Ekonomi Eğitiminde Öğrenme Güçlüklerinin Belirlenmesi: Mikro Ölçekli Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, birçok öğrencinin daha önce ekonomi eğitimi almadığı İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi'nde Ekonomi I dersine kayıtlı birinci sınıf lisans öğrencilerinin karşılaştığı öğrenme zorluklarını incelemektedir. Belirli zorlukları tespit etmek amacıyla, 2023-2024 akademik yılının güz döneminde 147 öğrenciye bir anket ve zorluk indeksi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin talep esnekliği, arz eğrileri, tekel ve oligopol teorisi gibi konuları özellikle zor bulduklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, temel tanımlar ve ekonomik analiz gibi konular da öğrenciler tarafından zorlayıcı olarak algılanmıştır. Bulgular, öğrencilerin ekonomik kavramlar, grafiksel gösterimler konusunda zorlandığını ve geliştirilmiş matematiksel becerilere ihtiyaç duyduğunu ortaya koyarak mevcut literatürle uyum göstermektedir. Öneriler arasında, ekonomik simülasyonların geliştirilmesi, pratik örnekler ve özel olarak hazırlanmış ödevler yer almakta olup, bu yöntemlerin öğrencilerin kavrayışını ve katılımını artırabileceği belirtilmiştir. Bu araştırma, ekonomi alanında öğrenci anlayışını ve ilgisini artırmak için hedefe yönelik öğretim stratejilerinin gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir eğitim
• iktisat eğitimi
• eğitim analizi

Determining Learning Difficulties in Economics Education: A MicroScale Analysis

Öz

This study examines the learning difficulties encountered by first-year undergraduate students enrolled in the Introduction to Economics I course at İzmir Democracy University, where many students lack prior economics education. To identify specific challenges, a survey and difficulty index were administered to 147 students during the fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. Results indicated that students found several topics particularly difficult, including price elasticity of demand, supply curves, monopolies, and oligopoly theory. Additional topics, such as fundamental definitions and economic analysis, were also perceived as challenging. The findings align with existing literature, revealing that students struggle with economic concepts, graphical representations, and require enhanced mathematical skills. Recommendations include the development of economic simulations, practical examples, and tailored assignments to improve comprehension and engagement. This research underscores the need for targeted instructional strategies to enhance student understanding and interest in economics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable education
• economics education
• education analysis

Kaynakça

1. Aduloju M.O., Kpum M.M. (2019). Item analysis and reliability of multiple-choice items of physics teacher-made test in Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Benue State. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 139-151.
2. Altunöz, U. (2013). Egemen Neoklasik İktisata Eleştirisel Yaklaşım: Post Otistik İktisat ve 2008 Küresel Krizinin Post Otistik Analizi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(29), 14-22.
3. Ausubel D.P., Novak J.D., Hanesian H. (1978). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
4. Baafi R. K. A. (2020). School physical environment and student academic performance. Advances in Physical Education, 10, 121-137.
5. Bahar M. (2001) Students’ Learning Difficulties in Biology: Reasons and Solutions. European Conference on Educational Research, Lille, France.
6. Bahar M., Johnstone A.H., Hansell M H. (1999) Revisiting Learning Difficulties in Biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33 (2), 84-86.
7. Caldwell B.S. (1992). Human factors and educational quality. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting 36(6), 548-552.
8. Cheang Q.B., Hasni Z. (1998). Analisis Item dan Pembinaan Ujian – Satu Perbandingan antara Pendekatan Rujukan Norma dan Rujukan Kriteria. Jurnal Pendidikan Tigaenf, 2(2), 112-120.

9. Chen C. (2008). Why Do Teachers Not Practice What They Believe Regarding Technology Integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.
10. Chizmar J.F., Walbert M.S. (1999). Web-based Learning Environments Guided by Principles of Good Teaching Practice. The Journal of Economic Education, 30 (3), 27-30.
11. Cimer A. (2012). What Makes Biology Learning Difficult and Effective: Students’ Views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61–71.
12. Crocker L., Algina J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
13. Daniel E.L. (2000). A Review of Time-Shortened Courses across Disciplines. College Student Journal 34 (1), 298-306.
14. Fauzia A., Rosyidaa A. M., Miftachur R., Khoiroha D. (2021). The difficulty index of biology topics in Indonesian Senior High School: Biology undergraduate students’ perspectives. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 7 (2), 149-158.
15. Friedman P., Rodriguez F., McComb J. (2001). Why Students Do and Do Not Attend Classes: Myths and Realities. College Teaching 49 (4) 124–33.
16. Green T.L. (2013). Teaching (un) sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of introductory economics. Ecological Economics, 94 (1), 135-142.
17. Greenlaw S.A. (1999). Using Groupware to Enhance Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 30 (1), 2336-2350.
18. Henricks G., Perry M., Suma B. (2021). Gender and Gendered Discourse in Two Online Science College Courses. Computer-Based Learning in Context, 3 (1), 1-16.
19. Hotiu A. (2006). The relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in multiple-choice tests in a physical science course. Florida Atlantic university, Florida.
20. Johnstone A.H. (1993). The Development of Chemistry Teaching–A Changing Response to Changing Demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (1), 701-705.
21. Johnstone A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7 (1), 75-83.
22. Johnstone A.H., Mahmoud A.N. (1980). Isolating Topics of High Perceived Difficulty in School Biology. Journal of Biological Education, 14 (2), 163-166.
23. Johnstone, A. H., Macdonald J. J., Webb. D. G. (1977). Chemical Equilibrium and Its Conceptual Difficulties. Education in Chemistry, 14 (6), 58-68.
24. Jones K. (1998). Simulations as Examinations. Simulation &Gaming, 29(3), 331–341.
25. Karimah U., Retnawati H, Hadiana D.P., Yusron E. (2021). The characteristics of chemistry test items on nationally-standardized school examination in Yogyakarta City. Research and Evaluation in Education, 7(1),1-12.
26. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. https://www.fullerton.edu/cice/_resources/pdfs/sl_documents/Experiential%20Learning%20-%20Experience%20As%20The%20Source%20Of%20Learning%20and%20Development.pdf
27. McLaughlin J.C. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 77 (1), 1-8.
28. Missildine K., Fountain R., Summers L., Gosselin K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education, 52 (1), 597- 599.
29. Okoye R.O., Ndubuzor J.N. (2021). Empirical Analysis of Item Difficulty and Discrimination Indices of National Business and Technical Examination Board (Nabteb) Economics Essay Test Items from 2013-2015. International Journal of Education and Social Science Research, 4 (2), 23-28.
30. Özçelik, Ö., & Özcan, S. E. (2017). Lisans Seviyesinde İktisat Eğitiminde Temel Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri. Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(5), 192-202.
31. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. https://engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1smSpn4AiHSh8z7a0MHDBwhb_JhcoLQmI/2004-Prince_AL.pdf
32. Saud M.S., Foong L.M. (2006). Visualization skills: High level cognitive skills in technical and vocational education. National Seminar on Technical and Vocational Education, 22 (1), 1-12.
33. Schumann P.W., McGoldrick K., Burrus R.T. (2005). Student quantitative literacy: Importance, measurement, and correlation with economic literacy. The American Economist, 49 (1), 49-65.
34. Suruchi S., Rana S.R. (2014). Test item analysis and relationship between difficulty level and discrimination of test items in an achievement test in Biology. Paripex-Indian Journal of Research, 3(6), 56-58.
35. Sütcü, İ. (2014). İktisat Eğitiminin Temel Sorunlari ve Çözüm Önerileri: Adiyaman Ünivesitesi Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Ejovoc (Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges), 4(1), 110-122. https://doi.org/10.17343/ejovoc.30740
36. Thorndike R.L., Hagen E.P. (1977). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: John Wiley & Sons Press.
37. Tuckman B.W. (1998). Using Tests as an Incentive to Motivate Procrastinators to Study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 66 (2), 141-148.
38. Tuncsiper B., Surekci D. (2012). İktisada Giriş Derslerinde Ögrencilerin Ögrenme Güçlüklerinin Belirlenmesi. Discussion Paper, No. 2012/44, Turkish Economic Association, Ankara.
39. UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://www.sdg4education2030.org/education-sustainable-development-goals-learning-objectives-unesco-2017
40. United Nations Inter-Agency Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. (2015) Results of the list of indicators reviewed at the second IAEG-SDG meeting. New York, NY: United Nations Statistics Division. [cited 2016 May 27] Available from: http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/meetings/iaeg-sdgs-meeting-02/Outcomes/Agenda%20Item%204%20-%20Review%20of%20proposed%20indicators%20-%202%20Nov%202015.pdf.
41. Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship Between Education and Sustainable Development, 1(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820700100209. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/097340820700100209