Investigation of Hands-On and Technology Based Materials Prepared By Preservice Teachers With Respect to the Dimensions of Creativity

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the creativity levels of hands on and technology based materials prepared by preservice primary school social sciences teachers in the “Instructional Technology and Material Development”course. In addition, aptitude of the students about their own creativiiesy and their materials were determined.The sample of this study consisted of 180 preservice teachers. Inductive content analysis was used for the qualitative data. On the other hand, the sub levels of creativity of hands on and technology based materials prepared by 40 students were determined by the opinions of the experts. Results of the study indicated that preservice teachers' hands on materials were more creative and original than their technology based materials. In addition, the codes mostly used by the students were the purpose, design and research, suitability and availability to the student level, and clearity. Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the creativity levels of hands on and technology based materials prepared by the preservice primary school teachers in the “Instructional Technology and Material Development” course. This study also aimed to determine the perceptions of the student teachers' about the materials they produced. Sub problems of the study were: 1.How were the preservice teachers' perceptions about hands on and technology based materials? 2.How were the hands on and technology based materials prepared by the preservice teachers are relevant to sub dimentions of creativity? Method In this study, the data were collected in qualitative ways. Interviews and the material files were used for this purpose. The study was conducted in Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Ereğli Education Faculty. 180 preservice teachers participated in this study. The student teachers were skilled in using computer programs. Process The material development process of the preservice teachers is explained below: This study was based on constructivist approach. The preservice teachers constructed their materials and activities. Firstly, the student teachers decided what to prepare and how to prepare as their instructional materials. Then they learned the material design principles. Later, they prepared the drafts of various hands on and technology based materials. It was stressed by the lecturers that the designs must be original and educational. They prepared detailed reports of their material design.As a next step the lecturers and the preservice teachers together decided on a hands on and a technology based material. Then they designed the daily plans in which these materials were used. They presented their materials in the classroom in front of their peers. They received criticism of these materials. By this way they constructed their portfolios Finally, the preservice teachers evaluated themselves and the lecturer evaluated them. The researchers interviewed the preservice teachers about their materials and 40 portfolios were investigated for this purpose. The Data Collection Tools The data of this study were collected with help of the hands on and the technology based materials and interviews. The hands on and the technology based materials were reviewed in their relevance to the sub dimensions of creativity. These were the fluency, the flexibility, the detaildness and the originality. The preservice teachers' views were analysed through inductive content analysis. Results The hands on materials were very original and creative. In addition to this, the data revealed that the codes of the hands on materials were usability, being economical, being amusing and being understandable. It was a long and tiring process to prepare these instructional hands on materials for the preservice teachers. The technology based materials weren't so creative as the hand on materials. Both the hands on materials and the technology based materials were fluent and intimate. Conclusion And Suggestions According to the findings of the study, we come to the conclusion that for the student teachers' material development, hands on and technological materials arenecessary in the teacher education. The student teachers have prepared different materials. So they have learnt the process of material development and acquired creativity. These suggestions can be made at the end of the study: 1.Student teachers should learn how to develop hands on and technological materials. 2.Student teachers should prepare different kind of materials (hands on and technological materials) in the instructional technology and material development course. 3.Student teachers must learn how to develop materials by using creative thinking skills. 4.The teachers who are at work should be given inservice education on material development and creative thinking skills in order to compensate with the requirements of the new MEB programs. 5.Critical thinking skill should be learned by the student teachers. Elective courses can be provided for this. 6.More researches should be done about this subject and the consequences should be announced via publications and announcements.

Keywords

• ınstructıonal technologies , material development , creativity

İlköğretim Öğretmen Adayları Tarafından Hazırlanan El Yapımı ve Teknoloji Temelli Materyallerin Yaratıcılık Boyutları Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; İlköğretim Bölümü Sınıf Öğretmenliği ve Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenliği bölümleri 3. sınıflarında öğrenim gören ve “Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme” dersini alan öğrencilerin elle ve bilgisayar temelli yapmış oldukları ders materyallerinin yaratıcılık yönünden incelenmesidir. Ayrıca, öğretmen adaylarının kendilerinin yaratıcılık ve yaptıkları materyalle ilgili algılamalarını belirlemektir. Toplam 180 öğrenci araştırmanın çalışma grubunu oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada araştırmanın verileri nitel olduğundan tümevarımsal içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca, 40 öğrencinin elle ve bilgisayar temelli hazırlamış oldukları materyallerin yaratıcılığın alt boyutları açısından durumları uzman görüşleri ile belirlenmiştir. Bu araştırmanın sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının elle yaptıkları materyalleri bilgisayar temelli hazırladıkları materyallerden daha yaratıcı ve orjinal buldukları, tasarım kriterlerini öğrenerek uyguladıkları bunlardan özellikle amaç, yapılış ve tasarı ile inceleme ve araştırma, kullanışlılık ve öğrenci düzeyine uygunluk ve anlaşılırlık ölçütlerinin her iki tür materyalde de öğretmen adaylarının en çok belirttikleri kodlar olduğu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• öğretim teknolojileri , materyal geliştirme , yaratıcılık

Kaynakça

1. Akpınar, Y. (2003) Öğretmenlerin yeni bilgi teknolojilerini kullanımında yükseköğretimin etkisi: İstanbul Okulları Örneği, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2),11. http://www.tojet.net 20.09.2004 tarihinde indirildi.
2. Benson, L.F, Farnsworth, B.J, Bahr,D.L., Lewis, V.K., Shara, S.H.( 2004). The Impact of Training in technology assisted instruction on skills and attitudes of pre-service teachers, Education. 124 (4), 649-652.
3. Bessıs, P., Jaqui, H. (1973). Yaratıcılık nedir?. (Çev. Dr. Süheyl Gürbaşkan), İstanbul Reklam Yayınları.
4. Dikici, A. (2001). Sanat Eğitiminde Yaratıcılık, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, sayı 149.
5. Brooks, G., Brooks, M.G. ( 1993) In Search of Understanding . The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria V.A. Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., Gardner, J.(2004). Teachers’s perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT- competence training”. Computers & Education, 43, 63- 79.
7. Gündüz, Ş., Odabaşı, F.( 2004). Bilgi Çağında Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitiminde Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme Dersinin Önemi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, http://www.tojet.net 27.09.2004 tarihinde indirildi. 3 (1),7
8. Hagg, I.(1995). Infusing Technology into Preservice Teacher Education. Eric Digest, Eric Number: ED389699.

9. Laffey, J.(2004). Apropriation, Mastery and resistance to technology in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (4), 361-382.
10. Lubart, Todd I. (1994). Chapter 10: Creativity. Thinking and Problem solving- Handbook of perception and cognition. Edited by Robert J Sternberg, Academic Press, USA.
11. Mert, İbrahim S. (1997). Karar Vermede Yaratıcı Problem Çözme. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
12. Muir-Herzig, R.G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42, 111-131.
13. Rıza, E.T. (2001). Creativity: A new area in Educational Technology. Sakarya Üniversitesi I.
14. Uluslararası Eğitim teknolojileri Sempozyumu. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim fakültesi Dergisi, 3, 133-146.
15. Rother, C. (2004). Evaluating technology’s role in the classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 32 (3), 43-49.
16. Solomon, J.( 2000). The changing perspectives of constructivism. Science Wars and children’s creativity. (Ed: D.C. Phillips), Constructivism in Education. Chicago, The University of Chicago pres.
17. Tezci, E., Gürol, A. (2003). Oluşturmacı Öğretim Tasarımı ve Yaratıcılık, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,2 (1), 8 http://www.tojet.net 27.09.2004 tarihinde indirildi.
18. Yanpar, T. (2003). Eğitimin Teknolojik Temelleri. Bulunduğu kaynak: Öğretmenlik Mesleğine Giriş. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Editör: Veysel Sönmez
19. Yanpar, T. , Yıldırım S. ( 1999). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
20. Yanpar T. ( 2005). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
21. Yanpar, T. (2003). Student teacher’s perceptions of instructional technology: developing materials based on a constructivist approach, British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1), 67-74.
22. Yanpar T. (2001). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme Konusunda Öğretmen Adaylarının
23. Yetiştirilmesi. X. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.