Teknolojiyi Öğrenirken Zihinsel Risk Alınması: Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adayları Örneği

Her öğrenmede olduğu gibi teknolojiyi öğrenme sürecinde de, zihinsel risk alma ve dolayısıyla öğrenme sürecine aktif katılım gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle, fen bilgisi öğretmeni adayları, teknoloji hakkında öğrenme sürecine katıldıklarında, yüksek düzeyde ve nedenleri belli şekilde zihinsel risk alma sürecini deneyimlemelidirler. Öğretmen adaylarınca gösterilen zihinsel risk alma düzeyleri ve bu tür riskleri alma yollarını belirleyerek, öğretmen adaylarının zihinzel risk alma derecesine ve zihinsel risk alma süreçlerini hangi yollarla geliştireceklerine dair kararlar verebiliriz. Bu çalışmada, fen bilgisi öğretmeni adaylarının zihinsel risk alma düzeyleri araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcılarını Türkiye'deki iki farklı üniversitede eğitim gören fen bilimleri eğitimi bölümlerinden 207 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Veri toplama sürecinde “teknolojiyi öğrenme sürecinde zihinsel risk alma durumu anketleri” ve “kişisel bilgi formları” kullanılmıştır. Verileri analiz etmek için tümevarımcı içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji öğrenirken zihinsel risk alma etkinlikleri açısından oldukça farklı örnekler sergilediklerini göstermiştir. Bulgular ayrıca, zihinsel risk alma koşullarının, teknolojiyi öğrenirken zihinsel risklerin alınmasında önemli bir faktör olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, öğretmen eğitimi programlarında, teknoloji hakkında öğrenme sürecinde gerekli olan zihinsel risk alma koşullarının neler olduğu ve zihinsel risk almanın ne gibi örneklerinin olduğu konusunda kanıt sağlamaktadır.

Intellectual Risk Taking When Learning about Technology: Case of Prospective Science Teachers

Learning about technology in a classroom environment necessitates intellectual risk takingbecause intellectual risk taking involves active participation in learning. Hence prospectivescience teachers should adopt high intellectual risk-taking levels when learning about technologyto improve their participation in learning. By determining their level of intellectual risk takingand ways of promoting such risk taking, we can decide on the degree of intellectual risk taking ofprospective teachers and which ways of increasing intellectual risk taking are effective inlearning about technology. Accordingly, this study explores the intellectual risk-taking levels ofprospective science teachers when learning about technology and ways of increasing intellectualrisk taking during their learning. The participants comprised 207 prospective science teachersfrom departments of science education at universities in Turkey. For the data collection, three“intellectual risk-taking questionnaires about learning technology” and “personal informationforms” were utilized. For analyzing data, inductive content analysis was used. The findingsrevealed that the intellectual risk-taking level of prospective teachers was higher than theiravoidance of taking intellectual risks. The findings also showed that conditions of intellectual risktaking are an important factor in taking intellectual risks when learning about technology. Thisstudy provides implications for shaping an environment in which to take the required level ofintellectual risk in learning about technology in teacher education programs and presentsexamples of intellectual risk taking.

PDF

___

Akkaya, G. (2016). Rol model içerikli animasyonların üstün yetenekli 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersinde zihinsel risk alma davranışları ve öğrenmelerine etkisi, İnonu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamıs Doktora Tezi, Malatya, Turkiye.
Akdag,E. M., Koksal, M.S and Ertekin, P. (2017). Üstün yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen öğrenmede zihinsel risk alma davranışlarının sınıf düzeyi ve cinsiyet değişkenleri açısından incelenmesi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 4 (2), 16-25.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Beghetto, R. A. (2007a). Ideational code-switching: Walking the talk about supporting student creativity in the classroom. Roeper Review, 29, 265–270
Beghetto, R. A. (2007b). Creativity research in the classroom: From pitfalls to potential. In A. G. Tan (Ed.), Creativity: A Handbook for teachers. Singapore: World Scientific
Beghetto, R. A. (2008). Prospective teachers’ beliefs about imaginative thinking in K12 schooling, Thinking Skills and Creativity 3 (2), 134–142.
Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (2), 210–223.
Besoluk, S., Kurbanoglu, N. I., and Onder, I. (2010). Educational technology usage of preservice and in-service science and technology teachers. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 389-395.
Brown, P.U., Parsons, S.C. and Worley, V. (2005) Pre-Service teachers write about diversity: A metaphor analysis, Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 3(1), 87-102.
Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cakir, E. and Yaman, S. (2015). The relationship between students’ intellectual risktaking skills with metacognitive awareness and academic achievement, Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 163-178.
Cetin, B., Ilhan,M., and Yilmaz, F. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between the fear of receiving negative criticism and of taking academic risk through canonical correlation analysis, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 135-158.
Clifford, M.M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 263-297.
Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. Jackson (ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Cohen, D. K. and Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Dasci, A.D. and Yaman, S. (2014). Investigation of intellectual risk-taking abilities of students according to Piaget's stages of cognitive development and education grade, Kuramsal Egitimbilim Dergisi, 7(3), 271-285.
Deci, E. L., and Porac, J. (1978). Cognitive evaluation theory and the study of human motivation, In M. R. Lepper and D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Souza Fleith, D. (2000) Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment, Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153.
Elo S. and Kyngas, H. (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fullan, M. G. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goktas, Y., Yildirim, Z., and Yildirim, S. (2008). A review of ICT related courses in pre-service teacher education programs. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9, 168–179.
Henriksen, D. and Mishra, P. (2013). Learning from creative teachers, Educational Leadership, 70 (5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb13/vol70/num05/Learning-from-Creative-Teachers.aspx
Ilhan, M., Cetin, B., Oner-Sunkur, M, and Yilmaz, F. (2013). An investigation of the relationship between study skills and academic risk taking with canonical correlation, Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 3(2), 123-146.
Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 383–408.
Koehler, M. J., and Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation & Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 87–106). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koksal, M. S., Yaman, S., and Saka, Y. (2016). Analysis of Turkish prospective science teachers’ perceptions on technology in education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.2
Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., and Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 185-211.
Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017– 1054.
Oner Sunkur, M. (2015). An investigation into the relationship between academic risk taking and chemistry laboratory anxiety in Turkey, Educational Research and Reviews, 10 (2), 153-160.
Robinson, L.E. (2012). Academic risk-taking in an on-line environment, University of Connecticut, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Streitmatter, J. (1997). An exploratory study of risk-taking and attitudes in a girls-only middle school math class. The Elementary School Journal, 98(1), 15-26.
Styhre, A. (2006). Science-based innovation as systematic risk-taking. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 300–311.
Tomlinson, C.A. and Javius, E.L. (2012) Teach up for excellence, Educational Leadership, 69(5), 28-33.
Turkmen, H., Pedersen, J., and McCarty, R. (2007). Exploring Turkish science education preservice teachers’ understanding of educational technology and use. Research in Comparative & International Education, 2(2), 162-171.
Weingrad, P. (1998). Teaching and learning politeness for mathematical argument in school. In M. Lampert, and M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 213-237). Cambridge: University Press.
Yaman, S and Koksal, M.S. (2014). Fen öğrenmede zihinsel risk alma ve yordayıcılarına ilişkin algı ölçeği Türkçe formunun uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik Çalışması, Journal of Turkish Science Education. 11(3), 119-142.