The Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Course on Pre-service Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of Instructional Technologies and Material Design (ITMD) course on pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitudes, efficacy beliefs about using concrete materials, and their opinions regarding the material preparation process. A total of 73 pre-service teachers were participated in this study. The scale developed by Bakkaloglu was used to determine efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers about using concrete materials, and the attitudes scale developed by Cetin, Bagceci, Kinay and Simsek was used to determine the attitudes towards ITMD course. A written form was also used to reveal the opinions of pre-service teachers regarding the material preparation process. The qualitative data collected from 16 pre-service teachers was analyzed with the MAXQDA. Using content analysis, codes and themes were created separately by the researchers and analyzed through several iterations. As a result of this study, positive changes were found in the attitudes and efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers. The results obtained from the opinions of the pre-service teachers support this positive change. In other words, it is possible to argue that the attitudes of pre-service teachers towards the material development process changed positively with the positive change in the efficacy beliefs about preparing materials after taking the ITMD course.

Keywords

• ITMD course,attitude,beliefs,concrete materials,pre-service mathematics teacher

Kaynakça

1. Acer, D. (2011). A study on the viewpoints of preschool pre-service teachers on design of instructional materials course. Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 421-429.
2. Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students’ experience in the classroom.Computers and Education, 47(1), 116-126.
3. Aydin-Unal, Z., & Ipek, A. S. (2009). Gercekci Matematik Egitiminin Ilkogretim 7.Sinif Ogrencilerinin Tam Sayilarla Carpma Konusundaki Basarilarina Etkisi [The effect of realistic mathematics education on 7th grade students’ achievements in multiplication of integers]. Education and Science, 34(152), 60-70.
4. Aydogdu-Iskenderoglu, T., & Taskin, D. (2015). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeniadaylarinin ozel ogretim yontemleri dersinde somut materyalleri secme ve kullanma nedenleri [Reasons of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ selecting and using concrete manipulatives in special teaching methods course]. Journal of Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, (25), 215-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.635
5. Aydogdu-Iskenderoglu, T., Turk, T., & Iskenderoglu, M. (2016). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeni adaylarinin somut materyalleri tanima-kullanma durumlari ve matematik ogretiminde kullanmalarina yonelik oz-yeterlikleri [Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ awareness of ability to use concrete materials and their self-efficacy in the usage thereof in mathematics education]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (39), 1-15.
6. Bakac, E., & Ozen, R. (2016). Ogretmen adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarimi dersine yonelik tutumlari, yaraticilik algilari ve oz-yeterlik inanclari arasindaki iliski [The relationship between preservice teachers’ attitudes towards instructional technology and material design course, creativity perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs]. Journal of Abant Izzet Baysal University Faculty of Education, 16(1), 41- 61.
7. Bakkaloglu, E. (2007). Preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ efficacy beliefs about using manipulatives in teaching mathematics (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

9. Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(1), 1–6.
10. Bozkurt, A. & Akalin, S. (2010). Matematik ogretiminde material gelistirmenin ve kullaniminin yeri, onemi ve bu konuda ogretmenin rolu [The importance of material development and use in mathematics education and the role of the teacher]. Dumlupinar University Journal of Education, (27), 47-56.
11. Bulut, S. (2004). Ilkogretim programi yeni yaklasimlar matematik (1-5 sinif) [Elementary curriculum new approaches mathematics 1-5 grade]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education Publications.
12. Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Sosyal bilimler icin very analizi el kitabi [A booklet of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara, Turkey: PegemA.
13. Cabi, E., & Ergun, E. (2016). Ogretmen adaylarinin egitim teknolojilerinin kullanimina yonelik kaygilari uzerine boylamsal bir calisma [The impact of instructional technologies and material development course on the pre-service teachers’ concern about using educational technologies]. Baskent University Journal of Education, 3(1), 37-43.
14. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084.
15. Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 112-12.
16. Cenberci, S., &Yavuz, A. (2018). The correlation between the creative thinking tendency of mathematics pre-service teachers and their attitudes towards instructional technologies and material design lesson. World Journal of Education, 8(3), 95-106.
17. Cetin, B., Bagceci, B., Kinay, I., & Simsek, O. (2013). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersine yonelik tutum olceginin(OTMTDYTO) gelistirilmesi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [Development of attitudes towards instructional technologies and material development course scale (ATITMDCS): a study of validity and reliability]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(2), 697-713.
18. Ciftci K., Yildiz P., & Bozkurt E. (2015). Ortaokul matematik ogretmenlerinin material kullanimina iliskin gorusleri [Middle school mathematics teachers’ opinions about using material]. Journal of Educational Policy Analysis, 4(1), 79-89.
19. Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking concrete manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279.
20. Dienes, Z. P. (1973). Mathematics through the senses, games, dance, and art. Windsor, UK: The National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing Company Ltd.
21. Erbas, A. K., Kertil, M., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., Alacaci, C., & Bas, S. (2014). Mathematical modeling in mathematics education: Basic concepts and different approaches. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1-21.
22. Gokmen, A., Budak, A., & Ertekin, E. (2016). Ilkogretim ogretmenlerinin matematik ogretiminde somut materyal kullanmaya yonelik inanclari ve sonuc beklentileri [Elementary teachers’ beliefs about using manipulatives and outcome expectations in teaching mathematics]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1213-1228.
23. Gunduz, S., & Odabasi, F. (2004). Bilgi caginda ogretmen adaylarinin egitiminde Ogretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Gelistirme dersinin onemi [The importance of instructional technologies and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43-48.
24. Gunes G., & Iskenderoglu T. A. (2014). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeni adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersine yonelik yaklasimlari [Attitudes of pre-service primary school mathematics teachers towards instructional technologies and material design lesson]. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Education, 34(3), 469-488.
25. Gurbuz, R. (2010). The effect of activity-based instruction on conceptual development of seventh grade students in probability. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(6), 743–767.
26. Guven, S. (2006). Ogretimteknolojilerivemateryalgelistirmedersininkazandirdigiyeterlikleryonundendegerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of teaching technologies and materials development course in terms of competencies it provides]. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 165-179.
27. Higher Education Council. (2018). Ogretmen Yetistirme Lisans Programlari, Egitim-Ogretim Dairesi Baskanligi [Teacher education programs, Department for teaching and learning]. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.
28. Johson, G., & Howell, A. (2005). Attitude toward instructional technology following required versus optional webct usage. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 643-654.
29. Isiksal, M. (2010). The relationship among mathematics teaching efficacy, math anxiety and mathematical self-concept. The case of Turkish pre-service elementary teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 501-514.
30. Karatas, S., & Yapici, M. (2006). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material gelistirme dersinin islenisi ve uygulama ornekleri [The process and application samples of teaching technologies and material development]. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 311-325.
31. Kelly, A. C. (2006). Using manipulatives in mathematical problem solving: a performance- based analysis. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(2), 184-193.
32. Kul, U. (2018). Influences of technology integrated professional development course on mathematics teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.233
33. Kul, U., Aksu, Z., & Birisci, S. (2019). The relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge and Web 2.0 self-efficacy beliefs. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(1), 198-213.
34. Kul, U., Celik, S., & Aksu, Z. (2018). The impact of educational material use on mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 303-324.
35. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625.
37. Ministry of National Education. (2018). 1-8 Matematik dersi ogretim programi [1-8 Grade Mathematics curriculum]. Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
38. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathe­matics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
41. Piskin-Tunc, M., Durmus, S., & Akkaya, R. (2012). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmen adaylarinin matematik ogretiminde somut materyalleri ve sanal ogrenme nesnelerini kullanma yeterlikleri [Competence of elementary mathematics pre-service teachers to use concrete materials and virtual learning objects in mathematics teaching]. Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 13-20.
42. Saka, A. Z., & Saka, A. (2005). Ogretmen adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve material gelistirme dersinde mesleki becerilerini gelistirme duzeyi: Sakarya ornegi [The level of pre-service teachers’ professional skills development in instructional technologies and material development course: The case of Sakarya]. Journal of Sakarya University Faculty of Education, (10), 81-177.
43. Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88-100.
44. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burn put: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
45. Umay, A. (2001). Effect of primary school mathematics teacher’s program on mathematics self-efficacy perception. Journal of Qafqaz University, 8(1), 1-8.
46. Unlu, M. (2017). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ views about using instructional materials in mathematics lessons. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(1), 10-34.
47. Unlu, M. (2018). Effect of micro-teaching practices with concrete models on pre-service mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about using concrete models. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(1), 68-82.
48. Uzunoz, A., Aktepe, V., & Gunduz, M. (2017). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersinin, mesleki acidan kazandirdiklarina iliskin ogretmen adaylarinin gorusleri: Nitel bir calisma [Candidate teachers’ views on professional achievements in instructional technologies and material design a qualitative study]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 317-339.
49. Yetkin-Ozdemir, E. (2008). Sinif ogretmeni adaylarinin matematik ogretiminde materyal kullanimina iliskin bilissel becerileri [Prospective elementary teachers’ cognitive skills on using manipulatives in teaching mathematics]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(35), 362-373.
50. Yildirim, A., Ozgurluk, B., Parlak, B., Gonen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri on raporu 4. ve 8. Siniflar [TIMSS 2015 National Mathematics and Science preliminary report 4th and 8th grades]. Retrieved from https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_06/23161945_timss_2015_on_raporu.pdf