DİJİTAL VE HİBRİT ÖĞRENME ORTAMLARINDA ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ DERSİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: BİR EYLEM ARAŞTIRMASI

Öz

Eğitimde araştırma temelli bir kültürün geliştirilmesi, öğretmen adaylarının araştırma becerilerini etkili bir şekilde kazanmalarını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışma, araştırma yöntemleri dersinin öğretmen adaylarına dijital ve hibrit ortamlarda daha etkili nasıl öğretilebileceğini incelemektedir. Eylem araştırması olarak tasarlanan çalışma, üç dönem boyunca sırasıyla 14, 27 ve 32 öğretmen adayıyla yürütülmüştür. Veriler, Padlet aracılığıyla toplanan açık uçlu sorular ve araştırmacının saha notlarıyla elde edilmiş, içerik analiziyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğrenci merkezli ve etkileşimli öğretim uygulamalarının, sürekli geri bildirimin ve çeşitli örneklerin kullanımının dersin en etkili yönleri olarak algılandığını göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, öğretmen adayları içerik yoğunluğu, konu sayısının fazlalığı ve temel kavramların anlaşılmasındaki güçlükleri tüm döngülerde tutarlı biçimde dile getirmiştir. Yapılan revizyonlara rağmen bu durumun devam etmesi, bazı güçlüklerin dersin doğasından kaynaklanabileceğini göstermektedir. Bulgular içerik, öğretim süreci ve değerlendirme uygulamaları bağlamında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma yöntemleri dersi
• eylem araştırması
• öğrenci merkezli öğrenme
• hibrit öğrenme
• öğretmen adayları

Etik Beyan

Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Etik Kurulu'ndan etik kurul onayı alınmıştır (Tarih: 19.02.2022, Numara: 13/57).

EVALUATION OF A RESEARCH METHODS COURSE IN DIGITAL AND HYBRID LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: AN ACTION RESEARCH STUDY

Öz

Developing a research-based culture in education requires preservice teachers to acquire strong research competencies through effective research methods instruction. This study examines how a research methods course can be taught more effectively to preservice teachers through a student-centered approach in digital and hybrid environments. Designed as an action research study, it was conducted across three semesters with 14, 27, and 32 participants, respectively. Data were collected through open-ended questions via Padlet and researcher field notes and analyzed using content analysis. Findings revealed that student-centered and interactive teaching practices, continuous feedback, and the use of diverse examples were perceived as the most effective aspects of the course. However, preservice teachers consistently reported challenges related to content density, the high number of topics, and difficulties in understanding key concepts across all cycles. Despite iterative revisions, these challenges persisted, suggesting that some difficulties may be inherent to research methods education. The findings are discussed in terms of course content, instructional processes, and evaluation practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Research methods course
• action research
• student-centered learning
• blended learning
• preservice teachers

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was obtained from Erciyes University Social and Humanitarian Ethics Committee (Date: 19.02.2022, Number: 13/57)

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, E., Dinçer, Z. Ö., Girgin, U., Acar, Y., Yavuz, E., & Lafcı-Tor, D. (2026). From negative evidence to learning opportunities: Investigating informal formative assessment practices in an L2 Classroom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 23(1), 24-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2025.2612163
2. Barraket, J. (2005). Teaching research methods using a student-centered approach: Critical reflections on practice. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2(2), 64-74. http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol2/iss2/3
3. Bell, R. (2016). The continuing search to find a more effective and less intimidating way to teach research methods in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(3), 285-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.956780
4. Beatty, B. J. (2019). Hybrid-flexible course design: Implementing student-directed hybrid educational courses. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/hyflex
5. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701
6. Braguglia, K. H., & Jackson, K. A. (2012). Teaching research methodology using a project-based three-course sequence: Critical reflections on practice. American Journal of Business Education, 5(3), 347-352. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v5i3.7007
7. Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., & Callery, P. (2008). Online vs. face-to-face discussion in a web-based research methods course for postgraduate nursing students: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(5), 750-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.12.011
8. Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education. 28(1), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

9. Class, B. (2023). Teaching research methods in education: Using the TPACK framework to reflect on praxis. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2023.2270426
10. Council of Higher Education. (1999). Standards and accreditation in teacher education in Turkey. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/turkiyede_ogretmen_egitiminde_standartlar_ve_akreditasyon.pdf
11. Council of Higher Education. (2018). Undergraduate teacher education programs. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/AA_Sunus_Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
12. Earley, M. A. (2014). A synthesis of the literature on research methods education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 242-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.860105
13. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate education research. McGraw-Hill.
14. Fuchs, B. (2014). The writing is on the wall: Using Padlet for whole-class engagement. LOEX Quarterly, 40(7), 1-9. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/libraries_facpub/240
15. Fung, D. (2017). A connected curriculum for higher education. UCL. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781911576051
16. Garner, M., Wagner, C., & Kawulich, B. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching research methods in the social sciences. Routledge.
17. Graham, C. R., & Halverson, L.R. (2022). Blended learning research and practice. Handbook of open, distance, and digital education. Springer.
18. Healey, M., Jenkins, A., & Lea, J. (2014). Developing research-based curricula in college-based higher education. Higher Education Academy.
19. James, E. L., Ward, B. M., Dickson-Swift, V. A., Kippen, S. A., & Snow, P. C. (2016). Best practice in research methods assessment: Opportunities to enhance student learning. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, & B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching research methods in the social sciences (pp. 139-150). Routledge.
20. Jiao, Q. G., DaRos-Voseles, D. A., Collins, K. M. T., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Academic procrastination and the performance of graduate-level cooperative groups in research methods courses. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 119-138.
21. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer.
22. Keyton, J. (2001). Integrating service-learning in the research methods course. Southern Journal of Communication, 66(3), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940109373199
23. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
24. Lei, S. A. (2010). College research methodology courses: Revisiting general instructional goals and objectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 236-240. https://scispace.com/papers/college-research-methodology-courses-revisiting-general-2xv2ikdfze
25. McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. Matos, J. F., Freitas, A., Estrela, E., Galego, C., & Piedade, J. (2023a). Teaching research methods courses in education: Towards a research-based culture. Social Sciences, 12(6), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12060338
26. Matos, J. F., Piedade, J., Freitas, A., Pedro, N., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Galego, C. (2023b). Teaching and learning research methodologies in education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 13(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020173
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
28. Mills, G. E. (2013). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Pearson.
29. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011525
30. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage.
31. Pfeffer, C. A., & Rogalin, C. L. (2012). Three strategies for teaching research methods: A case study. Teaching Sociology, 40(4), 368-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12446783
32. Polkinghorne, S., & Wilton, S. (2010). Research is a verb: Exploring a new information-literacy embedded undergraduate research methods course. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 34(4), 457-473. https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2010.0008
33. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x
34. Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2020). Active student engagement in online STEM classes: Approaches and recommendations. Advances in Engineering Education, 8(4), 1-25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347513842_ACTIVE_STUDENT_ENGAGEMENT_IN_ONLINE_STEM_CLASSES_APPROACHES_AND_RECOMMENDATIONS#fullTextFileContent
35. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2011). Informal formative assessment: The role of instructional dialogues in assessing students’ learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.04.003
36. Schweizer, K., Steinwascher, M., Moosbrugger, H., & Reiss, S. (2011). The structure of research methodology competency in higher education. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.002
37. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage.
38. Senter, M. S. (2017). Integrating program assessment and a career focus into a research methods course. Teaching Sociology, 45(2), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X16686151
39. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Sage.
40. Strangman, L., & Knowles, E. (2012). Improving the development of students’ research questions and hypotheses in an introductory business research methods course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-13. http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v6n2.html
41. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass.
42. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford.
43. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15, 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
44. Wagner, C., Garner, M., & Kawulich, B. (2011). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903452594
45. Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded formative assessment (2nd ed.). Solution Tree.
46. Yavuz, E. (2023). Eylem araştırması (3. baskı). M. Çelebi (Ed.), Nitel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (s. 86-96). Pegem Akademi.
47. Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57-84. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ957107.pdf