SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2007 / Sayı: 19

Process-Based Learning-Teaching Model

SÜREÇ TEMELLİ ÖĞRENME-ÖĞRETİM MODELİ

Bilal Duman
Pages
—–2
Publication Date
2007-12-01
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)

PBI is away of systematically and explicitly teaching and students how to learn and how to problem solve.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Process Based Instruction (PBI) model is a metacognition model that based on student’s development on planning process skills to construct knowledge and to improve behaviors firstly within specific curriculum task and then within similar and different curriculum areas through PBI plans used widespread and continually.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of study is to introduce process-based instruction (PBI) model and four teaching and learning phases of the PBI model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:PBI is away of systematically and explicitly teaching and students how to learn and how to problem solve.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Süreç-Temelli öğrenme · öğretme · model

Abstract

Process Based Instruction (PBI) model is a metacognition model that based on student’s development on planning process skills to construct knowledge and to improve behaviors firstly within specific curriculum task and then within similar and different curriculum areas through PBI plans used widespread and continually. The purpose of study is to introduce process-based instruction (PBI) model and four teaching and learning phases of the PBI model. General aim of this study is to look for answers to the questions bellow: What is process-based learning teaching theory? What are properties of process-based learning teaching model? What is the dimension of interaction and communication of process-based learning teaching model? What is stage of process-based learning teaching model? This study is designed according to survey model. Data were collected related to process-based instruction by surveying literature. In this research, inverted triangular pyramid model of four teaching and learning process phrases and features of PBI moving from basic, easy and specific curriculum areas to complex and general curriculum areas are being introduced. The theory of PBI model derives from the problem solving, planning, neuropsychological and educational psychology literature. PBI is away of systematically and explicitly teaching and students how to learn and how to problem solve.

Özet

Süreç-temelli öğretim modeli, planların yaygın ve sürekli uygulanması aracılığıyla önce belli bir konu alanlarında daha sonra benzer konu ve farklı program alanlarında bilgiyi yapılandırmak ve davranışları iyileştirmek için öğrencinin planlama becerilerini geliştirmeye dayalı bilişsel farkındalık bir modeldir. Bu çalışmanın amacı süreç-temelli öğretim (STÖ) modelini ve dört öğrenme-öğretme süreç aşamalarını tanıtmaktır. Bu çalışmanın genel amacı doğrultusundaki aşağıdaki soruların cevapları aranmıştır: Süreç-temelli öğrenme-öğretme modeli nedir? Süreç-temelli öğrenme-öğretme modelinin özellikleri nelerdir? Süreç-Temelli Öğretim Modelinin Etkileşim Ve iletişim Boyutları nasıldır? Süreç-Temelli Öğretim (STÖ) Modelinin Aşamaları nelerdir? Bu araştırma tarama modeline göre tasarlanmıştır. literatür taranarak süreç-temelli öğretim ile ilgili bilgiler toplanmıştır. Bu çalışmada STÖ modelinin sade, kolay ve belirli program alanlarından genel ve karmaşık program alanlarına doğru hareket eden ve tersine çevrilmiş üçgen piramit modelindeki dört öğrenme-öğretme süreç aşamaları ve özellikleri tanıtılmaktadır. Süreç-temelli öğretim modelinin kuramsal çerçevesi eğitim psikolojisinin bulgularından, nöropsikolojiden, planlamadan ve problem çözmeden türetilmiştir. Süreç-temelli öğretim modeli, öğrencilere nasıl öğrenileceğini ve problem çözüleceğini sistematik ve açık bir şekilde öğretme yoludur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Duman, B. (2007). Process-Based Learning-Teaching Model. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 19. https://ajindex.com/articles/79772

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Aiken, A. G. (2000), “The Effects of Strategy Instruction at the Word Level In a First- Grade Process- Based Classrroom”, Dissertation Abstracts International-A61/06, p. 2236, Dec 2000.
  2. Alkan, C. (1997), Eğitim Teknolojisi, Ankara: Yargıçoğlu Matbaası.
  3. Ashman, A.F.(1984), The Role of The Planning and Decision-Making in The Training of Retarded Persons. Human Learning, 3, 19-32.
  4. Ashman, A.F.; Conway, R.N.F (1989), Cognitive Strategies for Special Education, Londan: Routledge.
  5. Ashman, A.F.; Conway, R.N.F (1989), “Teaching Planning Skills in the Classroom: The Development of an Integrated Model”, International Journal of Disabilitiy, Development and Education; Vol.36, n3 p225-240.
  6. Ashman, A.F.; Conway, R.N.F (1993), Using Cognitive Methods in the Classroom, Londan: Routledge.
  7. Ashman,A.F.;Wright,S.K.; Conway, R. F. (1994), “Developing the Metecognitive Skills of Academically Gifted Students in Mainstream classrooms”. Roeper Reiview, Feb94.Vol.16 Issue3, p198, 7p,2 diagrams.
  8. Ashman A.F, & Conway, R. F. (1997), An introduction to cognitive education. Theory and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
  9. Baldwin, A. Y. (1971). “The Effect of a Process-Oriented Curriculum on Advancing Higher Levels of Thought Processes in High Potential Students”. University Microfilms, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
  10. Bruner, J. D. (Undated). Behaviorism and B. F. Skinner. [On-line], Available: http://www2.una.edu/education/Bruner.htm. (2001).
  11. Clark, D. E. (2000), “A Process Model and Concept Map for Web-based Teaching and Learning in Posrsecondary Art Education”. Dissertation Abstracts International - A61/05, p. 1714, Now.
  12. Conway and Hopton (1997), “Application of a School-Wide Metacognitive Training Model: Effects on Academic and Planning Performance”. www.iace.coged.org/journal/v1i2/Abstracts.pdf.(2001).
  13. de Jong, F.P. C. M. (1995), “Process-Oriented Instruction: Some consideration”. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10 (4), 317-323.
  14. Fidan, N. (1985), Okulda Öğrenme ve Öğretme: Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Yöntemler, Ankara: Alkım Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık.
  15. Freidman, S. L.; Scholnick, E. K.; Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1990), “The Rol of Planning in Cognitive Development”, Blueprint for Thinking: ss. 79109, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. French, M. S. (1991), “Acomparıson of the effects of word processıng on the wrıtıng performance and attıtudes of adult and tradıtıonal college students ın a developmental wrıtıng program (adult students)”, Doktora Tezi, West Vırgınıa University.
  17. Gagne, R.M., L.J. Briggs ve W.W. Wager (1988), Principles of Instructional Design,Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
  18. Gay, G.,R. (1999),”Supporting Students Wiht Learning Disabilities: An Introduction To Web-Based Process-Oriented Instruction”. http://csun.edu/cod/ conf2000/ Proceeding/ 0257 Gay.html. (2001).
  19. Gerard, J.A.,& Junkala, J.(1980), “Task Analysis, Handwriting, and ProcessBased Instruction”.Journal of learning Disabilities. Volume,13, Number 1, January
  20. Glasser, W. (1985), Control Theory in The Classroom. New York: Perennial Library.
  21. Hay, I. (1997), “Cognitive Strategies in the Secondary School: Investigating Process-Based Instruction and Students' Perceptions of Effective Teaching Strategies”. www.iace.coged.org/journal/v1i2/Abstracts.pdf. (2001).
  22. Houck, C.K. (1993), “Ellis’s “Potential” Integrative Strategy Instruction Model: An Appplealing Extension of Previous Efforts”. Journal of learning Disabilities. Volume, 26, Number 6, pp399-403, Jun/ July 1980
  23. Joyce, B. And Weil, M. (1996), Models of teaching (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  24. Kincannon, J.; Gelber, C.; Kim, J. (1999), “The Effects of Metacognitive Training on Performance and Use of Metacognitive Skills in Self_Directed Learning Situations”. Clearinghouse no: IR019771, Eric: ED436146. Geographic Source: U.S.; Florida.
  25. Landa, L. N. (1983), Descriptive and Prescriptive Theories of Learning and Instruction: An Analysis of Relationships and their Interactions. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models. (pp.55-69). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  26. Lapp, D.; H. Bender,; S. Ellenwood ve M. John (1975), Teaching and Learning, Philosophical, Psychological, Curricular Applications, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,Inc
  27. Lowenthal, B. (1986), “Planning Abilities to Aid Metacognition”. Academic Therapy; v 22, n2, p199-203 Nov 1986.
  28. Moersch, C. (1997), “Computer Efficiency: Measuring the Instructional Use of Technology”. Learning and Leading with Technology, Vol. 23, N 3, p40-42, Nov 1995
  29. Naglieri, J. A.; Johnson, D. (2000), “Effectiveness of a Cognitive Strategy Intervention in Improving Arithmetic Computation Based on the PASS Theory”. Journal Learning of Disabilities, Now/Dec. 2000, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p591.
  30. Nancy, P. (1997), “Classrooms of Tomorrow”, Japanese Joint Conference on Educational Technology 1997 (JCET97) Sept 11th to the 13th 1997 University of Electro-Communications Tokyo, Japan http://www.callaitc.com/japanese.html. (2001).
  31. Reigeluth, C. M. (1983), Instructional Desing Theories and Models, Hillsidale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  32. Rosenbult, G.S.(1990), “The effects of writing process-based ınstruction and word processing on remedial and accelerated eleventh-graders”, Doktora Tezi, West Vırgınıa University.
  33. Schatteman, A.; Carette, E.; Couder, J.; Eisendrath, H. (1997), “Understanding the Effects of a Process-oriented Instruction in the First Year of University by Investigating Learning Style Characteristics”. Educational Psychology; v17 n1-2 p111-25 Mar-Jun. Eric no: EJ560190. Clearinghouse no SO529709.
  34. Schofield, N. J.; Ashman, A. F. (1987), “The cognitive processing of gifted, high average, and low average ability students”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, c. 57, ss. 9-27.
  35. Senemoğlu, N. (1998), Gelişim Öğrenme ve Öğretim, Ankara: Özsen Matbaası.
  36. Shaw, Terry J. (1983), “The Effect of a Process-Oriented Science Curriculum upon Problem-Solving Ability”. Science Education; v67 n5 p615-23 Oct 1983. Eric: EJ287215, Clearnınghouse: SE534242.
  37. Vermut, J. D. (1995), “Process-Oriented Instruction in Learning and Thinking satrategies”. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10 (4), 325-349.
  38. Volet, S. (1995), “Process-Oriented Instruction: A Discusssion”. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10 (4), 449-459.
  39. Volet, S.; McGill, T. Ve Pears, H.(1997), “Interactive instruction. Teaching methods. Universities”, Educatıonal Administration Abstracts, c.32, s.1, ss.52.
  40. Walraven, Miriam; Reitsma, Pieter. (1992), “Activating Prior Knowledge as a Process-Oriented Strategy”. Netherlands.5p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference (42nd, San Antonio, TX, December 2-5, 1992). Eric: ED354498.Clearninghouse: CS011207.
  41. Wong, B.Y.L. (1992), “On Cognotive Process-Based Instruction: An Introduction”. Journal Learning of Disabilities, Vol.25, Number 3, March, pp150-152, 172