Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

The Role of a Structured Lesson Plan Framework in Developing Lesson Planning Skills: Pre-Service Turkish Language Teachers' Views

Ders Planlama Becerilerinin Geliştirilmesinde Yapılandırılmış Ders Planı Çerçevesinin Rolü: Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Görüşleri

Pages
250–276
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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 findings revealed that, compared with conventional lesson plans, structured lesson plans provided a more detailed, student-centered, and cognitively enriching framework.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to examine the role of a structured lesson planning framework in developing the lesson planning skills of preservice Turkish language teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was conducted using a basic qualitative research design and involved preservice Turkish language teachers enrolled in a teaching practicum course at a public university.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that, compared with conventional lesson plans, structured lesson plans provided a more detailed, student-centered, and cognitively enriching framework.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türkçe öğretmeni adayları · Ders planlama · Yapılandırılmış ders planı

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the role of a structured lesson planning framework in developing the lesson planning skills of preservice Turkish language teachers. The study was conducted using a basic qualitative research design and involved preservice Turkish language teachers enrolled in a teaching practicum course at a public university. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that, compared with conventional lesson plans, structured lesson plans provided a more detailed, student-centered, and cognitively enriching framework. Participants reported that these plans enabled them to enter lessons better prepared, manage classrooms more effectively, and feel more confident and professionally competent as future teachers. The planning process was also found to foster higher-order cognitive skills such as analytical thinking, justification, inquiry, and the design of creative learning activities. Furthermore, the findings indicated that the framework contributed to strengthening participants’ professional identities, increasing their readiness for the teaching profession, and enhancing their reflective thinking skills. However, the detailed and time-intensive nature of the process posed challenges for some participants and highlighted their need for additional support in areas such as assessment and evaluation, curriculum literacy, individualized instruction, and technology integration. Overall, the findings suggest that the structured lesson planning framework contributes not only to the development of lesson planning skills but also to the cultivation of professional awareness and reflective thinking. These gains may be considered important outcomes that help preservice teachers enter the profession with greater confidence, preparedness, and professional insight.

Özet

Bu araştırma, Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının ders planlama becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde yapılandırılmış ders planı çerçevesinin rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, temel nitel araştırma deseniyle yürütülmüş ve bir devlet üniversitesinde öğretmenlik uygulaması dersine katılan Türkçe öğretmeni adayları ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve odak grup görüşmeleri aracılığıyla toplanmış ve tematik analiz yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, yapılandırılmış ders planlarının klasik planlara kıyasla daha ayrıntılı, öğrenci merkezli ve bilişsel açıdan derinlik kazandırıcı bir yapı sunduğunu göstermektedir. Öğretmen adayları bu planlar sayesinde derse daha hazırlıklı girdiklerini, sınıf yönetiminde daha etkin olduklarını ve meslekî açıdan kendilerini daha öz güvenli ve donanımlı hissettiklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca planlama sürecinin analitik düşünme, gerekçelendirme, araştırma yapma ve yaratıcı etkinlik tasarlama gibi bilişsel becerileri teşvik ettiği belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, adayların meslekî kimliklerini güçlendirdiklerini, öğretmenlik rollerine daha hazır hissettiklerini ve yansıtıcı düşünme becerilerinde gelişim yaşadıklarını da ortaya koymuştur. Bununla birlikte, sürecin ayrıntılı ve zaman alıcı yapısı öğretmen adaylarını zorlamış; ölçme-değerlendirme, program okuryazarlığı, bireyselleştirilmiş öğretim ve teknoloji kullanımı gibi alanlarda daha fazla desteğe ihtiyaç duyduklarını göstermiştir. Bulgular, yapılandırılmış ders planı çerçevesinin öğretmen adaylarına planlama becerilerinin ötesinde meslekî farkındalık ve yansıtıcı düşünme yetisi kazandırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu farkındalık, onların mesleğe daha bilinçli ve güçlü adımlarla başlamalarına katkı sağlayan önemli bir kazanım olarak değerlendirilebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uysal, P. K. (2026). The Role of a Structured Lesson Plan Framework in Developing Lesson Planning Skills: Pre-Service Turkish Language Teachers' Views. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 250–276. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.1814276

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  2. Aslan, M., & Sağlam, M. (2018). Öğretmenlik uygulaması dersinin öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(1), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017030313
  3. Aşiroğlu, M., & Koç-Akran, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının ders planlarının ve öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.442694
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton.
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  6. Bayrak-Özmutlu, E. (2022). Kuram ve uygulama arasındaki ilişki: Öğretmen adaylarının inançları temelinde bir inceleme. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 30, 223-249. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.30.10
  7. Bayrak-Özmutlu, E. (2023, Haziran). Yapılandırılmış planlama uygulamasının işlevlerinin öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri temelinde incelenmesi [Bildiri özeti]. International Eurasian Educational Research Congress, Ankara. https://www.ejercongress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-Abstract-Book.pdf
  8. Bergeron, L. (2016). La planification de l’enseignement et la gestion pédagogique de la diversité des besoins des élèves en classe ordinaire: une recherche collaborative au primaire [Instructional Planning and Pedagogical Management of Students’ Diverse Needs in the Regular Classroom: Collaborative Research at the Primary Level]. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Université du Québec à Montréal.
  9. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  10. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
  11. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green and Co.
  12. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
  13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  14. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
  15. Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). “Clear as mud”: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201
  16. Cevikbas, M., König, J., & Rothland, M. (2024). Empirical research on teacher competence in mathematics lesson planning: Recent developments. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(1), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01487-2
  17. Coşkun, E., Gelen, İ., & Öztürk, E. (2014). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının öğretimi planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme yeterlik algıları. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(12), 140-163. https://izlik.org/JA79ZR34AT
  18. Deprit, A., März, V., & Van Nieuwenhoven, C. (2025). Exploring what student teachers do when preparing their lessons: four planning profiles. Research Papers in Education, 40(1), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2024.2330975
  19. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath and Company.
  20. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
  21. Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). Macmillan.
  22. FaqeAbdulla, B. I. (2024). Analyzing the structure and effectiveness of lesson plans for pre-service English language teachers. International Journal of English Learning and Applied Linguistics (IJELAL), 4(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.21111/ijelal.v4i2.11633
  23. Farrell, T. S. C. (2002). Lesson planning. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (ss. 30-39). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Geçici, F. (2023). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının yazma becerisine yönelik hazırladıkları ders planlarının ders işleme süreci açısından incelenmesi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1156637
  25. Kapici, H. O., & Akcay, H. (2023). Improving student teachers’ TPACK self-efficacy through lesson planning practice in the virtual platform. Educational Studies, 49(1), 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1835610
  26. Karagöz, M., Ak-Başoğul, D., & Yücelşen, N. (2017). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının ders planı hazırlamadaki yeterlikleri (Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi örneği). International Journal of Language Academy, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3777
  27. Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction: A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00053-1
  28. Killen, R. (2015). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  29. König, J., Krepf, M., Bremerich-Vos, A., & Buchholtz, C. (2021). Meeting cognitive demands of lesson planning: Introducing the CODE-PLAN model to describe and analyze teachers’ planning competence. The Teacher Educator, 56(4), 466-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.1938324
  30. Kopp, M. L., Witte, C. E., & Vernon, G. M. (2025). A lesson plan for planning lessons. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 20(1), e43-e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.07.024
  31. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  32. Lee, Y., & Lee, J. (2014). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration through lesson planning practice. Computers & Education, 73, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.001
  33. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  34. Maden, A., & Ustabulut, M. Y. (2022). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının ders planlamaya yönelik öz yeterlilik algıları. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(36), 1497-1513. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.1168759
  35. Manzoor, A. A., Tufail, N., & Hayat, K. (2024). Exploring the role of lesson planning on prospective teacher professional skills at the University of Narowal: A qualitative research study. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.349976385
  36. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
  37. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  38. Moore-Cox, A. (2017). Lesson plans: Road maps for the active learning classroom. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(11), 697-700. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20171020-12
  39. Muñoz, E. M. L., García, F. J., Lerma, A. M., & Gallego, A. M. A. (2023). Increase in self-efficacy in prospective teachers through theory-based lesson study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 27, 717-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-023-09597-0
  40. Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011). Learning to plan, planning to learn: The developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.580516
  41. Okçu, B. (2025). Öğretmen adaylarının özel gereksinimli öğrencilere yönelik öğretim planlama becerilerinin gelişimine ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (65), 2929-2950. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1576844
  42. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  43. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
  44. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  45. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  46. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.
  47. Senemoğlu, N. (2015). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan uygulamaya (24. baskı). Yargı Yayınları.
  48. Senior, R. (2006). The experience of language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  49. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  50. Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
  51. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
  52. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
  53. Ulusoy, F., & Incikabi, L. (2021). Preservice mathematics teachers’ selection of curriculum resources in individual and group lesson planning processes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(4), 557-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1958944
  54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  55. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.1086/461181