Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Öğretmen Adaylarının Sanal Sınıf ve Yüz Yüze Öğretim Ortamındaki Öğretme Deneyimlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2021, , 1 - 23, 31.01.2021
https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.788363

Öz

Çalışma öğretmen adaylarının sanal sınıf ve yüz yüze öğretme ortamında yaşadıkları öğreticilik deneyimlerinin değerlendirilmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada tamamlayıcı karma araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubu Bilgisayar ve Öğretim teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü 3. sınıfında okuyan ve Özel Öğretim Yöntemleri I ve II derslerini alan 40 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının yaşları 21-27 arasında değişmektedir. Öğretmen adaylarının 12’si kadın, 28’i erkektir. Görüşmeler öğretmen adaylarının tamamı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının öğretim sürecini iki farklı öğretim ortamında deneyimlemesinin hemen ardından, çevrimiçi öğretim deneyimi anketi I ve II formu aracılığıyla nicel veriler toplanmıştır. Bunu takiben öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik deneyimleri hakkında detaylı bilgi almak için tüm öğretmen adaylarıyla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistikler ve öğrencilerin sanal sınıf ve yüzü yüze öğretme ortamında öğretici rolünü gerçekleştirirken algıladıkları kaygı, motivasyon, performans ve verimlilik düzeylerinin karşılaştırılmasında Wilcoxon İşaretli sıralar testi kullanılmıştır. Nitel verilerin analizinde ise betimsel analizlerden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma sonunda öğretmen adaylarının büyük çoğunluğunun öğretmen-öğrenci etkileşimi ve göz teması kurma gibi nedenlerle yüz yüze öğretme ortamını tercih ettiği belirlenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının sanal sınıf ve yüzü yüze öğretme ortamında öğretici rolünü gerçekleştirirken algıladıkları kaygı düzeyleri açısından anlamlı fark görülmezken; algılanan motivasyon, algılanan performans ve algılanan verimlilik açısından yüz yüze öğretme ortamındaki öğretme deneyimi lehine anlamlı bir fark olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlar ilgili literatür çerçevesinde tartışılmış ve önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Abdous, M. (2019). Influence of satisfaction and preparedness on online students' feelings of Anxiety. The Internet and Higher Education, 41 (2019) 34–44.
  • Abdous, M., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55(2), 733–741.
  • Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, and tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56 (1), 91–100.
  • Anderson, D. L., Standerford, N. S., & Imdieke, S. (2010). A self-study on building community in the online classroom. Networks, 12(2), 1-10. Baker, J. D., (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • Berge, Z. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181-190.
  • Birişçi, S. (2013). Video Konferans Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitime İlişkin Öğrenci Tutumları ve Görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 1(2), 24-40.
  • Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry ff Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into The Research Process. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3): 173-185.
  • Cabı, E. (2018). Teaching Computer Literacy via Distance Education: Experiences of the Instructors. Başkent University Journal of Education, 5(1), 61-68.
  • Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., & Boone, W. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. Science Educator, 14, 31–40.
  • Chen, G. D., Ou, K. L., Liu, C. C., & Liu, B. J., (2001). Intervention and strategy analysis for web group-learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 58-71.
  • Compton, L. K. L., Davis, N. E., & Mackey, J. (2009). Field experience in virtual schools – to be there virtually. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 459-477.
  • Gorrell, J., & Dharmadasa, K. (1994). Perceived self-efficacy of pre-service and in-service Sri Lankan teachers. International Education, 24, 23–36.
  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
  • Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ Professional digital competence: implications for teacher education, European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214-231.
  • Gülbahar, Y. & Karataş, E. (2016). Learning Distance Teaching via Distance Learning: “E-Instructor Certificate Program”. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1867-1880.
  • He, Y. (2014). Universal Design for Learning in an Online Teacher Education Course: Enhancing Learners’ Confidence to Teach Online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10 (2): 283–297.
  • İzmirli, S., Akyüz, H. İ.. (2017). Eş Zamanlı Sanal Sınıf Yazılımlarının incelenmesi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 13(4), 788-810.
  • Jin, S. H. (2005). Analyzing student-student and student-instructor interaction through multiple communıcatıon tools in web-based learning, International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 1, 59-67.
  • Kalelioğlu, F., Atan, A. & Çetin, Ç. (2016). Sanal sınıf eğitmen ve öğrenen deneyimleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 555-568.
  • Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185-200.
  • Lambe, J. (2007). Student teachers, special education need and inclusion education: Reviewing the potential for problem-based, e-learning pedagogy to support practice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 33, 359–377.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge.
  • Ojo, D.O., & Olakuluhin, F.K. (2006). Attitudes and perceptions of students to open and distance learning in Nigeria, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1-10.
  • Reisoğlu, İ. & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers Be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu, Computers & Education (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940.
  • Sae-Khow, J. (2014). Developing of Indicators of an E-Learning Benchmarking Model for Higher Education Institutions. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 35-43.
  • Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S.L. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 24-28.
  • Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Telli-Yamamoto, G. & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve Çevrimiçi (Online) Eğitimin Önlenemeyen Yükselişi. Journal of University Research, 3(1), 25-34.
  • Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed method study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(1), 319-343.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33-48.
  • Woodcock, S., Sisco, A. & Eady, M. (2015). The learning experience: Training teachers using online synchronous environments. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 5(1), 21-34.
  • Yıldız, E. (2011). Web-tabanlı senkron derslerin öğretmen adaylarının uzaktan eğitime karşı tutumları ve senkron teknolojileri kabulleri üzerine etkisi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Balıkesir.
  • Yılmazsoy, B., Özdinç, F. & Kahraman, M. (2018). Sanal Sınıf Ortamındaki Sınıf Yönetimine Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Trakya Journal of Education 8(3), 513-525.
  • Yordam, M. F., & Bülbül, T. (2018). Öğretmenlerin Özyeterlilik Algılarının Çevrimiçi Öğrenmeye Yönelik Hazırbulunuşlulukları ile İlişkisi. Trakya University Journal of Social Science, 20(1), 447-470.

Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment

Yıl 2021, , 1 - 23, 31.01.2021
https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.788363

Öz

The study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the pre-service teachers' teaching experiences in virtual classroom and face-to-face teaching environment. Complementarity mixed research method was used in the study. The study group of the research was composed of 40 pre-service teachers. Quantitative data was collected through the online teaching experience questionnaire I and II form, immediately after the pre-service teachers experienced the teaching process in two different teaching environments. Following this, semi-structured interviews were conducted with all the pre-service teachers in order to obtain detailed information regarding their teaching experiences. In the analysis of quantitative data, descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used to compare the perceived anxiety, motivation, performance and efficiency levels of the pre-service teachers while performing the teaching role in virtual classroom and face-to-face teaching environment. In the analysis of qualitative data, descriptive content analyses were used. As a result of the study, it was determined that the majority of the pre-service teachers preferred face-to-face teaching environment for such reasons as teacher-student interaction and eye contact. While there was not a significant difference in terms of the anxiety levels perceived by the pre-service teachers during performing the teaching role in virtual classroom and face-to-face teaching environment, it was determined that there was a significant difference in terms of the perceived motivation, perceived performance and perceived efficiency on behalf of face-to-face teaching experience. Limitations and implications of the findings are discussed and future directions are provided.

Kaynakça

  • Abdous, M. (2019). Influence of satisfaction and preparedness on online students' feelings of Anxiety. The Internet and Higher Education, 41 (2019) 34–44.
  • Abdous, M., & Yoshimura, M. (2010). Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & Education, 55(2), 733–741.
  • Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, and tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56 (1), 91–100.
  • Anderson, D. L., Standerford, N. S., & Imdieke, S. (2010). A self-study on building community in the online classroom. Networks, 12(2), 1-10. Baker, J. D., (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13.
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  • Berge, Z. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181-190.
  • Birişçi, S. (2013). Video Konferans Tabanlı Uzaktan Eğitime İlişkin Öğrenci Tutumları ve Görüşleri. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 1(2), 24-40.
  • Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry ff Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into The Research Process. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3): 173-185.
  • Cabı, E. (2018). Teaching Computer Literacy via Distance Education: Experiences of the Instructors. Başkent University Journal of Education, 5(1), 61-68.
  • Cakiroglu, J., Cakiroglu, E., & Boone, W. (2005). Pre-service teacher self-efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching: A comparison of pre-service teachers in Turkey and the USA. Science Educator, 14, 31–40.
  • Chen, G. D., Ou, K. L., Liu, C. C., & Liu, B. J., (2001). Intervention and strategy analysis for web group-learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 58-71.
  • Compton, L. K. L., Davis, N. E., & Mackey, J. (2009). Field experience in virtual schools – to be there virtually. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 459-477.
  • Gorrell, J., & Dharmadasa, K. (1994). Perceived self-efficacy of pre-service and in-service Sri Lankan teachers. International Education, 24, 23–36.
  • Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.
  • Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2018). Newly qualified teachers’ Professional digital competence: implications for teacher education, European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 214-231.
  • Gülbahar, Y. & Karataş, E. (2016). Learning Distance Teaching via Distance Learning: “E-Instructor Certificate Program”. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1867-1880.
  • He, Y. (2014). Universal Design for Learning in an Online Teacher Education Course: Enhancing Learners’ Confidence to Teach Online. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10 (2): 283–297.
  • İzmirli, S., Akyüz, H. İ.. (2017). Eş Zamanlı Sanal Sınıf Yazılımlarının incelenmesi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 13(4), 788-810.
  • Jin, S. H. (2005). Analyzing student-student and student-instructor interaction through multiple communıcatıon tools in web-based learning, International Journal of Instructional Media, 32, 1, 59-67.
  • Kalelioğlu, F., Atan, A. & Çetin, Ç. (2016). Sanal sınıf eğitmen ve öğrenen deneyimleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 555-568.
  • Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in K-12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 185-200.
  • Lambe, J. (2007). Student teachers, special education need and inclusion education: Reviewing the potential for problem-based, e-learning pedagogy to support practice. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 33, 359–377.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22-38). New York: Routledge.
  • Ojo, D.O., & Olakuluhin, F.K. (2006). Attitudes and perceptions of students to open and distance learning in Nigeria, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1-10.
  • Reisoğlu, İ. & Çebi, A. (2020). How can the digital competences of pre-service teachers Be developed? Examining a case study through the lens of DigComp and DigCompEdu, Computers & Education (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103940.
  • Sae-Khow, J. (2014). Developing of Indicators of an E-Learning Benchmarking Model for Higher Education Institutions. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 35-43.
  • Sprague, D., Kopfman, K., & Dorsey, S.L. (1998). Faculty development in the integration of technology in teacher education courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(2), 24-28.
  • Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Telli-Yamamoto, G. & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve Çevrimiçi (Online) Eğitimin Önlenemeyen Yükselişi. Journal of University Research, 3(1), 25-34.
  • Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed method study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(1), 319-343.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 33-48.
  • Woodcock, S., Sisco, A. & Eady, M. (2015). The learning experience: Training teachers using online synchronous environments. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 5(1), 21-34.
  • Yıldız, E. (2011). Web-tabanlı senkron derslerin öğretmen adaylarının uzaktan eğitime karşı tutumları ve senkron teknolojileri kabulleri üzerine etkisi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi), Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Balıkesir.
  • Yılmazsoy, B., Özdinç, F. & Kahraman, M. (2018). Sanal Sınıf Ortamındaki Sınıf Yönetimine Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. Trakya Journal of Education 8(3), 513-525.
  • Yordam, M. F., & Bülbül, T. (2018). Öğretmenlerin Özyeterlilik Algılarının Çevrimiçi Öğrenmeye Yönelik Hazırbulunuşlulukları ile İlişkisi. Trakya University Journal of Social Science, 20(1), 447-470.
Toplam 37 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Şerife Ak 0000-0002-7148-620X

İbrahim Gökdaş 0000-0001-7019-8735

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ocak 2021
Gönderilme Tarihi 31 Ağustos 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021

Kaynak Göster

APA Ak, Ş., & Gökdaş, İ. (2021). Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.788363
AMA Ak Ş, Gökdaş İ. Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment. TOJQI. Ocak 2021;12(1):1-23. doi:10.17569/tojqi.788363
Chicago Ak, Şerife, ve İbrahim Gökdaş. “Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 12, sy. 1 (Ocak 2021): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.788363.
EndNote Ak Ş, Gökdaş İ (01 Ocak 2021) Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 12 1 1–23.
IEEE Ş. Ak ve İ. Gökdaş, “Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment”, TOJQI, c. 12, sy. 1, ss. 1–23, 2021, doi: 10.17569/tojqi.788363.
ISNAD Ak, Şerife - Gökdaş, İbrahim. “Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 12/1 (Ocak 2021), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.788363.
JAMA Ak Ş, Gökdaş İ. Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment. TOJQI. 2021;12:1–23.
MLA Ak, Şerife ve İbrahim Gökdaş. “Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, c. 12, sy. 1, 2021, ss. 1-23, doi:10.17569/tojqi.788363.
Vancouver Ak Ş, Gökdaş İ. Comparison of Pre-Service Teachers’ Teaching Experiences in Virtual Classroom and Face-to-Face Teaching Environment. TOJQI. 2021;12(1):1-23.