Journals / International Online Journal of Primary Education / 2022 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

A CASE STUDY ON SPECIALIZATION MODELS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHING

Pages
205–231
Publication Date
2022-10-19
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)

According to the results of the study, advantages and disadvantages of each model were identified.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the present study is to evaluate specialization models in primary school teaching based on the opinions of teachers and academicians studying teacher education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to receive opinions from participants, two different data collection tools were used, which were the Private School Teacher Interview Form and the Academician Interview Form. 33 participants were interviewed using the determined data collection tools in the 2018-2019 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the study, advantages and disadvantages of each model were identified.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2018-2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to evaluate specialization models in primary school teaching based on the opinions of teachers and academicians studying teacher education. The research is considered to be important in that it is one of the first studies in the national literature on the related issue and it reveals advantages and disadvantages of each model. Multiple case-holistic design, one of the qualitative research methods, was followed in the study since it focuses on data obtained from primary school teachers working in private schools that adopt different specialization methods as well as academicians specializing in the field of teacher education. In order to receive opinions from participants, two different data collection tools were used, which were the Private School Teacher Interview Form and the Academician Interview Form. 33 participants were interviewed using the determined data collection tools in the 2018-2019 academic year. A content analysis method was used in the analysis of the obtained qualitative data. According to the results of the study, advantages and disadvantages of each model were identified. It was recommended as a result of the study that it might be effective to use departmentalized classroom models and looping models simultaneously in order for the students to establish positive relationships with teachers and for teachers to develop professional knowledge and skills.

🔖

Cite This Article

İŞCAN, C. D., CESUR, B. (2022). A CASE STUDY ON SPECIALIZATION MODELS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHING. International Online Journal of Primary Education, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 205–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/542021

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. American Association of School Administrators. (1965). Departmentalization in elementary schools. Educational Research Service, (No. CIRC-7) Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED017329.pdf
  2. Anderson, R.C. (1962). The case for teacher specialization in elemantary school. The Elemantary School Journal, 62(5), 253-260.
  3. Başaran, M., & Güçlü, F. (2020). İlkokulda derslerin branş veya sınıf öğretmenleri tarafından işlenmesine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers' views regarding the teaching of courses in primary school by branch or primary school teachers]. Turkey Education Journal, 5(2), 444-459.
  4. Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher-child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 1–14.
  5. Bezeau, L. (2007). Educational administration for Canadian teachers (Chapter 8). Retrieved February 29, 2018, from http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact/eact.htm
  6. Bridges, S., & Searle, A. (2011). Changing workloads of primary school teachers: “I seem to live on the edge of chaos.” School Leadership & Management, 31(5), 413 – 433. Burke, D. L. (1996). Multi-year teacher/student relationships are a long-overdue arrangement. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(5), 360-361.
  7. Burke, D. L. (1997). Looping: Adding time, strengthening relationships. Eric Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education (ERIC Identifier ED414098) Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal, 84(1), 70-72.
  8. Chang, F. C., Muñoz, M. A., & Koshewa, S. (2008). Evaluating the impact of departmentalization on elementary school students. Planning and Changing, 39(3), 131-145.
  9. Chirichello, M., & Chirichello, C. (2001). A standing ovation for looping: The critics respond. Childhood Education, 78(1), 2-10.
  10. Christone, P., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 5(1), 47–61.
  11. Cook, A., & Rushton, B. S. (2007). Student transition: Practices and policies to promote retention. Boston MA: Harvard Publishing. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–46.
  12. Dilci, T., & Kalkan, G. D. (2