SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İlköğretim Online / 2015 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4

-

Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme İnanç Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Mukaddes Erdem
Selay Arkün Kocadere
Pages
1260–1275
Publication Date
2015-11-06
🏛️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)

Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that RMSEA is .066; and the cronbach alfa coefficient was found to be .94

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs affect their teaching practices.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The 5-point Likert-type scale has 26 items which are based on six factors; complex-contextualized design, active/manipulative participation, collaborative-conversational study, intentional-meaningful activities, knowledge construction and reflective thinking.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that RMSEA is .066; and the cronbach alfa coefficient was found to be .94
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:yapılandırmacılık · öğretmen inançları · ölçek geliştirme

Abstract

Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs affect their teaching practices. The purpose of this study is to develop a scale about constructivist learning beliefs of teachers. The 5-point Likert-type scale has 26 items which are based on six factors; complex-contextualized design, active/manipulative participation, collaborative-conversational study, intentional-meaningful activities, knowledge construction and reflective thinking. The scale was administered to 414 teachers. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that RMSEA is .066; and the cronbach alfa coefficient was found to be .94

Özet

Bu çalışma, bir yapılandırmacı öğrenme inanç ölçeği geliştirme çalışmasıdır. Temelde öğretmenler için geliştirilmiş olan ölçek, yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımını temsil ettiği düşünülen öğretim uygulaması ifadelerinden oluşmaktadır. 6 alt boyut ve 26 maddeden oluşan ölçek, “Hiçbir zaman”, “Nadiren”, “Bazen”, “Çoğunlukla”, “Her zaman” seçenekleriyle 5’li likert tipinde düzenlenmiştir. Ölçeğin alt boyutları, kompleks-bağlamsal düzenleme, aktif / manipülatif katılım, işbirliğine-diyaloğa açık çalışma, amaçlı / anlamlı etkinlikler, bilgiyi yapılandırma ve yansıtıcı düşünme olarak belirlenmiştir. Geçerlik, güvenirlik çalışmaları 414 öğretmenin verileri üzerinden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin RMSEA değeri .066; Cronbach α güvenirlik katsayısı ise α= .94 olarak hesaplanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdem, M., Kocadere, S. A. (2015). -. İlköğretim Online, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 4, 1260–1275. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.84249

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Abdelraheem, A. Y. (2004). University faculty members’ context beliefs about technology utilization in teaching. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 3(4), 76-84.
  2. Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers' conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 743–751.
  3. Arkün, S. ve Aşkar, P. (2010). Yapılandırmacı öǧrenme ortamlarını deǧerlendirme ölçeǧinin geliştirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 32-43.
  4. Arkün, S. ve Erdem, M. (2007). BİT destekli öğretmen eğitimi modelleri üzerine bir inceleme. Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, 492-496.
  5. Bingimlas, K., & Hanrahan, M. (2010). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their practice: How the literature can inform science education reformers and researchers. In M. F. Taşar, & G. Çakmakcı (Eds.), Contemporary Science Education Research: International Perspectives (pp. 415-422). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
  6. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Virginia: ASCD Alexandria.
  7. Brousseau, B., Book, C., & Byers, J. (1988). Teacher beliefs and the cultures of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 33-39.
  8. Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868.
  9. Chong, S., Wong, I & Lang, Q.C (2005). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes and expectations: A review of the literature. [Available online at: http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/covert/ab00613.pdf], Retrieved on June 25, 2014.
  10. Deryakulu, D. (2000). Yapıcı öğrenme. Ali Şimşek (Ed.), Sınıfta demokrasi içinde (s. 53–77), Ankara: Eğitim-Sen.
  11. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  12. Dinç, E. ve Doğan, Y. İlköğretim ikinci kademe sosyal bilgiler öğretim programı ve uygulanması hakkında öğretmen görüşleri. Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 17-49.
  13. Ergün, M. ve Özsüer, S. (2006). Vygotsky’nin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi. Afyonkarahisar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 269-292.
  14. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? ETR&D, 53(4), 25-39.
  15. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol. 2. Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors, (pp. 471-499). American Psychological Association.
  16. Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2005). Constructivist learning design. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.prainbow.com/cld/cldp.html], Erişim tarihi: 15.04.2013.
  17. Gür, T., Dilci, T. ve Arseven, A. (2013). Geleneksel yaklaşımdan yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma geçişte öğretmen adaylarının görüş ve değerlendirmeleri; Bir söylem analizi. Karadeniz Dergi, 18, 123-135.
  18. Haney, J. J., & McArthur, J. (2002). Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Science Education, 86(6), 783–802.
  19. Harcarik, M. (2009). Fifth-grade teachers' social studies knowledge and beliefs and their relationship to classroom practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Florida, USA.
  20. Jonassen, D. H., Peck K. L., & Wilson B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models, A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II (pp. 215-239). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  22. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65-90.
  23. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology &Society, 8(1), 17-27.
  24. Khader, F. R. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and actual classroom practices in social studies instruction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research 2(1); 73-92.
  25. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: a review. Educational Research, 41(1) 63-76.
  26. Mahoney, M. J. (2008). What is constructivism and why is it growing? [Available online at: http://awidyarso65.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/constructivism-theory.pdf], Erişim tarihi: 15.06.2013.
  27. Mansour, N. (2008). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.
  28. McAlpine, L., Eriks-Brophy, A., & Crago, M. (1996). Teaching beliefs in Mohawk classrooms: Issues of language and culture. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(3), 390-413.
  29. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332
  30. Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.
  31. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The teacher belief q-sort: A measure of teachers' priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2), 141-165.
  32. Savasçı-Açıkalın, F. (2009). Teacher beliefs and practice in science education. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1-14.
  33. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
  34. Senemoğlu, N. (1997). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim; Kuramdan uygulamaya. Ankara: Spot Matbaacılık.
  35. Şimşek, N. (2004). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ve öğretime eleştirel bir yaklaşım. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 3(5), 115-139.
  36. Teo, T. (2009). Examining the relationship between student teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their intended uses of technology for teaching: A structural equation modelling approach. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 8(4), 7-15.
  37. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing Teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-75.
  38. Yılmaz, K. (2008). Constructivism: Its theoretical underpinnings, variations, and implications for classroom instruction. Education Horizons, 86(3), 161-172.