Öğrenci Başarısını Etkileyen Teori ve Yaklaşımlar Üzerine Yapılan Araştırmalar: 1990-2011

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrenci başarısını etkilediği düşünülen yeni yaklaşım ve teoriler üzerine yapılan araştırmaların içeriğini incelemektir. Bu amaçla Türkiye’de eğitim alanında tanınmış dergilerde yayınlanan toplam 69 çalışma incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları, Türkiye’de öğrenci başarısı üzerine en yaygın çalışılan yaklaşım ve teorilerin çoklu zekâ teorisi, teknoloji temelli teoriler ve yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. İncelenen çalışmaların çoğunluğunun deneysel araştırma desenine sahip olduğu ve bu çalışmalarda deneysel gruplar lehine anlamlı farklılık bulunduğu gözlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda, elde edilen bulgular tartışılmış ve bazı önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitimde yeni eğilimler, eğitim araştırmaları, öğretim yaklaşımları, öğrenci başarısı

A Review of Research on Educational Theories and Approaches Affecting Students Achievement: 1990-2011

Abstract

The present study aims to analyze the contents of the current research on the theories and approaches affecting student achievement in Turkish context. A total of 69 studies published in well-known Turkish journals in education were reviewed. The results of the study showed that the most frequently studied theories and approaches in Turkey in relation to student achievement/outcome were Multiple Intelligences theory, Technology-based theories and approaches, and Constructivism. The majority of reviewed studies used experimental design and found a significant mean difference in favor of experimental group. At the end of the study, the results were discussed and necessary implications and suggestions were made.

Keywords

• New trends in education, educational research, instructional approaches, student outcome.

Kaynakça

1. Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 129-137.
2. Alexander, S. &Boud, D. (2001). Learners still learn from experience when online. In Stephenson, J. Teaching and learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies (pp. 4-5) US: Routledge.
3. Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. (2 nd ed.) Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
4. Babadoğan, C. & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on 25 th March, 2009 on http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
5. Bıkmaz, F. (2006). New elementary curricula and teachers. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(1), 97-116.
6. Boud, D. & Prosser, M. (2002). Appraising new technologies for learning: A framework for development. Educational Media International, 39(3), 237-245.
7. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009).Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
8. Brown, L., &Iyengar, S. (2008). Parenting styles: The impact on student achievement. Marriage and Family Review, 43(1-2), 14-38.

9. Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 203-212.
10. Bümen, T. N. (2004). Okulda çoklu zekâ kuramı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
11. Campbell, L. & Campbell, B. (1999). Multiple intelligences and students achievement: Success stories from six schools. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
12. Carrier, M. (2006). Technology in the future language classroom: Possibilities and probabilities. Modern English Teacher, 15(4), 5-11.
13. Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Deborah, G. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(3), 178-206.
14. Christison, M. A. & Deborah, K. (1999). Multiple intelligences: Theory and practice in adult ESL. Washington DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED441350).
15. Clark, C. M. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teaching thinking. Educational Researcher, 17, 5-12.
16. Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
17. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000).Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-50.
18. Demirel, Ö. (2002). Planlamadan değerlendirmeye öğretme sanatı.(4 th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
19. Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 1-30.
20. Erdem, E. & Demirel, Ö. (2002). Program gelistirmede yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 81–87.
21. Fidan, N. (2003). Okulda ögrenme- ögretme. Ankara: Alkım Yayıncılık.
22. Fletcher, J. D. (2003). Evidence for learning from technology-assisted instruction. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr, R. S. Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view. (pp. 79-100). US: Lawrence Erlbaum Publications
23. Fraenkel. J. R. & Wallen. N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
24. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
25. Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
26. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer,D . J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-146.
27. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement.Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
29. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
30. Harisch, D. L. (1987). Characteristics associated with effective public high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 233-241.
31. HEC & World Bank (1999). Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitiminde standartlar ve akreditasyon. Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi, Ankara: Öğretmen Eğitimi Dizisi.
32. HEC (1998). Eğitim fakültelerinin öğretmen yetiştirme programlarının yeniden düzenlenmesi, Ankara: Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Yayını.
33. HEC (2007). Öğretmen yetiştirme ve eğitim fakülteleri (1982-2007): Öğretmenin üniversitede yetiştirilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Yayını.
34. Henderson, A. (1987). The evidence continues to grow: Parent involvement improves student achievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
35. Heyneman, S. P. (2005). Student background and student achievement: What is the right question? American Journal of Education, 112(1), 1-9.
36. Horzum, M. B. & Alper, A. (2006). The effect of case based learning model, cognitive style and gender to the student achievement in science courses. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(2), 151-175.
37. Koç, Y., Işıksal, M. & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8(1), 30-39.
38. Koutselini, M. (1997). Contemporary trends and perspectives of the curricula: Towards a metamodern paradigm for curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 5(1), 87-101.
39. Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. (2 th Ed.) US: Longman.
40. Liang, L.L., & Gabel, D.L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143-1162
41. Mervis, L., & Leininger, R. (1993). The relationship between parent involvement and student achievement: A review of the literature. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357848).
42. Monk, D. H., & King, J. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject-matter preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary policy issues: Choices and con-sequences in education (pp. 29-58). Ithaca, NY: ILR.
43. Nolen, J. (2001). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Proquest Education Journals, 124(1), 115
44. Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy. The Educational Forum, 68, 180-188.
45. Oliver, R. & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126.
46. Özerbaş, M. A. (2007). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına ve kalıcılığına etkisi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4), 609-635.
47. Powell, A., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. (1985).The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
48. Raymond, M., Fletcher, S. H., & Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
49. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
50. Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67-73.
51. Sherman, T. M. & Kurshan, B. L. (2005). Constructing learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(5).
52. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to powerful learning environments in primary education? Computers and Education, 44, 343–355.
53. Suchting, W. (1992). Constructivism deconstructed. Science and Education, 1(3), 223-254.
54. Summers, A. A., & Wolfe, B. L. (1977). Do schools make a difference? American Economic Review, 67, 639-652.
55. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programları ve yeni yaklaşımlar. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Retrieved on 05.11.2009 from www.ttkb.gov.tr
56. Üstüner, M. (2004). Geçmişten günümüze Türk eğitim sisteminde öğretmen yetiştirme ve günümüz sorunlari. İnönüÜniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(7).
57. Vincent, A. & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, personality types and multiple online. The Learning Organization, 8(1), 36-43.
58. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1985). Reconstructing the concept of knowledge. Archives of Psychologie, 53, 91Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of Mathematics (pp. 19-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.
59. Weber, P. R. (1990). Basic content analysis. (2 nd Ed.) USA: Sage Publications.
60. Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.