Hibrit Bir Öğrenme Ortamında Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Katılımlarının RASE Modeline Göre İncelenmesi

Bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarının ve katılım düzeylerinin Türkiye'de hibrit olarak tasarlanan Eğitimde Program Geliştirme dersindeki başarılarını yordayıp yordamadığını araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Bu çalışma RASE (Kaynaklar/Etkinlik/Destek/Değerlendirme) modeline göre tasarlanmıştır ve 129 öğretmen adayından 'Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği” ve “Katılım Ölçeği” aracılığıyla veriler toplanmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının başarı puanları ders notlarına göre yarıyıl sonunda alınmıştır. Araştırma sorusunu yanıtlamak için Çoklu Doğrusal Regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının derin öğrenme yaklaşımının katılım değişkenleri ile anlamlı ve pozitif yönde ilişkili, yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımının katılım değişkenleri ile negatif yönde ilişkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Ancak öğretmen adaylarının yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımları ve davranışsal katılımlarının Eğitimde Program Geliştirme dersindeki başarıyı önemli ölçüde yordadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğrenme ortamının öğrenme çıktıları için önemli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarına farklı aktif öğrenme fırsatları sağlamanın yanı sıra, derin öğrenmeyi ve her türlü katılım düzeylerini geliştirmek için hibrit derslerde yapılan uygulamalar ile değerlendirme önerilebilir.

The Investigation of Teacher Candidates’ Learning Approaches and Engagement in a Hybrid Learning Environment According to RASE Model

This study aimed to investigate whether teacher candidates’ learning approaches and engagement levels predicted their achievement in the Curriculum Development course in a hybrid course in Turkey. This study was designed according to the RASE (Resources/Activity/Support/Evaluation) model. In this study, data were collected from 129 teacher candidates through the ‘Learning Approaches Questionnaire’ and ‘Engagement Questionnaire’. The achievement scores of teacher candidates were obtained at the end of the semester according to their course grades. To answer the research question, the Multiple Linear Regression analysis was employed. The results of the study showed that while the deep learning approach of teacher candidates was significantly and positively related to engagement variables, the surface learning approach was related to engagement variables negatively. However, it was revealed that the surface learning approaches and behavioral engagement of teacher candidates significantly predicted the achievement in the hybrid Curriculum Development course. It can be concluded that the learning environment is important for learning outcomes. It can be suggested that besides providing different active learning opportunities, teacher candidates should be assessed by the level of applications conducted in the hybrid learning course to improve deep learning and all types of engagement levels.

PDF

___

Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236. https://orcid.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006
Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), 126-150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://orcid.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87-105. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002
Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27–39.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ- 2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. (3th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Bowden, J. L-H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: A holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1– 18. https://orcid.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
Buckley, C. A., Pitt, E., Norton, B., & Owens, T. (2010). Students’ approaches to study, conceptions of learning and judgements about the value of networked technologies. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 55–65. https://orcid.org/10.1177/1469787409355875
Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2014). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278. https://orcid.org/10.1111/bjet.12243
Churchill, D., King, M., Webster, B., & Fox, B. (2013). Integrating learning design, interactivity, and technology.
In H. Carter, M. Gosper & J.Hedberg (Eds.), Proceedings of 30th Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference (ASCILITE) (pp. 139–143). Sydney, Australia.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Collaço, C. M. (2017). Increasing student engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(4), 40-47.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65, 493-506.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://orcid.org/ 10.3102/00346543074001059
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
Cope, C., & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students’ learning approaches through intervention in an information systems learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 181– 197. https://orcid.org/10.1080/03075070500043275
Colak, E. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning on the learning approaches of students with different learning styles. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 59, 17-34 doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.59.2
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Loyens, S. M. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in problem-based learning: A review of the literature. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(5), 1087–1112. https://orcid.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6
Ekinci, N. (2009). Learning approaches of university students. Education and Science, 34(151), 74-88. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/issue/view/31
Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22(3), 205– 227. https://orcid.org/10.1007/bf00132288
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using spss. (3th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
Floyd, K. S., Harrington, S. J., & Santiago, J. (2009). The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 181-190. https://doi.org/10.28945/435
Gordon, C. & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a pre-service teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 483-511. https://orcid.org/10.1348/00070990260377488
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson New International Edition.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192. doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Hara, N., Bonk, C. J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology- mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36- 53. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
Ilhan-Beyaztas, D. & Senemoglu, N. (2015). Learning approaches of successful students and factors affecting their learning approaches. Education and Science, 40(179), 193-216. https://orcid.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4214
Jamaludin, R., & Osman, S. Z. M. O. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement and promote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2), 124–131. Retrieved from https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/10648
Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 136–145. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.001
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38(5), 758-773. https://orcid.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5–20. https://orcid.org/10.1002/ir.283
Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 61-71. https://orcid.org/10.1080/01443410303221
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 282–293.
Loyens, S. M. M., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., & Cote, D. J. (2013). Students’ approaches to learning in problem-based learning: Taking into account professional behavior in the tutorial groups, self-study time, and different assessment aspects. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(1), 23– 32. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.004
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153-184. https://orcid.org/10.3102/00028312037001153
Minbashian, A., Huon, G. F., & Bird, K. D. (2004). Approaches to studying and academic performance in short-essay exams. Higher Education, 47(2), 161- 176. https://orcid.org/10.1023/b:high.0000016443.43594.d1
Moore, N. & Gilmartin, M. (2010). Teaching for better learning: A blended learning pilot project with first- year geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(3), 327–344. https://orcid.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.501552
Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2020). Investigating synchronous and asynchronous class attendance as predictors of academic success in online education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 15-25. https://orcid.org/https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5137
Onder, I., & Besoluk, S. (2010). Adaptation of revised two factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) to Turkish. Education and Science, 35(157), 55–67. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/issue/view/38
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivated and self-regulated learning components of academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.82.1.33
Redmond, P., Devine, J., & Basson, M. (2014). Exploring discipline differentiation in online discussion participation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.624
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://orcid.org/10.1037/a0032690
Reeve, J., & Tseng, M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of student engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Boston, MA: Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018- 7_2.
So, H.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A delphi study. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 189–200.
Steen-Utheim, A. T., & Foldnes, N. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student engagement in a flipped classroom. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 307-324. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1379481
Tay, H. Y. (2016). Investigating engagement in a blended learning course. Cogent Education, 3, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1135772
Xerri, M. J., Radford, K., & Shacklock, K. (2017). Student engagement in academic activities: A social support perspective. Higher Education, 75(4), 589–605. https://orcid.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0162-9
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Ucar, F. M., & Sungur, S. (2018). Adaptation of engagement questionnaire to Turkish for science classes: Validity and reliability study. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1691-1705.
Ward, S. (2019). Impact of blended learning on student motivation, engagement and achievement (Masters’ Thesis). Wittenberg University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=witt1561715675863705&disposition=inline
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101. https://orcid.org/10.1080/0260293042003251770
Yang, Y.-F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 181-198. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.538700.
Zheng, X. & Guo, J. (2019). Towards the differences on deep learning of students in blended learning environment. Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering (IJCIME). https://orcid.org/10.1109/IJCIME49369.2019.00028
Zhou, Y. & Zhang, Z. (2018). A study of blended learning design to promote deep learning. Proceedings of International Conference on Management and Education, Humanities and Social Sciences (MEHSS 2018). https://doi.org/10.2991/mehss-18.2018.91
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-17 https://orcid.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
You have heard the news about reactions towards the students with autism in the media. (https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/school-principal-suspended-after-parents-protest-autistic- children- minister-148479)
1. If you were the teachers of these students, how would you determine their needs who need special education and by using which one of the need assessment techniques? (Explain your ideas by stating the reasons).
2. Which curriculum design would you prefer if you were a curriculum designer? (Explain your ideas by stating the reasons).