Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamlarında Materyal Geliştirme ve Kullanma Öz Yeterlik Algılarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarında kullanılabilecek öğretim materyallerini geliştirme ve uygulamaya yönelik öz yeterlik algılarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca bu algıların çeşitli bireysel ve eğitsel değişkenler açısından farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı incelenmiş, öğretmen adaylarının konuya ilişkin görüşleri derinlemesine değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma, nicel ve nitel verilerin birlikte kullanıldığı karma yöntem yaklaşımı çerçevesinde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya 2025–2026 eğitim-öğretim yılında Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Programında öğrenim gören 309 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamlarında Materyal Geliştirme ve Kullanma Öz Yeterlik Algısı Ölçeği ile araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan kişisel bilgi formu ve açık uçlu sorular kullanılmıştır. Nicel veriler parametrik istatistiksel tekniklerle analiz edilirken, nitel veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik materyal geliştirme ve kullanma konusunda kendilerini genel olarak yeterli gördüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Tasarımı dersini alan katılımcıların öz yeterlik düzeylerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Nitel bulgular ise öğretmen adaylarının okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarını ağırlıklı olarak deneyimsel öğrenme, doğal çevre ve teknoloji destekli materyallerle ilişkilendirdiklerini göstermektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında okul dışı öğrenme uygulamalarına ve materyal geliştirme çalışmalarına daha fazla yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı
• okul dışı öğrenme
• öğretim materyali
• öz yeterlik
• öğretmen eğitimi

An Investigation of Science Pre-service Teachers' Self-Efficacy Perceptions Regarding Material Development and Use in Out-of-School Learning Environments

Öz

This study aimed to explore science pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions regarding the development and implementation of instructional materials in out-of-school learning environments. In addition, the study examined whether these perceptions varied according to selected personal and educational variables and investigated participants’ views on the use of instructional materials in such settings. A mixed-methods research design was employed by integrating quantitative and qualitative data sources. The participants consisted of 309 pre-service science teachers enrolled in the Science Teacher Education Program at Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University during the 2025–2026 academic year. Data were collected through the Self-Efficacy Perception Scale for Developing and Using Materials in Out-of-School Learning Environments, a personal information form, and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed using parametric statistical procedures, whereas qualitative responses were examined through content analysis. Findings indicated that the participants generally perceived themselves as competent in developing and utilizing instructional materials for out-of-school learning contexts. Furthermore, students who had completed the Instructional Technologies and Material Design course demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy than those who had not taken the course. Qualitative findings revealed that participants predominantly associated out-of-school learning environments with experiential learning opportunities, natural settings, and technology-supported materials. The findings highlight the importance of strengthening practical experiences related to material development and out-of-school learning practices within teacher education programs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science teacher education
• out-of-school learning
• instructional materials
• self-efficacy
• teacher preparation

Kaynakça

1. Balkan Kıyıcı, F., & Atabek Yiğit, E. (2010). Science education beyond the claSSroom: A field trip to wind power plant. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 225-243.
2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge university preSS.
3. Berkant, H. G. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretmen öz-yeterlik algılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim Yansımaları, 1(2), 1-17.
4. Bozdoğan, A. E., Okur, A., & Kasap, G. (2015). Planlı bir alan gezisi için örnek uygulama: Bir fabrikası gezisi. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(02).
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2024). Örnekleme yöntemleri. In Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (pp. 82-103). Pegem Akademi.
6. Carrier, S. J. (2009). The effects of outdoor science leSSons with elementary school students on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173683
7. Chin, C.-C. (2004). Museum experience—A resource for science teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 63-90.
8. Cox-Petersen, A. M. (1999). Dive into research at the aquarium. Science Activities, 36(3), 34-36.

9. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
10. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research desing: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Vol. 54). United State of America: Sage Publications.
11. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European journal of teacher education, 40(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
14. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor studies, 11(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562
15. Dierking, L. D., Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Learning from neighboring fields: Conceptualizing outcomes of environmental education within the framework of free-choice learning experiences. In International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 359-366). Routledge.
16. Dring, C. C., Lee, S. Y., & Rideout, C. A. (2020). Public school teachers’ perceptions of what promotes or hinders their use of outdoor learning spaces. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 369-378.
17. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 1-18). Springer.
18. Ertas, H., Şen, A. İ., Parmaksızoğlu, A., & Şen, A. İ. (2011). Okul dışı bilimsel etkinliklerin 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin enerji konusunu günlük hayatla ilişkilendirme düzeyine etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(2), 178-198.
19. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited.
20. Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Visualization: An emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 3–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_1
21. Güven, A., Gazel, A. A., & Sever, R. (2010). Tarih öğretmenlerinin gezi-gözlem uygulamalarında karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (9), 225-235.
22. Howe, R. W., & Disinger, J. F. (1988). Teaching Environmental Education Using Out-of-School Settings and MaSS Media. ERIC/SMEAC Environmental Education Digest No. 1, 1988.
23. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
24. KlaSSen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job streSS. Journal of educational Psychology, 102(3), 741.
25. KlaSSen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveneSS: A meta-analysis. Educational research review, 12, 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
26. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
27. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Krakowka, A. R. (2012). Field trips as valuable learning experiences in geography courses. Journal of Geography, 111(6), 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2012.707674
28. Kubat, U. (2018). Okul dişi öğrenme ortamlari hakkinda fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarinin görüşleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi(48), 111-135. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.429575
29. Kurt, T. (2012). Öğretmenlerin öz yeterlik ve kolektif yeterlik algilari. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 195-227.
30. Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369
31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks.
32. Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookout, V. (2002). The effect of teaching outdoor environmental education on preservice teachers' attitudes toward self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960209603476
33. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of research in science teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311005
34. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
35. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge.
36. Patton, K., Parker, M., & Tannehill, D. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: ProfeSSional development that makes a difference. NASSP bulletin, 99(1), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515576040
37. Rennie, L. J., Feher, E., Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2003). Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out‐of‐school settings. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(2), 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10067
38. Salmi, H. S. (1993). Science centre education: Motivation and learning in informal education. Helsingin Yliopisto (Finland). https://www.proquest.com/diSSertations-theses/science-centre-education-motivation-learning/docview/304075603/se-2
39. Simsek, M. U., Yildirim Okay, F., & Ozdemir, S. (2021). A deep learning-based CEP rule extraction framework for IoT data. Journal of Supercomputing, 77(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03603-5
40. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Mims, C., & Russell, J. D. (2019). Instructional technology and media for learning (12th ed.). Pearson.
41. Sontay, G., Tutar, M., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2016). Student Views About “Science Teaching With Outdoor Learning Environments”: Planetarium Tour. Journal of Research in Informal Environments, 1(1), 1-24.
42. Soylu, Ü. İ., Karamustafaoğlu, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2024). Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamlarında Materyal Geliştirme ve Kullanma Öz-Yeterlik Algısı Ölçeği. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 922-944. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1456156
43. Tal, T., & Steiner, L. (2006). Patterns of teacher‐museum staff relationships: School visits to the educational centre of a science museum. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556686
44. Tal, T., Lavie Alon, N., & Morag, O. (2014). Exemplary practices in field trips to natural environments. Journal of research in science teaching, 51(4), 430-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21137
45. Tatar, N., & Bağrıyanık, K. (2012). Opinions of science and technology teachers about outdoor education. Elementary Education Online, 11(4), 883-896.
46. Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley& Sons.
47. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
48. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
49. Tunalı, S. B., Gözü, Ö., & Özen, G. (2016). Nitel ve Nicel Araştırma Yöntemlerinin Bir Arada Kullanılması "Karma Araştırma Yöntemi". Kurgu, 24(2), 106-112.
50. Yılmaz, N. P. (2003). An eSSay to compose a contextual content aiming at acquiring theoretical knowledge in vocational education. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 36(1), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000075
51. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on claSSroom proceSSes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational research, 86(4), 981-1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801