Investigation of Classroom Teachers' Views towards Innovative Pedagogical Practices

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 253 - 273, 01.12.2021

Sedef Süer , Behçet Oral

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.89.8.4

Abstract

The 21st century requires different and innovative ways of teaching compared to the previous century. As a result, a new and current educational approach called innovative pedagogy comes out as an issue. This study aims to investigate classroom teachers’ innovative pedagogical practices with different variables, as well as the contributing or deteriorating factors that affect the relevant processes. The study was designed based on the descriptive survey method in which quantitative and qualitative data were used. The Innovative Pedagogical Practices Scale for Teachers was applied to 961 classroom teachers and the obtained data were analysed with descriptive statistics and parametric tests. Then an interview form was prepared and 30 classroom teachers were asked to fill the form. The obtained data analysed with the descriptive analysis method. The findings showed that classroom teachers frequently use innovative pedagogical practices in their classrooms to fulfil the requirement of the learner-centred educational approach. Besides, teachers’ participation in professional courses, the number of scientific events attended and the type of books teachers read were determined to be contributing variables for teachers to implement innovative pedagogical practices. However, the teachers faced such problems as the intensity of curriculum, equipment, and technical deficiencies and inadequate readiness level of students.

Keywords

innovative pedagogy, classroomteachers, 21st century skills

Supporting Institution

Dicle Üniversitesi Bilimsel araştırmalar Merkezi

Project Number

ZGEF.18.014

Thanks

This study was supported by the Scientific Research Center of Dicle University with the project number of ZGEF.18.014.

References

• Abbak, Y. (2018). Investigation of levels innovations and lifelong learning competencies of teachers]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Erciyes University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Kayseri.
• Akay, C. (2015). Öğrenmeyi etkileyen temel faktörler ve genel öğrenme ve öğretme ilkeleri. In Yanpar Yelken, T. & Akay, C. (Eds.) Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri[Teaching Principles and Methods]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Akçay, N. O. (2016). Determining the views and adequacy of the preschool teachers related to science activities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 821-829.
• Akdeniz, A. & Kadı, A. (2016, Aralık). Investigating individual innovativeness levels and lifelong learning tendencies of students in TMSC. ICLEL Conferences Sakarya University Faculty of Education, Sakarya, TURKEY.
• Argon, T., Menep, İ., & Bayram, T. Y. (2010). Knowledge culture in a university: AIBU education faculty case. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 1(20), 69-83.
• Bitkin, A. (2012). The relationship between individual innovativeness levels and information acquisition competencies of prospective teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis). Harran University Institue of Social Sciences, Urfa.
• Bozpolat, E. (2010). An assessment of prospective teachers’ attitudes towards reading habit: Case of Cumhuriyet Unıversity education faculty Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 2(1), 411-428.
• Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to Learn. Eager to Learn. Washington DC: NAtional Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226.
• Camci, F. (2012). Effects of activity based teaching grounded on active learning on students? academic skills and learning process [Unpublished master’s thesis). Adiyaman University, Institute of Science, Adiyaman.
• Can, S., & Çava, G. (2018). Evaluation of play and physical activities course taught in elementary schools on the basis of classroom. Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(2), 261-273.
• Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2018). Updated Teacher Training Programs for Undergraduate Students. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.
• Demirel, Y., & Seçkin, Ö. G. Z. (2008). The impact of knowledge and knowledge sharing on innovation. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 189-202.
• Demirezen, S. &. Akhan, N. E. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin “araştırmacı öğretmen modeli” hakkındaki görüşleri, E-International Journal of Educational Researches, 8(3), 16-33. DOI: 10.19160/ijer.303643.
• Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and young Latino children's school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 196-212.
• Fer, S. (2011). Öğretim Tasarımı[Instructional Design]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• García, L. M. (2011). Encouraging teachers' and students' innovation with the support of teacher learning communities. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1(1), 133-152.
• Goatley, V. J., & Johnston, P. (2013). Innovation, research, and policy: Evolutions in classroom teaching. Language Arts, 91(2), 94-104.
• Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H., & Kuzu, A. (2013). The defining characteristics of students of the 21st century by student teachers: A Twitter activity. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 9(4), 436-455.
• Hirschman; E. C., (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 December, 283-295.
• Holubová, R. (2010). Improving the quality of teaching by modern teaching methods. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 25. Retrieved from http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/pec/files/pdf/vol25/58-66.Holubova_Vol.25.pdf
• International Society for Technology and Education [ISTE], (2017). http://www.iste.org.
• Kaya, S. (2017). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin bireysel yenilikçilik düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Examination of individual innovativeness levels of biology teachers]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dicle University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Diyarbakır.
• Kaya, Z., & Yılayaz, Ö. (2013). Technology integration models in teacher education and technological pedagogical content knowledge. The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(8), 57-83.
• Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127-140.
• Kert, S. B., & Tekdal, M. (2012). Comparison of individual innovativeness perception of students attending different education faculties. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 1150-1161.
• Khurshid, F., & Ansari, U. (2012). Effects of innovative teaching strategies on students’ performance. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 12(10-E),46-54
• Kılıç, H. (2015). Primary subject teachers' individual innovativeness levels and lifelong learning tendencies (Within Denizli province). (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pamukkale University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Denizli.
• Kocasaraç, H. (2018). Evaluation of innovative cases of science and social sciences high school teachers. (Unpublished doctorate dissertations). Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences, İstanbul.
• Koçak, R. (2014). Temel kavramlar, öğrenmeyi etkileyen etmenler. In Ed: B. Oral, Öğrenme, Öğretme Kuram ve Yaklaşımları [Learning, Teaching Theories and Approaches]. (3rd edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Kozma, R. B., & Anderson, R. E. (2002). Qualitative case studies of innovative pedagogical practices using ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 387-394.
• Köroğlu, A.Y. (2014). Research on information and communication technologies self-efficacy perception, technological materials usage attitude and individual innovativeness level of pre-school teachers and pre-school preservice teachers. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1982, March). Establishing Dependability and Confirmability in Naturalistic Inquiry Through an Audit. Paper prepared for presentation at the American Educational Research Association (Anual Meeting, New York).
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Teaching Programs. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx.
• Moloney, R., & Xu, H. L. (2016). Teacher personal practical knowledge as a foundation for innovative practice: narratives of returnee teachers of Cfl in overseas contexts. Exploring Innovative Pedagogy in the Teaching and Learning of Chinese as a Foreign Language. Singapore: Springer.
• Naifeld, E. & Simon, E. (2017). Teaching students’ understanding of innovative pedagogy. European Scientific Journal. 13(4), 15-26.
• Özbek, A. (2014). The research of teachers' innovativeness level effect on TPACK competences. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
• Özdemir, S.M. (2011). Education and curricula within the context of social change and globalization: A conceptual analysis. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi[KEFAD]. 12(1), 85-110.
• Özdemir, M., Ferhatoğlu, M. & Aybat, B. (2015, January). Öğretmenin profesyonel gelişimine yenilikçi bir bakış: Etusp. Türkiye Özel Okullar Birliği Derneği XIV. Geleneksel Eğitim Sempozyumu Geleceğin Öğretmeni[Turkey Private Schools Association of XIV. Traditional Education Symposium Teacher of the Future], Antalya.
• Özen, Y., & Gül, A. (2007). Population-sampling ıssue on social and educational research studies. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (15), 394-422.
• Özgür, H. (2013). Investigation of the relationship between critical thinking tendency and and individual innovativeness characteristics of information technology teacher candidates in terms of various variables. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(2),409-420.
• P21 (2010), Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org.
• Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (Trans eds: Sibel Balcı & Berat Ahi). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Parlar, H., & Cansoy, R. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ individual innovativeness and professionalism. International Education Studies, 10(8), 1-11.
• Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel Araştırma ve Değerlendirme Yöntemleri[ Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice]. (Trans edits: Bütün, M. & Demir, S.B). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policy makers about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-olds. Washington, DC: National Center for Children in Poverty.
• Redding, S., Twyman, J. S., & Murphy, M. (2013). What is an innovation in learning. Handbook on Innovations in Learning, 3-14. Temple University, Philadelphia, USA: Center on Innovations in Learning.
• Russell, D. L., & Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding innovation in education using activity theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 38-53.
• Salaria, N. (2012). Meaning of the term descriptive survey research method. International Journal of Transformations in Business Management, 1(6), 1-7.
• Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for eLearning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, 13(3), 201-218.
• Schunk, D.H. (2011). Eğitimsel Bir Bakışla Öğrenme Teorileri[Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective]. (Trans. Ed: Şahin, M.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Sengupta, A. & Tyagi, H. K. (2016). Teaching excellence and innovative practices: A case study of national awardee teachers of India. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1), 48-53.
• Silverman, D. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical Handbook. London: Sage Publications Inc.
• Stukalenko, N. M., Zhakhina, B. B., Kukubaeva, A. K., Smagulova, N. K., & Kazhibaeva, G. K. (2016). Studying innovation technologies in modern education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), 6612-6617.
• Süer, S. & Oral, B. (2021). Innovative pedagogical practices scale for teachers: A study of validity and realibility. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. (Under the progress of publication)
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th editon). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Taşdemir, M., Şahin, B. U. C., Taşdemir, Ö. G. F., Kılıç, B. U. E., Dağıstan, B. U. A., & Dağdelen, B. U. S. Teacher views on primary school English language programs. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching. 7(3), 121-130.
• Terry, W.S. (2012). Öğrenme ve Bellek[Learning and Memory]. (Trans. Ed.: Cangöz, B.) Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• URL-1. What is Innovative Pedagogy? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Innovative_Pedagogy2.
• Uştu, H., Taş, A. M., & Sever, B. (2016). A qualitative study about the perceptions of teachers on professional development. Electronic Journal of Occupational Improvement and Research, 4(1), 15-23.
• Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yılmaz, H. (2018). The Levels of Primary School Teachers Reflecting Individual Innovativeness and Professional Values. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Bolu.
• Yılmaz-Öztürk, Z. (2015). An analysis of primary school teachers' level of individual innovativeness and the factors affecting it. (Unpublished doctorate dissertations). Gaziantep University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Gaziantep. Yılmaz, M., & Benli, N. (2010). Analyzing pre-service classroom teacher candidates’ attitudes towards reading habit according to some variables. Erzincan UniversityJournal of Education Faculty, 12(1), 281-291.
• Yorulmaz, A., Çokçalışkan, H., & Önal, H. (2017). Determination of classroom pre-service teachers' state of personal innovativeness. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1), 28-34.
• Yurtseven, R., & Ergün, M. (2018). Teacher's opinions about development of entrepreneurship skills of primary school students. International Journal of Social Science Research, 7(1), 118-140.