KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Baskent University Journal of Education / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Pedagojik Tasarım Kapasitesinin Kullanımı: Matematik Öğretmeni Adayları Örneği

Utilization of Pedagogical Design Capacity: Insights from the Case of Prospective Mathematics Teachers

Zerrin Toker(ÇANAKKALE ONSEKİZ MART ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9660-0403
Gizem Güzeller(TED ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0832-9516
Sayfa
215–231
Yayın Tarihi
2026-06-30
🏛️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)

Bulgular, matematik öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme aşamasında aynen kullanma stratejisini daha çok tercih ederken, keşif aşamasında öğrenci ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için uyum sağlamayı tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, 5E öğretim modeli bağlamında, matematik öğretmen adaylarının (MÖA) materyal kullanımı ve geliştirme süreçlerindeki etkileşim türlerini incelemektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bulgular, matematik öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme aşamasında aynen kullanma stratejisini daha çok tercih ederken, keşif aşamasında öğrenci ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için uyum sağlamayı tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu araştırma, öğretmen eğitim programlarında matematik öğretmen adaylarının esnek ve ihtiyaç temelli karar verme becerilerini geliştirmeyi amaçlayan uygulamaların önemini vurgulamaktadır.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:materyal geliştirme · matematik · pedagojik tasarım kapasitesi

Özet

Bu çalışma, 5E öğretim modeli bağlamında, matematik öğretmen adaylarının (MÖA) materyal kullanımı ve geliştirme süreçlerindeki etkileşim türlerini incelemektedir. Özellikle, çalışma PMT'ler tarafından hazırlanan ders planlarında hangi pedagojik tasarım kapasitesi (PDC) yapılarının – aynen kullanma, uyarlama ve doğaçlama- sergilendiğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bulgular, matematik öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme aşamasında aynen kullanma stratejisini daha çok tercih ederken, keşif aşamasında öğrenci ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için uyum sağlamayı tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir. Öte yandan, doğaçlama stratejisi sınırlı ve küçük ölçekli müdahaleler için kullanmaktadır. Bulgular, öğretim tasarım süreçlerinde öğretmen adaylarının aşamaya özgü stratejik kararlar aldığını ve müfredat materyalleriyle etkileşimleri hakkında önemli veriler sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu araştırma, öğretmen eğitim programlarında matematik öğretmen adaylarının esnek ve ihtiyaç temelli karar verme becerilerini geliştirmeyi amaçlayan uygulamaların önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Abstract

This study examines the types of interactions of prospective mathematics teachers (PMTs) in the processes of material use and development within the context of the 5E instructional model. Specifically, the study aims to examine which pedagogical design capacity (PDC) structures— offloading, adapting, and improvising—are exhibited in the lesson plans prepared by PMTs. The findings indicate that PMTs preferred the offloading strategy more during the evaluation phase, while in the exploration phase, they preferred adaptation to meet student needs. The improvisation strategy, on the other hand, is used for limited and small-scale interventions. The findings reveal that PMTs make stage-specific strategic decisions in the instructional design processes and provide significant data regarding their interactions with curriculum materials. The investigation emphasizes the importance of practices aimed at developing PMTs' flexible and needs-based decision-making skills in teacher education programs.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Toker, Z., Güzeller, G. (2026). Pedagojik Tasarım Kapasitesinin Kullanımı: Matematik Öğretmeni Adayları Örneği. Baskent University Journal of Education, Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 215–231. https://doi.org/10.67306/bujoe.1753995

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (46)

  1. Amador, J. (2016). Mathematics pedagogical design capacity from planning through teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 18(1), 70-86.
  2. Amador, J. M. (2019). Preservice Teachers' Use of Curricular Resources for Mathematics Lesson Design. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 21(1), 51-81.
  3. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Supporting preservice elementary teachers' critique and adaptation of science lesson plans using educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10972-009-9148-5
  4. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2011). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical design capacity. Science Education, 96(1), 130–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466
  5. Brown, M. (2009). The teacher–tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
  6. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice? Northwestern University
  7. Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2015). Exercising a bounded autonomy: Novice and experienced teachers’ adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1088065
  8. 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).
  9. Casey, S., Hudson, R., Harrison, T., Barker, H., & Draper, J. (2020). Preservice teachers’ design of technology-enhanced statistical tasks. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 269-292.
  10. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  11. Dempsey, M., & O'Shea, A. (2017). Critical evaluation and design of mathematics tasks: Pre-service teachers. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2697–2704). DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
  12. Drake, C., Land, T. J., & Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  13. Ellingson, C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2024). Collaborative Design Capacity for Enactment Framework: An analytic tool for conceptualizing pedagogical design capacity within social context. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21908
  14. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry‐oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20399
  15. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/TEA.20379
  16. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2016). Collective design of an e-textbook: Teachers’ collective documentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9331-x
  17. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002
  18. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks in England, France and Germany: Some challenges for England. Research in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 127-144.: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520106
  19. Jones, K., & Pepin, B. (2016). Research on mathematics teachers as partners in task design. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 105-121. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10857-016-9345-z
  20. Kelly, R. A., Jakeman, A., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M. E., Elsawah, S., Hamilton, S. H., Henriksen, H. J., Kuikka, S., Maier, H. R., Rizzoli, A. E., van Delden, H., & Voinov, A. (2013). Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 47, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2013.05.005
  21. Kim, O.-K. (2024). Support for preservice teachers to use curriculum resources productively. In R. Y. Schorr & A. Arias (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Volume 2 (pp. 413–436). Brill. https://doi.org/10.37626/ga9783959872881.0.30
  22. Leshota, M., & Adler, J. (2018). Disaggregating a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical design capacity. Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources: Advances and Issues, 89-117.
  23. Leufer, N., Prediger, S., Mahns, P., & Kortenkamp, U. (2019). Facilitators’ adaptation practices of curriculum material resources for professional development courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0177-0
  24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  25. Lloyd, G. (2008). Curriculum use while learning to teach: One student teacher's appropriation of mathematics curriculum materials. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 63-94.
  26. Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers' analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62.
  27. Matic, L. J. (2019). The pedagogical design capacity of lower-secondary mathematics teacher and her interaction with curriculum resources. REDIMAT, 8(1), 53-75.http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/redimat.2019.2396
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  29. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y
  30. Özçakır, B., & Özdemir, D. (2024). Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Gözünden Eğitsel Oyun Materyallerinin Tasarımı, Geliştirilmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 263-279.
  31. Papaevripidou, M., Irakleous, M., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2017). Using teachers' inquiry-oriented curriculum materials as a means to examine their pedagogical design capacity and pedagogical content knowledge for inquiry-based learning. Science Education International, 28(1), 24–34.
  32. Penuel, W. R., Phillips, R. S., & Harris, C. J. (2014). Analyzing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.921841
  33. Pepin, B., Artigue, M., Gitirana, V., Miyakawa, T., Ruthven, K., Xu, B. (2019). Mathematics Teachers as Curriculum Designers: An International Perspective to Develop a Deeper Understanding of the Concept. In: Trouche, L., Gueudet, G., Pepin, B. (eds) The ‘Resource’ Approach to Mathematics Education. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20393-1_6
  34. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013). Re-sourcing teachers’ work and interactions: A collective perspective on resources, their use and transformation. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0534-2
  35. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2017). Refining teacher design capacity: Mathematics teachers’ interactions with digital curriculum resources. ZDM, 49, 799-812.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0870-8
  36. Pepin, B., Kohanová, I. & Lada, M. Developing Pre-Service Teachers’ Capacity for Lesson Planning with the Support of Curriculum Resources. ZDM Mathematics Education 57, 1003–1017 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01685-0
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
  38. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. Routledge.
  39. Ross, D., Kessler, A. M., & Cartier, J. (2014). Supporting pre-service science teachers’ planning of task-based classroom discussions. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014. Volume 1 (pp. 599–606). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  40. Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., & Tsurusaki, B. K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/SCE.20243
  41. Tanner, K. D. (2010). Order matters: Using the 5E model to align teaching with how people learn. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-06-0082
  42. Trgalová, J., & Tabach, M. (2024). Pre-service teachers' development of digital resource design capacity. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01554-2
  43. Tyminski, A. M., Land, T. J., & Drake, C. (2011). Elementary pre-service teachers' critiques, comparisons, and preferences in examining standards-based curricular materials. In L. R. Wiest & T. D. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 550–558). University of Nevada.
  44. Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93–120.
  45. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
  46. Yang, K. L., Cheng, Y. H., Wang, T. Y., & Chen, J. C. (2023). Preservice mathematics teachers’ reasoning about their instructional design for using technology to teach mathematics. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 248-265.