KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Mikro Öğretim Sürecinde Etkili ve Etkisiz Öğretim Uygulamalarını Belirleme ve Analiz Etme Durumları

Identification and Analysis of Preservice Science Teachers’ Effective and Ineffective Teaching Practices During Microteaching

Hüseyin İnaltun(Mustafa Kemal University, TURKEY)0000-0002-1981-5539
Elif Yalvaç Ertuğrul(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4668-7525
Sayfa
2908–2934
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-29
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Araştırma bulguları, ders videosundaki etkili öğretim uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının yaklaşık yarısı tarafından doğru şekilde tespit edildiğini; buna karşılık, etkisiz uygulamaların çok daha düşük oranlarda belirlendiğini ortaya koymuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Mikro öğretim, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterliklerini geliştirmek için öğretmen eğitiminde sıkça kullanılan etkili bir tekniktir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ancak mikro öğretimle ilgili öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri ve uygulamanın çıktıları üzerine çok sayıda çalışma olmasına rağmen adayların etkili ve etkisiz öğretim uygulamalarını belirleme ve analiz etme becerilerini doğrudan inceleyen araştırmalar sınırlıdır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Araştırma bulguları, ders videosundaki etkili öğretim uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının yaklaşık yarısı tarafından doğru şekilde tespit edildiğini; buna karşılık, etkisiz uygulamaların çok daha düşük oranlarda belirlendiğini ortaya koymuştur.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mikro öğretim · Öğretmen eğitimi · Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Özet

Mikro öğretim, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterliklerini geliştirmek için öğretmen eğitiminde sıkça kullanılan etkili bir tekniktir. Bu tekniğin başarısı uygulama sırasında öğretmen adayının sürecini gözlemleyen akranlarının doğru tespit ve analizleri sonucunda nitelikli geri bildirim vermelerine bağlıdır. Ancak mikro öğretimle ilgili öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri ve uygulamanın çıktıları üzerine çok sayıda çalışma olmasına rağmen adayların etkili ve etkisiz öğretim uygulamalarını belirleme ve analiz etme becerilerini doğrudan inceleyen araştırmalar sınırlıdır. Bu sebeple bu çalışmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mikro öğretim uygulamaları sırasında etkili ve etkisiz öğretim uygulamalarını belirleme ve bu uygulamaları analiz etme becerilerini incelemektir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını, Türkiye'de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 25 üçüncü sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Nitel araştırma desenine göre yürütülen çalışmada, katılımcılar akranlarının öğretim sürecini içeren bir ders videosunu izlemiş ve yapılandırılmış bir gözlem formu aracılığıyla videodaki etkili ve etkisiz öğretim uygulamalarını ve bunlara ilişkin gerekçelerini belirtmişlerdir. Elde edilen veriler nitel veri analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, ders videosundaki etkili öğretim uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının yaklaşık yarısı tarafından doğru şekilde tespit edildiğini; buna karşılık, etkisiz uygulamaların çok daha düşük oranlarda belirlendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca adaylar etkili ve etkisiz uygulamaları her zaman doğru gerekçelerle tespit edememiştir. Sonuçlar, mikro öğretim uygulamalarının verimliliği açısından güncel alanyazın ışığında tartışılmıştır.

Abstract

Microteaching is an effective technique frequently used in science teacher education to develop preservice teachers’ professional competencies. The success of this technique depends on the accuracy of peer observers’ analyses and identifications during the process, as these form the basis for providing quality feedback. Although many studies explore preservice teachers’ views on microteaching, few directly examine their ability to identify and analyze effective and ineffective practices. Therefore, this study aims to examine preservice science teachers’ ability to identify and analyze effective and ineffective teaching practices during microteaching. The participants consisted of 25 third-year preservice science teachers studying at a state university in Türkiye. In this qualitative study, participants watched a lesson video of their peers’ teaching process and used a structured observation form, identified effective and ineffective teaching practices and provided justifications. The data obtained were analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods. The findings revealed that about half of the preservice teachers correctly identified effective teaching practices in the lesson video, whereas ineffective practices were identified at much lower rates. Additionally, preservice teachers did not always provide accurate justifications for their identifications. The results were discussed considering the current literature, particularly regarding the efficiency of microteaching practices.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İnaltun, H., Ertuğrul, E. Y. (2025). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Mikro Öğretim Sürecinde Etkili ve Etkisiz Öğretim Uygulamalarını Belirleme ve Analiz Etme Durumları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 3, 2908–2934. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1766602

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (59)

  1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education içinde (s. 1105-1151). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=713501 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  2. Allen, D. W. & Eve, A. W. (1968). Microteaching. Theory into Practice, 7(5), 181-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405846809542153
  3. Allen, D. & Ryan, K. (1969). Microteaching. Addison-Wesley. https://archive.org/details/microteaching00 alle sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  4. Amobi, F. (2005). Preservice teachers' reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 115-130. https://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2005/32_1/amobi.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  5. Amobi, F. & Irwin, L. (2009). Implementing on-campus microteaching to elicit preservice teachers’ reflection on teaching actions: Fresh perspective on an established practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 27-34. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ josotl/article/view/1712 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  6. Anılan, B., Atalay, N., & Kiliç, Z. (2018). Teacher candidates' levels of relating the scientific knowledge to their daily lives. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 733-748. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11446a
  7. Arsal, Z. (2014). Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627
  8. Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. J Sci Educ Technology, 21, 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7
  9. Bahçivan, E. (2017). Implementing microteaching lesson study with a group of preservice science teachers: An encouraging attempt of action research. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), 591-602. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.03.001
  10. Barak, M. & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Science education in primary schools: Is an animation worth a thousand pictures? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 608-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9315-2
  11. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
  12. Blegur, J., Ma'mun, A., Mahendra, A., Mahardika, I. M. S., & Tlonaen, Z. A. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of micro-teaching model research trends in 2013-2023. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 4(3), 523-533. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v4i3.782
  13. Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS, 5, 88-98. https://bscs.org/reports/the-bscs-5e-instructional-model-origins-and-effectiveness/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  14. Cebeci, N. (2016). Prospective teachers' beliefs about micro-teaching. ELT Research Journal, 5(1), 60-71. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eltrj/issue/28783/308025#article_cite sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  15. Cheng, J. (2017). Learning to attend to precision: The impact of micro-teaching guided by expert secondary mathematics teachers on pre-service teachers’ teaching practice. ZDM, 49(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0839-7
  16. Clough, M. P., Berg, C. A., & Olson, J. K. (2009). Promoting effective science teacher education and science teaching: A framework for teacher decision-making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 821-847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9146-7
  17. Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487193044004004
  18. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  19. Danday, B. A. (2021). Advancing preservice physics teachers’ critical thinking through active and passive microteaching lesson study. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(3), 205-228. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.3.13
  20. Dawson, K., Pringle, R., & Lott-Adams, T. (2003). Providing links between technology integration, methods courses, and school-based field experiences: A curriculum-based and technology-enhanced microteaching. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(1), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2003.10784482
  21. Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267808559857
  22. Ekşi, G. (2012). Implementing an observation and feedback form for more effective feedback in microteaching. Education and Science, 37(164), 267-282. https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/1042/1027 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  23. Erdemir, N. & Yeşilçınar, S. (2021). Reflective practices in micro teaching from the perspective of preservice teachers: Teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-reflection. Reflective Practice, 22(6), 766-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1968818
  24. Erdoğan, H. & Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş. (2024). Bağlam temelli öğrenme yaklaşımının “ses ve özellikleri” ünitesi öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.1323790
  25. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education içinde (s. 3-17). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_1
  26. Gödek, Y. (2016). Science teacher trainees' microteaching experiences: A focus group study. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(16), 1473-1493. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2892
  27. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College.
  28. Joswick, C. & Hulings, M. (2024). A systematic review of BSCS 5E instructional model evidence. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(1), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10357-y
  29. Karışan, D. (2017). The impact of student centered microteaching practices on preservice science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(4), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.341776
  30. Kassabolat, A., Kadirsizova, S., Kozybayeva, M., Kalkeyeva, K., Zhorokpayeva, M., & Aknur, Y. (2020). Future teachers’ opinions on preparation and use of interactive materials in teaching. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(23), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i23.18805
  31. Karlström, M. & Hamza, K. (2019). Preservice science teachers’ opportunities for learning through reflection when planning a microteaching unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1531345
  32. Kartal, T., Ozturk, N., & Ekici, G. (2012). Developing pedagogical content knowledge in preservice science teachers through microteaching lesson study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2753-2758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.560
  33. Kazeem, S., Alhassan, N., & Falalu, M. K. (2025). Cultivating the pedagogical competence of pre-service science teachers through microteaching. Indonesian Journal of Teaching in Science, 5(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijotis.v5i1.78734
  34. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285
  35. Lau, A. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ – A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40, 509-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.984600.
  36. Lee, Y. J., Davis, R., & Li, Y. (2023). Korean pre-service teachers' self-efficacy with online micro-teaching activities in a teacher education program. International Journal of Instruction, 16(4), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1645a
  37. Long, C. S., Harrell, P. E., Pope, E., & Subramaniam, K. (2019). Using microteaching to improve preservice elementary teachers’ physical science content knowledge. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 23(4), 16-31. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/19119 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  38. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education içinde (s. 95-132). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
  39. Maguire, K. R. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ reflections on content knowledge through microteaching. Reflective Practice, 24(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2022.2146082
  40. Mergler, A. G. & Tangen, D. (2010). Using microteaching to enhance teacher efficacy in pre‐service teachers. Teaching Education, 21(2), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210902998466
  41. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
  42. Miles, M, B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
  43. 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
  44. Nieminen, P., Hähkiöniemi, M., & Viiri, J. (2020). Forms and functions of on-the-fly formative assessment conversations in physics inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 362–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713417
  45. Odo, D. (2023). Perceptions of preservice english teachers regarding peer reaction video feedback on their microteaching. SAGE Open, 13, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231210652
  46. Park, S. & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
  47. Pekdağ, B., Dolu, G., Ürek, H., & Azizoğlu, N. (2021). Exploring on-campus and in real school classroom microteaching practices: The effect on the professional development of preservice teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(6), 1145-1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10109-2
  48. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Viking.
  49. Ruiz‐Primo, M. A. & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163
  50. Sabel, J., Forbes, C., & Zangori, L. (2015). Promoting prospective elementary teachers’ learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 419-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9431-6
  51. Schildkamp, K., Kleij, F., Heitink, M., Kippers, W., & Veldkamp, B. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
  52. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  53. Vígh, T. (2024). Development of research skills through research-focused microteaching lesson study in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 145, 104618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104618
  54. Wang, J. & Wang, Y. (2025). Investigating the authenticity of “students” in microteaching for science pre-service teacher education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(1), 251-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2264194
  55. Watson, J. B. (2017). Behaviorism. Routledge.
  56. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs regarding context-based tasks and their relation with students’ difficulties in solving these tasks. Math Ed Res J, 27, 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0157-8
  57. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
  58. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
  59. Yumei, F. & Zixin, X. (2024). Exploring Chinese EFL student teachers' emotions and emotion-regulation strategies in peer feedback on microteaching. System, 129, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103589