Meslek Lisesi Öğretmenlerinin Öğretim Biçimleri

Bu çalışma, meslek lisesi öğretmenlerinin öğretim biçimlerini araştırmak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla Ankara’da farklı meslek liselerinde görev yapan 174 öğretmene öğretim biçimi ölçeği uygulanmıştır. Ölçek 30 madde içermektedir. Ölçekte görsel, işitsel, dokunsal, hareketsel, grupsal ve bireysel öğretim biçimleri yer almaktadır. Ölçeğin tümü için Cronbach Alfa katsayısı 0.93 olarak bulunmuştur. Verilerin analizinde frekans, aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma, t-testi, Pearson korelasyon analizi ve faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonunda, öğretmenlerin en fazla görsel ve bireysel öğretim biçimlerini kullandıkları belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, öğretmenlerin cinsiyetleri, kıdemleri, görev yaptığı okulun bulunduğu sosyoekonomik düzey ve branşı ile öğretim biçimleri arasında istatistiksel olarak 0.05 düzeyinde anlamlı fark bulunmuştur. Ayrıca tüm öğretim biçimleri arasında 0.01 düzeyinde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur.

Teaching Modalities of Vocational High School Teachers

The main purpose of this study was to investigate teaching modalities of vocational high school teachers. A survey was administered to 174 vocational high school teachers from different vocational high schools in Ankara. The survey instrument consisting of 30 likert-type items was used. Cronbach-Alpha for the whole scale was found to be 0.93. In the data analysis, frequency, arithmetical mean, standard division, t-test, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient method and factory analysis were performed. The results indicate that teachers mostly preferred the visual and individual teaching modalities. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference was determined at the 0.05 confidence level among teaching modalities in terms of teachers’ gender, professionally seniority, socioeconomic condition of the schools they work and department. A significant relationship was determined at the 0.01 confidence level among all of the teaching modalities.

PDF

___

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barbe , W. B. & Swassing, R. H. (1994). Teaching through modality strengths. Concepts and practices. Columbus, OH: Zanner-Blose, Inc.
Bargar, J. R., Bargar, R. R. & Cano, J. M. (1994). Discovering learning preferences and learning differences in the classroom. OH: Ohio Agricultural Education Curriculum Material Service.
Bümen, N. T. (2002). Okulda Çoklu Zeka Kuramı. Ankara : Pegem -A Yayıncılık.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Demirel, Ö & Ün, K. (1987). Eğitim Terimleri. Ankara: Şafak Matbaası.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1975). Finding the best fit: Learning styles, teaching styles. NASSP Bulletin, 59, 37-49.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K. & Price, G. E.(1987). Manual for the learning styles inventory. New York: Price Systems Publishing.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students trough their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. (1995). A meta- analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning style preference. Journal of Educational Researchers. 88 (6), 353-362.
Duyar, M. S. (1996). Accelerated Word Memory Power (Yabancı Kelimeleri Hızlı Öğrenme Teknikleri). Ankara: Mega Hafıza Eğitim Hizmetleri Ltd. Şti.
Felder, R. M.& Silverman, L. K.(1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education. 78, 674-681.
Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching. 23 (5), 286- 290.
Felder, R. (1996). Matters of styles. ASEE Prism, 6 (4), 18-23.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Grasha, A.F. (1995). “The role of cognitive process in dispending errors: A conceptual analysis (ICT Technical Report 0395, 1-93)”. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Institute for Consultation and Training.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Bernardino, CA: Alliance Publishers.
Guild, P. B. & Garger, S. (1998). Marching to different drummers. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Henderson, J. (1981). The relationship of the black students’ field dependence and independence and achievement in science. Science Education, 67 (3), 223-227.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lawrence, G. (1984). People types and tiger striper: A practical guide to learning styles. (2 nd Ed). Gainesville: Center for Applications of Psych-logical Type.
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips. .USA: D.C. Health and Company.
Saban, A. (2001). Çoklu Zeka Teorisi ve Eğitim. Ankara: Nobel Yayın ve Dağıtım.
Salem, G. R. (2001). “Instructors’ and students’ antecedents and contexts: Their influence on the English proficienciency of college freshmen”. Unpublished Dissertation, Saint Mary’s University.
Silver, H. F., Hanson, J. R., Strong R. W. & Schwartz, P. B. (1996). Teaching styles & strategies. USA: Trenton, The Thoughtful Education Press.
Soloman, B. S. (2003). “Inventory of learning styles”. [Online] Retrieved on 15 September 2004, URL: http: // www. ncsu.edu/ felder-public/ILSdir/ilsweb.html.