Zaman ve Ergonomik Açıdan İlköğretim Okul Binalarının Kullanım Durumu (Elazığ İli Örneği)

Çağımızda bilim ve teknolojideki gelişmeler hızla devam etmektedir. Bu gelişmelere ayak uyduracak bireylerin planlı ve programlı bir şekilde yetiştirilmeleri okullarda yapılan eğitim-öğretimle mümkündür. Örgün eğitimin başladığı ilk basamak ise ilköğretim okulları olması nedeniyle çok önemlidir. Bu nedenle çalışmada ilköğretim okullarının zaman ve ergonomik açıdan kullanım durumu ele alınmış ve araştırılmıştır. Çalışma, literatür taraması ve anket uygulaması yöntemiyle yapılmıştır. İlgili bilgiler literatürden toplandıktan sonra, uzman görüşü de alınarak geliştirilen anket formu okul yöneticilerine uygulanmıştır. Anket, 1998-1999 öğretim yılında Elazığ il merkezinde bulunan ilköğretim okullarının 110 yöneticisine uygulanmıştır. Uygulanan 110 anket formundan 106'sı geçerli sayılmıştır. İlgili istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılarak veriler çözümlenmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Araştırma sonunda okulların tamamının ilköğretime geçtiği fakat ikili öğretim yaptığı saptanmıştır. Okuldaki fiziki birimlerin kapasitelerinin üzerinde kullanıldığı, öğrenciler dışında toplumun başka kesimleri tarafından çok az kullanıldığı ve okul bina ve birimlerinin ergonomik kullanımına önem verilmediği görülmüştür.

___

  • Alexander, P. A. (1996). “The past,present and future of knowledge research: A reexamination oft he role of knowledge in Learning and instruction”. Educational Psychologist, 31, 89-92.
  • Alkan, C. (1997). Eğitim Teknolojisi, Ankara: Yargıçoğlu Matbaası.
  • Applefield, J.M.; Huber, R; Moallem, M. ( 2000). “Constructivism in Theory and Practise: Towarda Better Understanding”. High School Journal, Dec. 2000, Vol. 84İssue2, p35, 19p
  • Ausubel, D.P. (1968), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Barth, J.L.; Demirtaş, A. (1997). İlköğretimde Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi, Ankara: YÖK Yayınları
  • Brooks, J.G.,& Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classroom. Alexandria: VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Brown, H.Douglas. (1987). Prenciples of Learning and Teaching. (2nd edition), Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs
  • Brown,J.S.,Collins, A & Dugiud, P. (1989), Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher 18, 32-42.
  • Burner, J. D. (Undated). Behaviorism and B. F. Skinner. [On-line], Available: http://www2.una.edu/education/Skinner.htm. (2001).
  • Collins, A., Brown, J.S. and Holum, A. (1991), Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making ThinkingVisible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11, 38-46
  • Constructivist theory (J. Bruner). [On-line]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/bruner.html. (2001).
  • Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivivsm. Educational Technolgy 33: 12-19.
  • Cunningham, D. J. (1991). “Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue ”.Educational Technology, May, 13-17.
  • Cunningham, D. J. (1992).Beyond Educational Psychology:Step Toward an Educational Semiotic. Educational Psychology Review 4, 165-194.
  • Dembo,M. (1977) Teaching for Learning-Aplplying Educational Psychologyİn The Classroom, California: Goodycar Publishing Company.
  • Deryakulu, D. & Şimşek, A. (1996, Eylül). “Türetimci öğrenme ve dikkat odaklamann öğrenci başarısı ve tutumları üzerindeki etkisi.” Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Üçüncü Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi’de sunulan bildiri. Bursa.
  • Dewey, John. (1916),Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.
  • Dewey, John. (1929),My Pedogogical creed. Washington, DC: Prograssive Education Association.
  • Dewey, John. (1938),Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan
  • Cobb,P. (1994a), Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspective onmathematical development. Paper presented at the manual meeting of the American educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Cobb,P. (1994b), Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspective onmathematical development.Educational Researcher 23, 13-20
  • Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for İnstruction. Boston: Alllyn & Bacon
  • Duffy, T. M.& Jonassen, D. H. (1991). “Constructivism”: New İmplications for İnstructional Technology, 31 (3), 7-12.
  • Duffy, T. M.& Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the Desing and Delivery of Instruction. In D.H.Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.170-197). New York: Macmillan.
  • Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J. (1993). “Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective”. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 6 (4), 50-70.
  • Fasnot,C.T.(1989),Enquiring teachers, Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist Approach for Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gagne, R. M. Conditions of learning. [On-line]. Available: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/gagne.html(2001).
  • Greeno. J. G., Collins, A. M.,ve Resnick, L. B. (1996).Cognition and Learning.In D. Beliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.15-46).New York: Macmillan.
  • Hlynka,D.(1991), Postmodern Excurisions into Educational Technology. Educational Technology,31,(6),27-30.
  • Hofer, B.& Pintrichk, P.(1997), Development of Epistemological Theories: Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing Their Relation to Knowig. Reiew of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140
  • Honebein, P., Duffy, T.M.,&Fishman, B. (1993), Constructivism and the Desing of Learning Enviroments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning. In. T.M. Duffy,J. Lowyck, &D.Jonassen (Ed.), Designing Enviroments for Constructivist learning(pp.87-108). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
  • Jadallah, E. (2000).“Constructivist Learning Experiences for Social Studies Education“.Social Studies, Sep/Oct2000, Vol. 91 Issue 5, p221, 5p.
  • Jonassen, D.H. (1990).Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist view of Instructional Design . Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34;
  • Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do we need a new philosophicalparadigm? Educational Technology, Research & Development, 39 (3), 5-14;
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). “Desing Constructivist Learning Enviroments” Insttructional-Desing Theories And Models A New Paradigm of Instuctional Theory, Vo.II Edit by C.M Reigeluth, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Mason, J.H. (1988). Fragments: “The implications for teachers, learners, and media users/researchers of personal construal and fragmentary recollection of aural andvisual messages”. Instructional Science, 17, 195-218;
  • McDonoungh ,S. K. (2001). “Way Beynod Drill and Practice : Foreign Language Lab Activities inSupport of Constructivist Learning”. İnternational Journal of İnstructional Media,2001, Vol. 28 İssue 1, p75, 5p.
  • M.E.B.(1995). İlköğretim Okulu Programı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları: 2846, Ankara.
  • Merrill, M. D. (1991). “Constructivism and instructional design”. Educational Technology, May, 45-53.
  • Omrud, E. Jeanne (1990) Human Learning Teories, Prenciples and Educational Applications. Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company. U.S.A
  • Piaget, Jean (1977), The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. NewYork: Viking
  • Tam, M. (2000). “Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning”. Educational Technology & Society 3 (2),2000. http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol.2. (2001).
  • Vygotsky, L. Social Development Theory . http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html (2001).
  • Vygotsky, L.(1962), Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
  • Wittrock, M.C.(1985), Teaching learners Generative Strategies for Enhancing Reading Comprehension. Theory into Practice, 24(2), 123-126.
  • Wittrock, M.C.(1990). “Generative process of comprehension”. Educational Psyhologist, 24(4), 345-376
  • Woolfolk, A. E. (1998). Educational Psychology.seventh Edition. Allyn and Bacon