Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilişsel -Yapılandırıcı Stratejilere Göre Etkinlik Hazırlama Becerileri

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 4, 1681 - 1703, 31.10.2019

Hülya Sönmez

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı,
Türkçe dersi öğretmen adaylarının iki önemli eğitim yaklaşımına göre öğretim süreci tasarlama
becerilerini desteklemek ve incelemektir. Araştırma süreci, karma araştırma yönteminin aşamalarına
uygun olarak tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmanın ilk aşamasında öğretmen adaylarına Yenilenmiş Bloom
Taksonomisi (YBT) ve 5E modeliyle ilgili eğitim verilmiştir. Daha sonra bu yaklaşımlara göre
geliştirilen öğretim stratejileri hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. İkinci aşamada öğretmen adayları, bu
stratejilerden yararlanarak etkinlik tasarlamışlardır. Üçüncü aşamada ise hazırlanan etkinlikler,
önceden hazırlanan dereceli puanlama anahtarı ile incelenmiştir. Bu aşamada hazırlanan etkinliklerin
başarı düzeylerine göre YBT ve 5E modelinin işlevi ve bunlardan hareketle bilişsel ve yapılandırıcı
yaklaşımlar karşılaştırarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Çalışmanın son aşamasında öğretmen adaylarının
YBT ve 5E modeliyle ilgili duygu ve düşünceleri nitel olarak incelenmiştir. Bu kapsamda yarı
yapılandırılmış görüşme gerçekleştirilerek veriler toplanmış ve incelenmiştir. Nicel ve nitel veriler
üzerinde yapılan incelemeler sonucunda ulaşılan bulgular değerlendirilmiştir. Bu bulgulara göre
öğretmen adaylarının YBT’ye göre hazırladıkları etkinliklerin 5E modeline göre hazırladıkları
etkinliklerden genel olarak daha başarılı ve yeterli olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ulaşılan sonuçlara göre
öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel yapılandırıcı stratejilerden yaralanarak etkinlik tasarlayabilecekleri
önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Etkinlik tasarlama bilişsel yapılandırıcı stratejiler

References

  • Akkuş, Z. (2014). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı ölçme ve değerlendirme etkinliklerine ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 13-27.
  • Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
  • Arslan, M. (2007). Eğitimde yapılandırmacı yaklaşımlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 41-61.
  • Azumi, K. (2008). An experimental study of language learning strategies: Particular focus on the patterns of strategy use by Japanese university learners of English. 7(17), 149-169. Available at file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/bgshss-no17p149-169.pdf (Access Date: 22.04.2018).
  • Bay, E. ve Karakaya, Ş. (2009). Öğretmen eğitiminde yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı uygulamaların etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (28), 40-55.
  • Bilgin, N. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde içerik analizi teknikler ve örnek çalışmalar (genişletilmiş 3. baskı). Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi.
  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  • Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for the constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Araştırma deseni (Selçuk Beşir Demir, Çev. Edt.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Selçuk Beşir Demir ve Yüksel Dede, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Dale, R. (2004). Cognitive and behavioral approaches to language acquisition: Conceptual and empirical intersections. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(4), 336-358.
  • Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive shema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 163-174.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). “Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective”. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
  • Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
  • Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23-35.
  • Gebre, B. M. & Tadesse, G. G. (2015).The role of listening strategy ınstruction in advancing students’ listening achievement and strategy use. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 3(11), 13-24.
  • Glasersfeld E. Von (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In: Steffe L. P. & Gale J. (Eds.) Constructivism in education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale: 3-15. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/172. (Access Date: 20.04.2018).
  • Gökçe, E., Demirhan İşcan, C. ve Erdem, A. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının sınıf ortamında yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımına uygun çalışmalar gerçekleştirmesine ilişkin gözlemleri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 111-127.
  • Graham, S., Santos, D. & Vanderplank, R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between listening development and strategy use. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 435-456.
  • Griffiths, C. (2004). Language learning strategies: Theory and research, New Zealand. Occasional Paper, 1, 1-25.
  • Holden, W. R. (2004). Facilitating listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 28, 257-266.
  • Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197-199.
  • Kassem, H. M. (2015). The relationship between listening strategies used by Egyptianefl college sophomores and their listening comprehension and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 153-169.
  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, book II. Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). “A quantitative approach to content validity.” Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
  • Martinez, I. M. (1996). The importance of language learning strategies in foreign language teaching. Cuadernos of English Philology, 5(1), 103-120.
  • Matthews, M. R. (1997). 'Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education', constructivism in science education a philosophical examination. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 5-14.
  • Meang, U.K (2006). Comparison of L2 listening and reading comprehension strategies: A case study of three middle school students. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(2), 471-500.
  • Metin, M. ve Özmen, H. (2009). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı kuramın 5E modeline uygun etkinlikleri tasarlarken ve uygularken karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 3(2), 94-123.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). Califonia: Sage.
  • Moore, J. (1999). The basic principles of behaviorism. The philosophical legacy of behaviorism (Edt. Bruce A. Thyer). Springer, 41-68. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303660744_The_Basic_Principles_of_Behaviorism. (Access Date: 20.04.2018).
  • Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach and reading and writing instructions for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching English, 41(3), 269-303.
  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbau, P. H. (1959). The measurement of meaning. Language, 35(1), 58-77.
  • Panasuk, R. M., & Lewis, S. (2012). Constructivism: constructing meaning or making sense? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (20), 1-11.
  • Sönmez, H. (2019a). The strategies for designing activity related to listening/following skills and assessment rubric. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), 124-154.
  • Sönmez, H. (2019b). The effectiveness of cognitive and metacognitive/affective strategies in story writing process. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 7(3), 109-125.
  • Tomic, W. (1993). Behaviorism and cognitivism in education. Psikology, A journal of Human Behavior, 30(3/4), 38-46.
  • Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Yulisa, D. (2018). Learning to listen: listening strategies and listening comprehension of Islamic senior high school students. Jurnal Pendidikandan Pengajaran, 5(1), 22-30.

Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 4, 1681 - 1703, 31.10.2019

Hülya Sönmez

Abstract

The aim of this study is to support and examine the level of teaching process designing
skills of prospective teachers of Turkish based on two main educational approaches. The research
process has been designed in accordance with the stages of the mixed research model. In the first
stage of the research, prospective teachers were given training on Revised Bloom Taxonomy (RBT)
and 5E model. In the first stage of the study, prospective teachers were provided training on cognitive
constructivism strategies. Then; knowledge was given about the teaching strategies developed
according to these approaches. In the second stage, prospective teachers designed activities based on
these strategies. In the third stage, the designed activities were assessed through a pre-developed
rubric. Based on the achievement levels of the activities designed in this stage, the function of RBT
and 5E Model and the cognitive and constructivist approaches were compared and evaluated. In the
last stage of the study, prospective teachers' feelings and thoughts about RBT and 5E model were
examined qualitatively. In this context, semi-structured interview was conducted and the data were
collected and analyzed. The findings obtained from the examinations on quantitative and qualitative
data were evaluated. According to these findings, it was determined that the activities prepared by
prospective teachers according to RBT were generally more successful and sufficient than the
activities prepared according to 5E model. According to the results, it was suggested that prospective
teachers could design activities by benefiting from cognitive constructive strategies.

Keywords

Activity designing cognitive constructivism strategies

References

  • Akkuş, Z. (2014). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı ölçme ve değerlendirme etkinliklerine ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 13-27.
  • Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
  • Arslan, M. (2007). Eğitimde yapılandırmacı yaklaşımlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 41-61.
  • Azumi, K. (2008). An experimental study of language learning strategies: Particular focus on the patterns of strategy use by Japanese university learners of English. 7(17), 149-169. Available at file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/bgshss-no17p149-169.pdf (Access Date: 22.04.2018).
  • Bay, E. ve Karakaya, Ş. (2009). Öğretmen eğitiminde yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı uygulamaların etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (28), 40-55.
  • Bilgin, N. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde içerik analizi teknikler ve örnek çalışmalar (genişletilmiş 3. baskı). Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi.
  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  • Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for the constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Araştırma deseni (Selçuk Beşir Demir, Çev. Edt.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Selçuk Beşir Demir ve Yüksel Dede, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Dale, R. (2004). Cognitive and behavioral approaches to language acquisition: Conceptual and empirical intersections. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(4), 336-358.
  • Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive shema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 163-174.
  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). “Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective”. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
  • Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
  • Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 23-35.
  • Gebre, B. M. & Tadesse, G. G. (2015).The role of listening strategy ınstruction in advancing students’ listening achievement and strategy use. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 3(11), 13-24.
  • Glasersfeld E. Von (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In: Steffe L. P. & Gale J. (Eds.) Constructivism in education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale: 3-15. Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/172. (Access Date: 20.04.2018).
  • Gökçe, E., Demirhan İşcan, C. ve Erdem, A. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının sınıf ortamında yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımına uygun çalışmalar gerçekleştirmesine ilişkin gözlemleri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 111-127.
  • Graham, S., Santos, D. & Vanderplank, R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between listening development and strategy use. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 435-456.
  • Griffiths, C. (2004). Language learning strategies: Theory and research, New Zealand. Occasional Paper, 1, 1-25.
  • Holden, W. R. (2004). Facilitating listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 28, 257-266.
  • Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197-199.
  • Kassem, H. M. (2015). The relationship between listening strategies used by Egyptianefl college sophomores and their listening comprehension and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 153-169.
  • Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964).Taxonomy of educational objectives, book II. Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). “A quantitative approach to content validity.” Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
  • Martinez, I. M. (1996). The importance of language learning strategies in foreign language teaching. Cuadernos of English Philology, 5(1), 103-120.
  • Matthews, M. R. (1997). 'Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education', constructivism in science education a philosophical examination. Science & Education, 6(1-2), 5-14.
  • Meang, U.K (2006). Comparison of L2 listening and reading comprehension strategies: A case study of three middle school students. The Journal of Curriculum & Evaluation, 9(2), 471-500.
  • Metin, M. ve Özmen, H. (2009). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı kuramın 5E modeline uygun etkinlikleri tasarlarken ve uygularken karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 3(2), 94-123.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). Califonia: Sage.
  • Moore, J. (1999). The basic principles of behaviorism. The philosophical legacy of behaviorism (Edt. Bruce A. Thyer). Springer, 41-68. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303660744_The_Basic_Principles_of_Behaviorism. (Access Date: 20.04.2018).
  • Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach and reading and writing instructions for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching English, 41(3), 269-303.
  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbau, P. H. (1959). The measurement of meaning. Language, 35(1), 58-77.
  • Panasuk, R. M., & Lewis, S. (2012). Constructivism: constructing meaning or making sense? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (20), 1-11.
  • Sönmez, H. (2019a). The strategies for designing activity related to listening/following skills and assessment rubric. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(2), 124-154.
  • Sönmez, H. (2019b). The effectiveness of cognitive and metacognitive/affective strategies in story writing process. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 7(3), 109-125.
  • Tomic, W. (1993). Behaviorism and cognitivism in education. Psikology, A journal of Human Behavior, 30(3/4), 38-46.
  • Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
  • Yulisa, D. (2018). Learning to listen: listening strategies and listening comprehension of Islamic senior high school students. Jurnal Pendidikandan Pengajaran, 5(1), 22-30.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hülya Sönmez 0000-0003-4495-284X

Publication Date October 31, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 7 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Sönmez, H. (2019). Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(4), 1681-1703.
AMA Sönmez H. Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. October 2019;7(4):1681-1703.
Chicago Sönmez, Hülya. “Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance With Cognitive Constructivism Strategies”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7, no. 4 (October 2019): 1681-1703.
EndNote Sönmez H (October 1, 2019) Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7 4 1681–1703.
IEEE H. Sönmez, “Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies”, Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1681–1703, 2019.
ISNAD Sönmez, Hülya. “Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance With Cognitive Constructivism Strategies”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 7/4 (October 2019), 1681-1703.
JAMA Sönmez H. Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2019;7:1681–1703.
MLA Sönmez, Hülya. “Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance With Cognitive Constructivism Strategies”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1681-03.
Vancouver Sönmez H. Prospective Teachers’ Activity Designing Skills in Accordance with Cognitive Constructivism Strategies. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2019;7(4):1681-703.
 Download Cover Image