 1200-1212.
• Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliliklerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanımları açısından incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 397‐ 408.
• Kılıç, E. (2004). Durumlu öğrenme kuramının eğitimdeki yeri ve önemi. Gazi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 307-320.
• Korthagen, F. A. J. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 98-106.
• Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67-94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Liu, S. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by preservice teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 137-149.
• Lubin, I. A. (2005). A study comparing learning environments for teaching educational technology to preservice teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
• Lubin, I.A., & Ge, X. (2012). Investigating the influences of a LEAPS model on preservice teachers’ problem solving, metacognition, and motivation in an educational technology course. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 239–270.
• McLellan, H. (1991). Virtual environments and situated learning. Multimedia Review, 2(3), 30-37.
• McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment. Educational Technology, 33(3), 39-44.
• Pierson, M., & Cozart, A. (2004). Case studies of future teachers: Learning to teach with technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(2), 59–63.
• Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 573–618.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–2.
• Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D. ve Nelson, W.A. (2003). Development research: Studies of instructional design and development. D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2. Baskı) içinde (s.1099–1130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Seels, B.B., & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
• Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M. L., & Dickson, P. (2013). Teaching pre-service teachers to integrate technology: Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and Facebook. TechTrends 57(3) 20-25.
• So, H., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of educational technology, 25(1), 101–116.
• Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12-33.
• Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16-21.
• Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.