Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları tercihleri ve öğrenmeye İlişkin algılarının đncelenmesi

Bu calısmanın amacı, eğitim fakultesi oğrencilerinin oğrenme yaklasımlarını tercih etme duzeylerini ve tercih duzeylerinin bolum, cinsiyet ve sınıf duzeyi değiskenleri acısından anlamlı farklılık gosterip gostermediğini belirlemektir. Arastırma tarama modelinde bir calısmadır. Arastırmanın evreni, 2011-2012 eğitim-oğretim yılı, bahar yarıyılında, Ataturk Universitesi, Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakultesi`nde oğrenim goren oğrencilerden olusmaktadır. Arastırmanın orneklemi ise evren icerisinden basit seckisiz ornekleme yontemiyle secilen 393 kisiden olusmaktadır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde Oğrenme Yaklasımları ve Calısma Becerileri Olceği kullanılmıstır. Arastırmanın sonuclarına gore uc oğrenme yaklasımı da yuz uzerinden elli dokuz ortalamanın ustunde tercih edilmektedir. Eğitim fakultesi oğrencilerinin oğrenme yaklasımları tercihleri arasında oğrenim gorulen alan, cinsiyet ve sınıf duzeyi değiskenlerine gore anlamlı farklılık yoktur. Oğrenciler “oğenme” terimini daha cok “Kazandığıı bilgileri kullanabilmek” olarak ifade etmektedirler.

Analysis of approaches to learning preferences and perceptions of learning of students in faculty of education

Purpose of this study is to determine preference levels of approaches to learning and whether there is a significant difference as regards department, gender and class rank ofpreference levels of students in faculty of education. The research is a survey model. Universe of this research is comprised of students studying in Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty of Ataturk University in fall term 2011-2012 education year. Sample of the research is comprised of 393 candidate teachers that were selected randomly. Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students – ASSDST has been employed to obtain research data. According to research results each of three approaches to learning is preferred with a percentage of over fifty nine out of a hundred. No significant difference was found between approach to learning preferences of candidate teachers in faculty of education according to field of the study, gender and class rank variables. Students stated to the term "learning" as to " Being able to use the information you’ve acquired".

Kaynakça

Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. Đstanbul: Kültür Yayıncılık.

Berberoglu, G., & Hei, L. M. (2003). A comparison of university students' approaches to learning across Taiwan and Turkey. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 173-187.

Beşoluk, Ş., & Önder, Đ. (2010). Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches, to learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Đlköğretim Online, 9(2), 679-693.

Betoret, F. D., & Artiga, A. G. (2011). The relationship among basic student need satisfaction, approacheslearning, reporting of avoidance strategies and achievement. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 463-496. Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council forEducational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (Ed.) (1991). Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students` learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.

Biggs, J. B., Kember D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133-149.

Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2008). New Zealand and Queensland teachers’ conceptions of learning: Transforming more than reproducing. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 8, 1-14.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (11. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.

Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2009). An inter-institutional exploration of the learning approaches of students studying accounting. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 155-167.

Chang, Z., Martin, V., & Tammy, S. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 120-127.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

Çolak, E., & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme yaklaşımları envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 197-212.

Ekinci, N., & Ekinci, E. (2007). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Đlköğretim Bölümü öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. I. Ulusal Đlköğretim Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 74-88.

Ellez, A. M., & Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, ODTÜ Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi, Ankara.

Gadelrab, H. F. (2011). Factorial structure and predictive validity of approaches and study skills inventory for students (assist) in Egypt: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1197-1218.

Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 431-443.

Harlen, W., & James, M., (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 4(3). 365-380.

Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education students, British JournalEducational Technology, 17, 212-222.

Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (20. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.

Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & McNaught, C. (2008). A workshop activity to demonstrate that approacheslearning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education,43-56.

Kızılgüneş, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243-256.

Leung, D. Y. P., Ginns, P., & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the cultural specificity of approaches to learning in universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 39, 251-266.

Lietz, P., & Matthews, M. (2010). The effects of college students’ personal values on changes in learning approaches. Research in Higher Education, 51(1), 65-87.

Magno, C. (2009). Investigating the effect of school ability on self-efficacy, learning approaches,metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 233-244.

Marton, F. (1975) On non-verbatim learning: 1. Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, 273-279.

Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement?. TeachingHigher Education, 6(3), 399-413.

Ozan, C., Gündoğdu, K., & Köse, E. (2012, Mayıs). Okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının incelenmesi. 11. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Sempozyumu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, Rize.

Ramburuth, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Exploring the relationship between students’ orientations to learning, the structure of students’ learning outcomes and subsequent academic performance. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 13(4), 507-527.

Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8,427.

Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer.

Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), 5-17.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). ‘Learning Style’: Frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology:International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17, (1-2), 51-63.

Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills. EducationScience, 36(160), 65-80.

Sezgin-Selçuk, G., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarının değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(2), 25-41.

Smith, S. N., & Miller, R. J. (2005) Learning approaches: examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43-53.

Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A re-conceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving students as learners (pp. 262-271). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Tight, M. (2003). Researching higher education. Maidenhead, Berkshire, United Kingdom: McGraw Hill.

Topkaya, N., Yaka, B., & Öğretmen, T. (2011). Öğrenme ve ders çalışma yaklaşımları envanterinin uyarlanması ve ilgili yapılarla ilişkisinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 192-204.

Watkins, D. (1982). Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 76-85.

Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary study processes. Human Learning, 2, 29-37.

Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393.

Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service English teachers in blended learning environment in respect to their learning approaches. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 157-164

Kaynak Göster