A New Technique in Preschool Education: Debate

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 5, 2439 - 2456, 31.12.2016

Burcu Çabuk Ebru Yeni

Öz

This qualitative study was aimed to determine the effect of the in-class debate technique
on the development of preschool children which is not widely used in preschool education.
Thirteen children who are sixty to seventy-two month- old attending to a preschool were first
observed for two weeks whether they showed the selected characteristics of development in the
National Preschool Education Program. Then, for eight weeks, in-class presentations, trainings
and practices were done on the in-class debate technique by the researchers while observations
were done. Before and after the practices, semi-structured interviews were also done with the
classroom teacher related with supporting the development of children and her perception
about the in-class debate technique used in preschool. Since the beginning of the study, parents
who were informed and asked for their participation also reported the changes they observed
in their children during the in-class debate practices through parent forms prepared by the
researchers. For the evaluation of the total twelve-week study, the children were observed for
two more weeks and it was found out that in-class debate practices supported the children in  the areas of cognitive, socio-emotional and language development. Taking the findings into
consideration, suggestions were provided for teachers, researchers and administrators who are
working in the undergraduate, graduate and in-service preschool teacher training programs. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Preschool education, debate, observation, interview, document analysis.

Okul Öncesi Eğitimde Yeni Bir Teknik: Münazara

Öz

Bu nitel araştırmada okul öncesi eğitimde yaygın olarak kullanılmayan sınıf-içi münazara
tekniğinin okul öncesi dönem çocuklarının gelişimlerine etkisini incelemek amaçlanmıştır.
Ankara Çankaya’da bulunan bir anaokulunda öğrenim gören 60-72 aylık 13 çocuk, öncelikle
iki hafta gözlemlenerek Okul Öncesi Eğitim Programı (MEB, 2013)’ndan seçilen gelişim
özelliklerini sergileyip sergilemedikleri belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra araştırmacılar tarafından
sınıf-içi münazara tekniği üzerine sekiz hafta boyunca tanıtımlar, eğitimler ve uygulamalar
gerçekleştirilerek gözlemler yapılmıştır. Süreci izleyen sınıf öğretmeniyle uygulamalar
öncesinde ve sonrasında çocukların gelişim alanlarının desteklenmesi ve sınıf-içi münazarayla
ilgili algısının belirlenmesi amacıyla yapı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır.
Bilgilendirilen ve katılımları için önerilerde bulunulan veliler de çocuklarında gözlemledikleri
değişiklikleri, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan veli formları aracılığıyla belirtmişlerdir.
Değerlendirme amacıyla iki hafta daha gözlemlenen çocukların toplam on iki haftalık süreçte
(dört haftalık pilot uygulama hariç), sınıf-içi münazara uygulamaları yoluyla bilişsel, sosyalduygusal
ve dil gelişimi alanlarında olumlu yönde değişimlerinin desteklendiği belirlenmiştir.
Bulgular ışığında, öğretmenlere, alan araştırmacılarına, lisans, lisansüstü ve hizmet-içi eğitim
programları yürüten akademisyenlere öneriler verilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Okul öncesi eğitim, münazara, gözlem, görüşme, doküman analizi

Kaynakça

• Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S. ve Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık.
• Anderson, R. P. (1998). Collaborative learning in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 60, 3202-3205.
• Anglin, J. M. (1993). Knowing versus learning words. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10), 176-186.
• Barry, V. E. (1992). The critical edge: Critical thinking for reading and writing. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Bell, P. (1996). Debate as an instructional form in science education. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, California Üniversitesi, Berkeley.
• Berk, L. E. (2001). Development through the lifespan. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Publications.
• Blouch, P. L and Hammrich K. K. (1998). A cooperative controversy lesson designed to reveal students’ conceptons of the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 60(1), 78-94.
• Borko, H. and Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.
• Boz, M. ve Aytar, A. G. (2012). Okul Öncesi Çocuklarında Temel Hareket Eğitim Programının Hareket Becerilerine Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 51-59.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, K. E., Akgün, E. Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2010). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Byrnes, J. P. and Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 477-493.
• Camp, J. M. and Schnader, A. L. (2010). Using debate to enhance critical thinking in the accounting classroom: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and U.S. tax policy. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(4), 655-675.
• Combs, K. L. (2010). The republican-liberal continuum: De-polarizing the historiographical debate. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Olivet Nazarene Üniversitesi, Illinois.
• Çabuk, B. (2016). Teacher candidates’ perceptions on a new method: In-class debate in kindergarten. 24th International Academic Conference (IISES), 28 Haziran-01 Temmuz 2016, Barcelona, İspanya.
• Çiçek, A. (2002). 0-6 yaş grubu çocuklarda dil gelişimi, Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 115-124.
• Daneman, M. and Case, R. (1981). Syntactic form, semantic complexity, and short-term memory: Influences on children’s acquisition of new linguistic structures. Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 367.
• Durkin, K. (2004). Adapting to western norms of academic argumentation and debate. Yayımlanmamış Doktor Tezi, Bournemouth Üniversitesi, İngiltere.
• Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical Thinking. London: Prentice Halla.
• Erduran, S. and Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education perspectives from classroom-based research. London: Springer.
• Ergün, M. ve Özsüer, S. (2006). Vygotsky’nin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 268-291.
• Fourez, G. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy as a social practice. Social Studies of Science, 27(6), 903-936.
• Freeley, A. and Steinberg, D. (2013). Argumentation and debate. Boston: Cengage Learning.
• French, S. (1980). Updating of belief in the light of someone else’s opinion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 143(1), 43-48.
• Gee J. P. (1993). Post Modernism and Literacies. C. Lankshear ve P. L. Mc Laren (Ed.) Critical literacy: Politics, praxis and the post modern. Albany: State University of New York Press, 271-296.
• Huryn, J. S. (1986). Debating as a teaching technique. Teaching Sociology, 14(4), 266-269.
• Karataş, Z. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Manevi Temelli Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 62-81.
• Kennedy, R. (2007). In-class debates: fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183-190.
• Kennedy, R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 225-236.
• Khater, M. (2011). Innovative instruction: Cooperative debate as regimented improvisation. Journal of Dialogues, 7, 120-133.
• Linn, M. C., Bell, P. and Hsi, S. (1998). Using the internet to enhance student understanding of science: The knowledge integration environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 6(1-2), 4-38.
• Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P. and Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61-84.
• Lipscomb, G. B. (2002). Eighth graders’ impressions of the Civil War: Using technology in the history classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 51-67.
• McNally, D.W. (1974). Piaget, education and teaching. Sussex: New Educational Press.
• MEB [MONE] (2013). Okul Öncesi Eğitim Programı. Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
• Miller, C. L. and Perrin, R. D. (2012). Child maltreatment: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Mills, C. M. (2012). Knowing when to doubt: Developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49, 404–418.
• Moore, M. T. (1993). Implications of problem finding on teaching and learning. S. G. Isaksen, M.
• C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, D. J. Naftulin, D. H. Ware ve Donnelly, F. A. (1973) (Ed.). The doctor fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630-635.
• Munakata, M. (2010). The mathematics education debates: Preparing students to become professionally active mathematics teachers. Primus, 20(8), 712-720.
• Ng, P. T., Lan, L. K. Y. and Thye, J. T. E. (2004). Developing reflective teachers: The experience of two modules in the teacher training programme at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 200-206.
• O’Keefe, V. P. (1986). Affecting critical thinking through speech. Washington, DC: National Institude of Education.
• Orr, D. (1989). Just the Facts Ma’am: Informal Logic, Gender and Pedagogy. Informal Logic, 11(1), 1-10.
• Özmen, R. G. (2003). İfade edici dil becerileri sınırlı olan zihinsel engelli çocukların dil gelişimlerini desteklemek için öğretmenin sınıf ortamında yapacakları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 17-35.
• Özüdoğru, M. ve Dilman, H. (2014). Anadil Eğitimi ve Yabancı Dil Öğrenim Kuramları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Palmer, E. (2016). Good thinking: Teaching argument, persuasion, and reason. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
• Palut, B. (2003). Sosyal gelişim ve arkadaşlık ilişkileri. Erken çocuklukta gelişim ve eğitimde yeni yaklaşımlar, İstanbul: Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
• Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W. and Burrowbridge, S. C. (2015). Students’ engagement in literacy tasks. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 223-231.
• Paul, R. (1982). Teaching critical thinking in the `strong’ sense: A focus on self-deception, world views and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic 4(2),2-7.
• Proulx, G. (2004). Integrating Scientific Method and Critical Thinking in Classroom Debates on Environmental Issues. Aster, 25, 217-225.
• Robson, C. (2000). Small-scale evaluation: Principles and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Roy, A. and Macchiette, B. (2005). Debating the issue: A tool for augmenting critical thinking skills of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 264-276.
• Ryan, S. and College, B. (2006). Arguing toward a more active citizenry: Re-envisioning the introductory civics course via debate-centered pedagogy. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), 385-395.
• Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.
• Salim, A. (2015). Debate as a learning-teaching method: A survey of literature, Journal of Education, 2(1), 97-104.
• San Bayhan, P. ve Artan, İ. (2005). Çocuk Gelişimi ve Eğitimi. İstanbul: Morpa Yayınları.
• Senemoğlu, N. (1994). Okul öncesi eğitim programı hangi yeterlilikleri kazandırmalıdır? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 21-30.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2007). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan uygulamaya, Ankara: Gönül Yayıncılık.
• Sevinç, M. (2003). Erken çocuklukta gelişim ve eğitimde yeni yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Morpa Kültür Yayıncılık.
• Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Journal of Discourse Processes, 13(1), 5-31.
• Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York: Routledge.
• Snider, A. and Schnurer, M. (2002). Many sides: Debate across the curriculum. New York: International Debate Education Association.
• Sobieraj, S. and Laube, H. (2001). Confronting the social context of the classroom: Media events, shared cultural experience, and student response. Teaching sociology, 29(4), 463-470.
• Stassen-Berger, K. (1988). The developing person through the life span. New York: Worth Publishers, Inc.
• Street, B. V. (1994). Cross cultural perspectives on literacy. Language and literacy in social practice, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L. and Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331, 1279-1285.
• Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitim bilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24, 543-559.
• Uyanık Balat, G. (2015). Okul öncesi eğitime giriş, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Varol, N. (2004). Özbakım becerilerinin öğretimi. Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık.
• Vygotsky, L. (2010). Thought and language. (Revised and Expended Edition). (Ed. A. Kozulin) Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Yang, C. H. and Rusli, E. (2012). Using debate as a pedagogical tool ın enhancing pre-service teachers’ learning and critical thinking. Journal of International Education Research, 8(2), 135- 143.
• Yusop, F. D. and Sumari, M. (2015). Pre-Service Teachers’ Learning Styles and Preferences towards Instructional Technology Activities and Collaborative Works. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 116-129.