Proje Tabanlı Öğrenme ve Doğrudan Öğretimin Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Motivasyon ve Katılımları Üzerine Etkisi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2, 163 - 174, 30.12.2018

Colette Carrabba Aarek Farmer

Öz

Bu nicel çalışmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerine proje tabanlı öğrenme ve doğrudan öğretim yöntemlerinin uygulanmasından önceki ve sonraki motivasyon ve katılım düzeylerini karşılaştırmaktır. Çalışmaya katılan öğrencilere, uygulamadan önce ve sonra motivasyon düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla Deci ve Ryan (2017) tarafından geliştirilen İçsel Motivasyon Ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca, Uluslararası Eğitimde Liderlik Merkezince hazırlanan Öğrenci Katılımı Kontrol Listesi’nden yararlanılarak, öğrencilerin derse katılımlarına dair veriler toplanmıştır. Ölçekler, proje tabanlı öğrenme ve doğrudan öğretim modelleri uyarınca hazırlanan derslerden önce ve sonra olmak üzere, Birleşik Devletler Tennessee eyaletinde bulunan kırsal bir okul bölgesinde öğrenim gören 6., 7., ve 8. Sınıf öğrencilerine uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, (a) proje tabanlı öğrenme ve (b) doğrudan öğretim uygulamalarının öncesi ile sonrası arasında, öğrencilerin motivasyon ve katılım düzeyleri bakımından anlamlı farklılıklar görülmüştür. Ayrıca, proje tabanlı öğrenme grubu ile doğrudan öğretim uygulanan öğrenci grubu arasında da motivasyon ve katılım açısından anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

proje tabanlı öğrenme, doğrudan öğretim, içsel motivasyon, derse katılım

The Impact of Project-based Learning and Direct Instruction on the Motivation and Engagement of Middle School Students

Öz

This quantitative study sought to compare the levels of motivation and
engagement for middle school students before and after the implementation of
both project-based learning and direct instruction.  Student participants completed the Intrinsic
Motivation Inventory [IMI] (Deci & Ryan, 2017) to assess their levels of
motivation prior to and after instruction. 
In addition, engagement data was obtained utilizing the Student
Engagement Walkthrough Checklist (SEWC) created by the International Center for
Leadership in Education.  Surveys were
used to collect data from a sample of 6^th, 7^th, and 8^th
grade students in a rural southwestern Tennessee school district in the United
States of America before and after project-based learning and direct
instruction lessons.  Data analyses
revealed significant differences in motivation and engagement levels before and
after (a) project-based learning and (b) direct instruction.  Significant differences in motivation and
engagement of students were also found between groups of students who had
experienced project-based learning as compared to direct instruction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Project-based Learning, Direct Instruction, Intrinsic Motivation, Classroom Engagement

Kaynakça

• Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system—secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76-88.
• Anderson, M. (2016). Learning to choose, choosing to learn: The key to student motivation and achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Ateh, C., & Charpentier, A. (2014). Sustaining student engagement in learning science. The Clearing House, 87(6), 259-263. doi: 10.1080/000098655.2014.954981
• Brophy, J. (2013). Motivating students to learn. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Dean, C., Hubbell, E., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Deci, E. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
• Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2017). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. Retrieved from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/
• Dotterer, A., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5
• Ferlazzo, L. (2015). Building a community of self-motivated learners. New York, NY: Rutledge.
• Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (2013). Instructional leadership: A research-based guide to learning in schools. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Intellectus Statistics [Online computer software]. (2017). Retrieved from https://analyze.intellectusstatistics.com/
• Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Korpershock, H., Kuyper, H., van der Werf, G. (2013). Differences in students’ school motivation: A latent class modelling approach. Social Psychology of Education. 18(1). 137 – 163.
• Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project-based learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH.
• Ostroff, W. (2016). Cultivating curiosity in K-12 classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Pahomov, L. (2014). Authentic learning in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Robinson, J. (2013). Project-based learning: Improving student engagement and performance in the laboratory. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 405(1), 7-13. doi: 10.1007/s00216-012-6473-x.
• Rollins, S. (2017). Teaching in the fast lane. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Sackstein, S. (2017). Peer feedback in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Stefanou, C., Stolk, J., Prince, M., Chen, J., & Lord, S. (2016). Self-regulation and autonomy in problem-and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 109-122. doi: 10.1177/1469787413481132
• Turner, J., Christensen, A., Kacker-Cam, H., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. (2014). Enhancing students’ engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1195-1226.