ÖĞRENCİ KONTROL STRATEJİSİNE YÖNELİK ÖĞRETMEN TUTUMLARI

Abstract

ÖZET Bu araştırmanın temel amacı öğretmenlerin derslerinde genel olarak öğrenci kontrol stratejisini kullanım düzeylerini incelemektir. Bu çalışma için veriler 2010-2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında Türkiye-Adana ilinde devlet resmi ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan, Türkçe, İngilizce, Matematik, Fen, Sosyal Bilgiler, Din Kültürü ve Ahlak Bilgisi ve Bilgisayar öğretmeni olan 219 öğretmenden toplanmıştır. Veriler araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen Öğrenci Kontrol Stratejisi anketi kullanılarak bir ayı kapsayan süre içerisinde toplanmıştır. Veri analizi spss 11.5 programında frekans, yüzde, ortalama ve standart sapma istatistik verileri kullanılarak sınanmıştır. Data analizinde 13. maddenin (Öğrencilerim her derste görüşlerini açıklayabilir.), 21. maddenin (Öğrencilerim hangi dersleri alacaklarına karar verebilirler.) ve 22. maddenin (Öğrencilerim hangi konu, ünite veya ünite bölümünü çalışmak isterlerse çalışabilirler.) ortalamalrının düşük olduğu buna karşılık diğer maddelerin ortalamalarının yüksek olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Yapısalcılık, Ayrıntılama Kuramı, Öğretim Stratejileri, Öğrenci Kontrol Stratejisi, Öğrenme Stratejileri,

THE TEACHER ATTIUDES TOWARD THE LEARNER CONTROL STRATEGY

Öz

ABSTRACT The major purpose of this reserach was to examine the uses` level of learner control strategy by teachers as general in their courses. For this study, data were collected from 219 state primary school teachers, including Turkish, English, math, science, social science, religion and morality, and computer technology teachers in the province of Adana, Turkey, during the 2010-2011 academic year. The data were gathered by administering the learner control strategy questionnaire (for teachers) that was developed by the researcher, who collected the data from participating schools over a span of a month. The frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations were considered in the data analysis, which was performed using spss for windows 11.5. The data analysis showed that the means of items 13 ( my students can express their views on the length of each lesson), 21 (my students can decide what courses they should take) and 22 (my students can choose what topics, units or parts of units that they want to study) were low, whereas the means of the other items on the questionnaire were high.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Constructivism, Elaboration Theory, Instructional Strategies, Learner Control Strategy, Learning Strategies,

Kaynakça

1. Özden, Y. and Şimşek, H., (1998). Behaviourism to Constructivism, Science and Society, April, Turkish World.
2. Açıkgöz Ün, K., (2003). Active learning.(4th ed.) İzmir, World of Education Publications.
3. Beniger, J.R., (1986). The control revolution: technological an economic origins of the information society. Cambridge, Massachussetts, Harvard University Press.
4. McLoughlin, C. and Oliver, R., (1995). Analyzing interactions in technology supportedlearning environments. In R. Oliver & M. Wild (Eds.), Learning without limits, 2 Proceedings of the 13th Annual,National Computers in Education Conference, pp: 49-62. Perth, Western Australia, ECAWA.
5. White, R.W., (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, Volume: 66, Number: 5, pp: 297-333. doi: 10.1037/h0040934
6. de Charms, R., (1976). Enhancing Motivation: Change in the Classroom. Irvington Publishers, New York.
7. Saban, A., (2005). The process of learning-teaching, Ankara: Nobel Publishing House.
8. Reigeluth, C.M. and Stein, R., (1983). Elaboration theory: instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Hillsdale New Jersey: Erlbaum.

9. Reigeluth, C.M., (1987). Lesson blueprints based on the elaboration theory of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: lessons illustrating selected theories and models, pp: 45-288). Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Reigeluth, C.M., (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
11. Reigeluth, C.M., (1979). In search of a better way to organize instruction: The elaboration theory. Journal of Instructional Development. Volume: 2, Number: 3, pp: 815. doi:10.1007/BF02984374
12. Merrill, M.D., (1984). What Is Learner Control? In R.K Bass, C.R. Dills (Eds.), Instructional Development the State of Art II, pp: 221-242. Dubuque, Louisiana: Kendall/Hunt.
13. Gage, N. and Berliner, D.C., (1988). Educational Psychology. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
14. Klausmeier, H.J., (1985). Educational Psychology, (5th ed.), New York, Harper and Row.
15. Santiago, R. and Okey, J., (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, Volume: 119, Number: 2, pp: 47-53.
16. Lunts, E., (2002). What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, Volume: 1, Number: 2, pp:59-75.
17. Fraankel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E., (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. Singopore, Mc Graw-Hill.