The Effects Of Peer Coaching On The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Of Pre-Service Science Teachers

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3, 933 - 951, 31.12.2019

Didem Karakaya Cırıt Selçuk Aydemir

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.566462

Cited By: 1

Öz

This study aims to
examine the effects of peer coaching on the development of Pre-service Science
Teachers’ (PSTs) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and the
components of TPCK. A total of 37 pre-service science teachers (27 females and
10 males) participated in the study. Of the different types of coaching that
are available, “mutual peer coaching” was used in this study. In the first two
weeks of the 10-week research process, the PSTs received peer coaching
training. In the remaining 8 weeks, the PSTs were asked to implement peer
coaching in their classroom teaching. In addition, one-hour theoretical classes
were taught each week in the “Teaching Practice” course, during which the PSTs
received feedback on their teaching practices and peer coaching forms.
Therefore, a total of 296 forms were examined in this study. The data were
analyzed through content analysis. They were examined in three categories:
1-Scientific explanation, 2-Partially scientific explanation, and
3-Non-scientific explanation. The findings showed an improvement in the PSTs’
TPCK and its components. It was found that during the preliminary interviews in
the early weeks, the PSTs had partially scientific explanations in the three
content areas (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge), and non-scientific explanations only in technological knowledge and
technological pedagogical content knowledge. In the later weeks, they moved
towards scientific explanations in pedagogical knowledge, technological
knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge. In the observation
of their teaching, the PSTs had partially scientific explanations in all five
content areas in the first weeks, and shifted towards scientific explanations
in later weeks. In the final interviews, the PSTs were found to move from
nonscientific explanations towards partially scientific explanations in four
content areas. On the other hand, only in pedagogical knowledge, students who
had partially scientific explanations in the first weeks remained at the same
level in the later weeks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

peer coaching, science education, pre-service science teachers, TPCK

Akran Koçluk Uygulamasının Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı akran
koçluk uygulamasının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan
Bilgisi (TPAB) ve TPAB’ı oluşturan öğelerin gelişimine etkisini incelemektedir.
Bu amaçla çalışmaya 37 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı (27 kız ve 10 erkek)
katılmıştır. Çeşitli türleri olan koçluk uygulamasının “karşılıklı akran
koçluğu” bu çalışmada kullanılmıştır. 10 haftalık araştırma sürecinin ilk iki
haftasında, öğretmen adaylarına akran koçluğu eğitimi verilmiştir. Kalan 8
haftada ise öğretmen adaylarından sınıf içi öğretim süreçlerinde akran koçluğu
uygulamasını kullanmaları istenmiştir. Ayrıca her hafta “Öğretmenlik
Uygulaması” dersi kapsamında en az bir saatlik teorik dersler işlenmiş ve bu
derslerde öğretmen adaylarına öğretim uygulamaları ve akran koçluğu formlarına
yönelik dönütler verilmiştir. 
Dolayısıyla çalışma kapsamında 296 form incelenmiştir. Çalışmada elde
edilen verilerin analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada elde
edilen veriler; 1-Bilimsel açıklama, 2-Kısmen bilimsel açıklama ve 3-Bilimsel
olmayan açıklama olmak üzere üç kategoride incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular,
öğretmen adaylarının TPAB ve öğelerinde gelişim olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğretmen
adaylarının ilk haftalarda üç bilgi alanında (alan, pedagojik ve pedagojik alan
bilgisi) ön görüşme aşamasında kısmen bilimsel açıklama düzeyinde bulundukları
sadece teknolojik ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisinde bilimsel olmayan
düzeyde yoğunlaşmanın olduğu belirlenmiştir. Son haftalara doğru ise pedagojik
bilgi, teknolojik bilgi ve teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisinde gelişimin
bilimsel düzeyde yoğunlaşmaya doğru olduğu belirlenmiştir. Gözlem aşamasında
ise öğretmen adaylarının ilk haftalarda beş bilgi alanında da kısmen bilimsel
açıklamada yoğunlaştıkları son haftalara doğru bilimsel açıklama düzeyine doğru
bir geçiş olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Son görüşme aşamasında ise, dört bilgi
alanında ilk haftalarda bilimsel olmayan açıklama düzeyinde yoğunlaşan öğretmen
adayları sonlara doğru kısmen bilimsel açıklamaya doğru gelişim gösterdiği
tespit edilmiştir. Sadece pedagojik bilgide ilk haftalarda kısmen bilimsel
düzeyde yer alan öğretmen adayları son haftalara doğru da aynı düzeyde kaldığı
belirlenmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akran koçluğu, Fen bilgisi eğitimi, Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

• Anderson, N. A., Barksdale, M. A., & Hite, C. E. (2005). Preservice teachers’ observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4), 97–117.
• Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An inte¬grative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 4, 263-272.
• Çoklar, A.N., Kılıçer, K. & OdabaĢı, H.F. (2007). Eğitimde Teknoloji Kullanımına Eleştirel bir Bakış: Teknopedagoji. The proceedings of 7th International Technology Conference, 3-5 Mayıs 2007, Near East University, North Cyprus.
• Demir, Ö., & Doğanay, A. (2009). Bilişsel farkındalık becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde bilişsel koçluk yaklaşımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(4), 601-624.
• Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone; Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62, 52-66.
• Gess-Newsome, J. & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
• Grossman, P.L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S. (1989). Teacher of substance: Subject mat¬ter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon.
• Harris, J., Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Teachers‘ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393-416.
• Hasbrouck, J. E. (1994). The scale for coaching instructional effectiveness (SCIE). College Station: Texas A&M University, D.A.R.C.Y./Department of Educational Psychology.
• Jenkins, J. M., & Veal, M. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ PCK development during peer coaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22(1), 49-68.
• Johnson, A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of “coaching”. Journal of Education, 163(2), 163-172.
• Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37, 379-385.
• Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership,40, 4-10.
• Karakaya Cırıt, D.(2017). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen adaylarının yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına ilişkin bilgileri. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 4(3). 21-43
• Karakaya, D. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının küresel boyuttaki çevresel sorunlara ilişkin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi ve sınıf içi uygulamalarının araştırılması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
• Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers: ‘Ozone Layer Depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 961-988.
• Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740–762.
• Kretlow, A. G., Cooke, N. L., & Wood, C. L. (2012). Using in-service and coaching to increase teachers’ accurate use of research-based strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 348-361.
• Kurtts, S. (1997). Peer coaching and the development of reflective practice in preservice teachers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC.
• Kurtts, S.A.,&Levin,B.B. (2000). Using peer coachingwith preservice teachers to develop reflective practice and collegial support. Teaching Education, 11(3), 297–310. doi:10.1080/713698980.
• Lu, H. (2010). Research on peer coaching in preservice teache education—A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 748–753. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.015.
• Ludlow, B. L., Faieta, J. C , 8c Wienke, W. D. (1989). Training teachers to supervise their peers: A pilot practicum project. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12,27-32.
• Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., & Karnes, M. (2004). Preparing preservice teachers to implement class wide peer tutoring. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 408-418.
• Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 3-11.
• McAllister, E.A., & Neubert, G.A. (1995). New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.
• Miller, S. P., Harris, C, 8c Watanabe, A. (1991). Professional coaching: A method for increasing effective and decreasing ineffective teacher behaviors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 183-191.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2005). Educational technology by design: Results from a survey assessing its effectiveness. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1511-1517). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
• Neubert, G.A., & McAllister, E.A. (1993). Peer coaching in preservice education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 3, 77-84.
• Peck, C. A., Killen, C. C , 8c Baumgart, D. (1989). Increasing implementation of special education in mainstream preschools: Direct and generalized effects of nondirective consultation, fournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 197-210.
• Peterson, S. K., & Hudson, P. J. (1989). Coaching: A strategy to enhance preservice teacher behaviors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 56-60.
• Robbins, P. (1991). How To Plan and Implement a Peer Coaching Program. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 125 N. West Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2798
• Rolider, A., Pierce, M., Van Houten, R., Molcho, M., 8c Ylevitch, L. (1985). The effects of a comprehensive feedback component on the preparation of preservice educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8, 17-24.
• Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43-48.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge Growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
• van Tryon, P. J. S., & Schwartz, C. S. (2012). A pre-service teacher training model with instructional technology graduate students as peer coaches to elementary pre-service teachers. TechTrends, 56(6), 31-36.
• Vazquez-Alonso, A, & Manassero-Mas MA. (1999). Response and scoring models for hte ‗Views on Science –Technology-Society ‘ Instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 231-247.
• Willerman, M., McNeely, S. L., 8c Koffman, E. C. (1991). Teachers helping teachers: Peer observation and assistance. New York: Praeger.
• Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
• Wynn, M.J., & Kromrey, J. (1998). Paired peer placement with peer coaching to enhance prospective teachers’ professional growth in early field experience. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL.
• Yava, A., & Sütçü Çiçek, H. (2016). Hemşirelik Eğitiminde Yeni Bir Yaklaşım: Akran Koçluğu. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing, 3(1).
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara
• Zwart, R. C., Wubbels, T., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2007). Experienced teacher learning within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 165-187.