SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1

Transformation of Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers through Action Research: Enhancing Professional Competency and Lesson Planning with the Clinical Supervision Model

Eylem Araştırması ile Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Dönüşümü: Klinik Danışmanlık Modeliyle Ders Planı Hazırlama ve Mesleki Yeterlilik Geliştirme

Serkan Aslan(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8515-4233
Pages
173–224
Publication Date
2025-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study concluded that pre-service teachers' professional competencies improved, and their subject matter and pedagogical knowledge deepened.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This action research examined the impact of the clinical supervision model on pre-service mathematics teachers' skills in designing lesson plans based on the 5E learning model and their professional competencies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study involved 12 pre-service teachers in a public university's elementary mathematics teacher education program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study concluded that pre-service teachers' professional competencies improved, and their subject matter and pedagogical knowledge deepened.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Klinik danışmanlık · 5E öğrenme modeli · Ders planı hazırlama

Abstract

This action research examined the impact of the clinical supervision model on pre-service mathematics teachers' skills in designing lesson plans based on the 5E learning model and their professional competencies. The study involved 12 pre-service teachers in a public university's elementary mathematics teacher education program. The clinical supervision model was implemented over seven weeks, during which pre-service teachers were guided in designing and implementing lesson plans. Data were collected through a lesson plan evaluation rubric, a teaching-learning process evaluation scale, a professional competency scale, semi-structured interviews, and the researcher’s diary. The study's findings demonstrated that the clinical supervision model was effective in improving pre-service teachers' skills in designing lesson plans based on the 5E learning model and enhancing their professional competencies. By the end of the clinical supervision process, pre-service teachers could select teaching materials, assessment tools, and instructional methods more effectively in alignment with the learning objectives. Additionally, they gained a deeper understanding of the stages of the 5E learning model and prepared lesson plans more systematically by this model. The study concluded that pre-service teachers' professional competencies improved, and their subject matter and pedagogical knowledge deepened. This research provides significant insights into the potential of integrating the clinical supervision model into teacher education programs to support the professional development of pre-service teachers and highlights the need for its broader application in teacher training.

Özet

Bu eylem araştırması, klinik danışmanlık modelinin matematik öğretmen adaylarının 5E öğrenme modeline dayalı ders planı hazırlama becerileri ve mesleki yeterlikleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemiştir. Araştırmaya, bir devlet üniversitesinin ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören 12 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Klinik danışmanlık modeli, yedi hafta boyunca uygulanmış ve bu süreçte öğretmen adaylarına ders planı hazırlama ve uygulama konusunda rehberlik edilmiştir. Araştırma verileri, ders planı değerlendirme rubriği, öğrenme-öğretme süreci değerlendirme dereceli ölçeği, mesleki yeterlik ölçeği, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve araştırmacı günlüğü ile toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, klinik danışmanlık modelinin öğretmen adaylarının 5E öğrenme modeline dayalı ders planı hazırlama becerilerini ve mesleki yeterliklerini geliştirmede etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğretmen adayları, klinik danışmanlık süreci sonunda ders planlarında kazanımlara uygun öğretim materyalleri, ölçme-değerlendirme araçları ve öğretim yöntemlerini daha etkili bir şekilde seçebilmişlerdir. Ayrıca, 5E öğrenme modelinin aşamalarını daha iyi anlamış ve ders planlarını bu modele uygun olarak daha düzenli bir şekilde hazırlamışlardır. Araştırmada öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterliklerinin geliştiği, alan ve pedagojik bilgilerinin derinleştiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu araştırma, öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında klinik danışmanlık modelinin kullanımının yaygınlaştırılması ve öğretmen adaylarının mesleki gelişimlerinin desteklenmesi için önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aslan, S. (2025). Transformation of Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers through Action Research: Enhancing Professional Competency and Lesson Planning with the Clinical Supervision Model. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 1, 173–224. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1601026

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (86)

  1. Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (2011). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and inservice applications. John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Alan, B. & Güven, M. (2022). Reflective and clinical teacher education: A model proposal towards application. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 15(4), 788-815.
  3. APA. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7. b.). APA.
  4. Avinç-Akpınar, İ. & Bayrakçeken, S. (2023). 5E öğrenme modelinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çözeltiler konusundaki başarılarına etkisi. Journal of University Research, 6(3), 257-263. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1269578.
  5. Bağcı, H. & Yalın, H. İ. (2018). Harmanlanmış öğrenme ortamında denetim odağına göre uyarlanmış 5E öğrenme modelinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 11(3), 562-585.
  6. Bear, G. G. & Jones, V. F. (2017). Effective teaching: Principles and practices for the new millennium. Routledge.
  7. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  8. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.
  9. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. ASCD.
  10. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford University.
  11. Bulunuz, N. & Bulunuz, M. (2015). Öğretmen eğitiminde klinik danışmanlık modeli ve mevcut uygulamaların değerlendirilmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 131–141.
  12. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
  13. Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13.
  14. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs BSCS.
  15. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Routledge.
  16. Çelapkulu, M. F., & Çelik, H. C. (2023). 5E öğrenme modelinin Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin matematik başarısına etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1214882
  17. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., & Mills, T. (2016). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College.
  18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Houghton Mifflin.
  19. Corey, G., Haynes, R., Moulton, P., & Muratori, M. (2010). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. Wiley.
  20. Costa, A. L. & Garmston, R. J. (2016). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. R&L Education.
  21. Creswell, J. D. & Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  22. Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative ınquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
  23. Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
  24. Cuenca, A. (2012). The problematology of supervising student teachers. A. Cuenca (Ed.), Supervising student teachers: Issues, perspectives and future directions içinde (s. 21-32). Sense.
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
  26. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309.
  27. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
  28. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do içinde (s. 358-389). Jossey-Bass.
  29. Fenstermacher, G. D. & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00462.x
  30. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
  31. Fitzsimons, S., Sexton, P. J., Lehane, P., Donlon, E., McDonald, E., Karakolidis, A., & McKeever, C. (2024). Understanding pre-service teachers’ improvement in professional practice: A quantitative perspective. Irish Educational Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2024.2330883
  32. Flick, U. (2018). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
  33. Gay, G. (2006). Connections between classroom management and culturally responsive teaching. C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Ed.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues içinde (s. 343–370). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  34. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach. Pearson Education.
  35. Gökdemir, M. A. (2024). Exploring technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among visual arts teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 20(5), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2024.1063.2
  36. Greve, S., Weber, K. E., Brandes, B., & Maier, J. (2020). Development of pre-service teachers’ teaching performance in physical education during a long-term internship. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 50, 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-020-00651-0
  37. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College.
  38. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
  39. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin.
  40. Gussen, L., Schumacher, F., Großmann, N., Ferreira, L., Schlüter, K., & Großschedl, J. (2023) Supporting pre-service teachers in developing research competence. Front. Educ., 8, 1197938. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1197938
  41. Gürsoy, E., Kesner, J. E., & Salihoglu, U. M. (2016). Clinical supervision model in teaching practice: does it make a difference in supervisors’ performance? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(11), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n11.5
  42. Gürsoy, E., Bulunuz, N., Baltacı-Göktalay, Ş., Bulunuz, M., Kesner, J., & Salihoğlu, U. (2013). Clinical supervision model to improve supervisory skills of cooperating teachers and university supervisors during teaching practice. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi[Özel Sayı], 191-203.
  43. Harfitt, G. & Chan, C. (2017). Constructivist learning theories in teacher education programmes: A pedagogical perspective. The Sage Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.
  44. Holland, P. E. (2017). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-directed leaders and learners. R&L Education.
  45. Ingersoll, R. M. & Merrill, L. (2010). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 435-476.
  46. Jones, V. F. & Vesilind, E. M. (2018). The classroom teacher: A practical guide to effective teaching. Pearson Education.
  47. Joswick, C. & Hulings, M. A. (2024). Systematic review of bscs 5E instructional model evidence. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 22, 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10357-y
  48. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3. b.) içinde (s. 559–603). Sage.
  49. Kennedy-Clark, S., Eddles-Hirsch, K., Francis, T., Cummins, G., Ferantino, L., Tichelaar, M., & Ruz, L. (2018). Developing pre-service teacher professional capabilities through action research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(9), 39-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.3
  50. Kıratlı, H. (2022). Fen bilgisi uygulama öğrencisinin klinik danışmanlık modeline göre aldığı dönütlerin türü ile mesleki performansı arasındaki ilişkinin betimlenmesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  51. Koçyiğit, M., Erdem, C., & Eğmir, E. (2020). Öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterliklerine ilişkin öz değerlendirmeleri. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(3), 774-799. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.651639
  52. Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.
  53. Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Realistic teacher education: Linking practice to theory. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  54. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  55. Li, M., Gao, Q., & Yu, T. (2023). Kappa statistic considerations in evaluating inter-rater reliability between two raters: which, when and context matters. BMC Cancer, 23, 79-804. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11325-z
  56. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  57. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Allen & Unwin.
  58. Lozano-Cabezas, I., Iglesias-Martínez, M. J., Arroyo-Salgueira, S., Camús-Ferri, M. D. M., & Giner-Gomis, A. (2022). What teaching models do pre-service teachers learn during placements? Cogent Education, 9(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034393
  59. Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Blanco, G. L. (2022). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
  60. Matriano, E. A. (2020). Ensuring student-centered, constructivist and project-based experiential learning applying the exploration, research, ınteraction and creation (erıc) learning model. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(1), 214-227.
  61. McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.
  62. MEB. (2017). Öğretmen mesleği genel yeterlilikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.
  63. Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  64. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. Pearson.
  65. Mok, S. Y., & Staub, F. C. (2021). Does coaching, mentoring, and supervision matter for pre-service teachers’ planning skills and clarity of instruction? A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103484
  66. Mok, S. Y., Rupp, D., & Holzberger, D. (2023). What kind of individual support activities in interventions foster pre-service and beginning teachers’ self-efficacy? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 40, 100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100552
  67. Moskal, B. M. & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=10 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  68. Nurhuda, A., Al Khoiron, M. F., Azami, Y. S. I., & Ni’mah, S. J. (2023). Constructivism learning theory in education: characteristics, steps and learning models. Research in Education and Rehabilitation, 6(2), 234-242.
  69. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.
  70. Oyanık, A. (2023). Fen bilgisi uygulama öğrencilerinin ve uygulama öğretmenlerinin klinik danışmanlık modeline göre yürütülen öğretmenlik uygulaması dersi hakkındaki görüş ve beklentilerindeki değişimin belirlenmesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://www.tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  71. Öner, Y. E. (2017). Simülasyon ve animasyon destekli 5E modelinin öğretmen adaylarının fen başarısı ve motivasyonlarına etkisi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://www.tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  72. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
  73. Peker, H. (2018). Öğretmen yetiştirme modeli olan klinik danışmanlık modelinin bir sınıf öğretmeni adayının fen bilimleri öğretiminde nasıl uygulandığının betimlenmesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://www.tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  74. Ruiz-Martín, H. & Bybee, R.W. (2022). The cognitive principles of learning underlying the 5E model of instruction. IJ STEM Ed, 9(21), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z
  75. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
  76. Saraçoglu, G. & Kocabatmaz, H. (2022). Klinik danışmanlık modeli bağlamında uygulama öğretmenleri. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(42), 32-65. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2022.541.3
  77. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic.
  78. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  79. Silverman, D. (2024). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.
  80. Topsakal, C. (2018). Öğretmen eğitiminde klinik danışmanlık modeli uygulamaların değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 5(31), 4794–4802. https://doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.948
  81. Ültay, E., Ültay, N., & Dönmez-Usta, N. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının “basit elektrik devreleri” konusunda 5E modeli ve REACT stratejisine uygun hazırladıkları ders planlarının incelenmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 855-864. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.413382
  82. Weber, K. E., Gold, B., Prilop, C. N., & Kleinknecht, M. (2018). Promoting pre-service teachers' professional vision of classroom management during practical school training: Effects of a structured online- and video-based self-reflection and feedback intervention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.008
  83. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
  84. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
  85. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9.
  86. Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Erlbaum.