SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 35 Sayı: 2

Analysis of a Content-based Needs Assessment Survey for Physics Teachers

Fizik Öğretmenleri İçin İçerik-temelli İhtiyaç Değerlendirme Anketinin Analizi

Özlem Oktay(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KAZIM KARABEKİR EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0207-1211
Ali Eryılmaz(ORTA DOĞU TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2161-6018
Pages
387–403
Publication Date
2020-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Implications for teacher training and professional development were also discussed in the study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the study is to develop and analyze a content-based needs assessment survey for physics teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 60 inservice physics teachers participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Implications for teacher training and professional development were also discussed in the study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İhtiyaç değerlendirme · içerik-temelli anket · mesleki gelişim

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to develop and analyze a content-based needs assessment survey for physics teachers. With this aim, a Teacher Survey on the Nature of Physics (TSNOP) was developed as a measurement instrument for the study. The TSNOP was used to identify inservice physics teachers’ needs, wishes, expectations and problems for the Nature of Physics (NOP) unit of a Professional Development Program (PDP). A total of 60 inservice physics teachers participated in the study. TSNOP includes four specific content areas; NOP knowledge and its misconceptions, teaching strategies (methods, techniques), materials and technology, and assessment techniques. The TSNOP consists of structured and unstructured question formats. The survey was analyzed based on dimensions and thematic coding, followed by frequency analysis with data was represented through tables. The TSNOP results are presented and discussed under four dimensions; (a) participant demographics, (b) teachers’ previous professional experience, (c) how PDPs can be organized (e.g., type, context, roles, time), and (d) teachers’ opinions about the training. Implications for teacher training and professional development were also discussed in the study.

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı, fizik öğretmenleri için içerik temelli bir ihtiyaç değerlendirme anketinin geliştirilmesi ve analiz edilmesidir. Bu amaçla, Fiziğin Doğası Konulu Eğitime Yönelik Öğretmen Görüş Anketi (FDÖGA) ölçme aracı olarak geliştirilmiştir. FDÖGA, meslekteki fizik öğretmenlerinin Fiziğin Doğası (FD) konulu mesleki gelişim programına (MGP) dayalı ihtiyaç, istek, beklenti ve problemlerini ortaya çıkarmak için kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya meslekteki 60 fizik öğretmeni katılmıştır. FDÖGA; FD bilgisi ve kavram yanılgıları, öğretim stratejileri (yöntemler, teknikler), materyaller/teknolojiler ve değerlendirme teknikleri olmak üzere dört özel içerik alanı içermektedir. FDÖGA, yapılandırılmış ve yapılandırılmamış soru formatlarından oluşmaktadır. Araştırma, anket boyutları bazında analiz edilmiştir. Tematik kodlama kullanılmış ve sonrasında frekans analizi yapılarak tablolar yoluyla veriler sunulmuştur. FDÖGA sonuçları dört boyutta verilmiş ve tartışılmıştır; (a) katılımcılardan gelen demografik bilgiler, (b) daha önceki öğretmenlerin mesleki deneyimleriyle ilgili bazı sorular, (c) MGP’nın nasıl organize edilebileceğine dair bazı spesifik sorular (örn., türü, içeriği, MGP’deki roller, zaman, vb.) (d) öğretmenlerin eğitimle ilgili ek fikir ve düşünceleri. Son olarak çalışmada öğretmen eğitimi ve mesleki gelişim açısından bazı öneriler tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Oktay, Ö., Eryılmaz, A. (2020). Analysis of a Content-based Needs Assessment Survey for Physics Teachers. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 2, 387–403. https://ajindex.com/articles/1404595

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Akkuş, H., & Kadayıfçı, H. (2007). Laboratuvar kullanımı konulu hizmet-içi eğitim kursu ile ilgili bir değerlendirme [An evaluation related to the in-service training about laboratory usage]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 179-193.
  2. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2007). History of science curriculum reform in the United States and the United Kingdom. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 781-806). New York, NY: Routledge.
  3. Aydın, M., & Çepni, S. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenleri için geliştirilen proje tabanlı öğretim yöntemi (PTÖY) konulu bir destek programının öğretmenlerin ihtiyaçlarını giderme durumlarının incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(4), 55-68.
  4. Baird, W. E., & Rowsey, R. E. (1989). A survey of secondary science teachers’ needs. School Science and Mathematics, 89(4), 272–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1989.tb11922.x
  5. Bethel, L. (1982). Tailoring inservice training in science to elementary teachers’ needs. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(6), 416.
  6. Blank, R. K., & de la Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains in student achievement: How meta analysis provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
  7. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033008003
  8. Chval, K., Abell, S., Pareje, E., Musikul, K., & Ritzka, G. (2008). Science and mathematics teachers’ experiences, needs, and expectations regarding professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 31-43.
  9. Cranton, P., & King, K. P. (2003). Transformative Learning as a Professional Development Goal. In K. P. King & P. A. Lawler (Eds.), New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98. (pp. 31-38). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: Debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28-56.
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
  12. Donnelly, L. A., & Argyle, S. (2011). Teachers’ willingness to adapt nature of science activities following a physical science professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(6), 475-490. doi: 10.1007/s10972-011-9249-9
  13. Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 6-12. doi: 10.1177/019263650008461802
  14. Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  15. Gökdere, M., & Küçük, M. (2003). Science education of gifted students at intellectual area: a case for science art centers. Educational Science: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 101-124.
  16. Guskey, T. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 17-21.
  17. Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. The Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500. doi: 10.1177/003172170909000709
  18. Hayes, L. L., & Robnolt, V. J. (2006). Data-driven professional development: The professional development plan for a Reading Excellence Act School. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(2), 95-119. doi: 10.1080/19388070709558463
  19. Heydon, R., & Stooke, R. (2012). Border work: Teachers’ expressions of their literacy-related professional development needs in a First Nations school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.08.009
  20. Hochberg, E. D., & Desimone, L. M. (2010). Professional development in the accountability context: Building capacity to achieve standards. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 89-106. doi: 10.1080/00461521003703052
  21. Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments. Teachers and Teaching, 1(2), 193-211. doi: 10.1080/1354060950010204
  22. Jones, M. G., Gardner, G. E., Robertson, L., & Robert, S. (2013). Science professional learning communities: Beyond a singular view of teacher professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1756-1774. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.791957
  23. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
  24. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1992). The professional development of teachers. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), The encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 1045-1051). New York: Macmillan.
  26. Lieberman, J. M., & Wilkins, E. A. (2006). Professional development pathways model: From policy to practice. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(3), 124-128. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2006.10516448
  27. Mansour, N., Albalawi, A., & Macleod, F. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ views on CPD provision and the impact on their professional practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 101-114. doi: 10.12973/Eurasia.2014.1020a
  28. Margolis, J., Durbin, R., & Doring, A. (2017). The missing link in teacher professional development: student presence. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 23-35. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1146995
  29. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53-70). Netherlands: Kluwer.
  30. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2011). Fizik öğretmeni özel alan yeterlikleri. Retrieved from http://otmg.meb.gov.tr
  31. Morrison, J. A. (2014). Scientists’ participation in teacher professional development: The impact on fourth to eighth grade teachers’ understanding and implementation of inquiry science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 793-816.
  32. O’Brien, T. (1992) Science in-service workshops that work for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 422-426.
  33. Oktay, Ö. (2015). The effects of a professional development program on physics teachers’ classroom practices. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  34. Owston, R. D., Sinclair, M., & Wideman, H. (2008). Blended learning for professional development: An evaluation of a program for middle school mathematics and science teachers. Teacher College Record, 110(5), 1033-1064.
  35. Ozer, B. (2004). In-service training of teachers in Turkey at the beginning of the 2000s. Journal of In-Service Education, 30(1), 89-100.
  36. Park, S., Oliver, J. S., Johnson, T. S, Graham, P., & Oppong, N. K. (2007). Colleagues’ roles in the professional development of teachers: results from a research study of National Board Certification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 368-389. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.013
  37. Pehlivan, İ. (1997). Türkiye’de ulusal kalkınma ve kurumsal verimliliğin en önemli araçlarından biri hizmet içi eğitimdir. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 133, 26-28.
  38. Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x029001004 Ricketts, J. C., & Duncan, D. (2005). A teaching and learning needs assessment for Georgia agriculture teachers. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 78(1), 22-24.
  39. Roberts, M. R. (2010). Lesson Study: Professional Development and Its Impact on Science Teacher Self-Efficacy (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York.
  40. Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  41. Schwille, J., & Dembele, M. (2007). Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. Paris, France: IIEP/UNESCO.
  42. Simon, M., & Black, W. R. (2011). Differentiated accountability policy and school improvement plans: A look at professional development and inclusive practices for exceptional students. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 160-184.
  43. Smith, C., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 7, 205-244. Erlbaum.
  44. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9 3.0.CO;2-0
  45. Texas Regional Collaborative for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. (2009). Dynamic partnerships for twenty-first century science and mathematics education. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from http://thetrc.org/trc/download/ about/09_TRC_Brochure.pdf.
  46. Van den Bergh, L., Ros., A., & Beijaard, D. (2015). Teacher learning in the context of a continuing professional development programme: A Case Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 142-150. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.002
  47. Van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: Review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129-160. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2012.738020
  48. Walker, T. (2013). Professional development: It’s time for change. NEA Today, 31, 36-41.
  49. Widodo, H. P. (2016). Developing an informed curriculum for initial teacher education (ITE): Building student teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge and shaping teacher identity. In Proceedings of International Conference on Teacher Training and Education (ICTTE), 1(1), 69–80.
  50. Yan, Z. (2005). Needs analysis of EFL teacher development in Chinese universities. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 37(3), 206-210.
  51. Yerin Güneri, O., Eret Orhan, E., & Çapa Aydın, Y. (2017). Professional development needs of junior faculty: A survey study in a public university in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 73-81.
  52. Yurdakul, B., Çakar, E., Uslu, Ö., & Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Evaluation of the professional development program on web based content development. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1427-1437.