ÜLKEMİZDE DÜZENLENMEKTE OLAN HİZMET İÇİ EĞİTİM ETKİNLİKLERİNE YÖNELİK ÖĞRETMENLERİN MEMNUNİYET DÜZEYİ

Hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin öğretmenlerin bireysel gelişimleri, öğrencilerin öğrenmesi ve başarısı üzerine faydalı olduğu ilgili alanyazın tarafından vurgulanmaktadır. Ancak, hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerindeki bazı sorunların hala devam ettiği görülmektedir. Araştırmacılar bu çalışmada ülkemizde düzenlenmekte olan hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerine yönelik olarak öğretmenlerin memnuniyetlilik derecesini belirlemeyi ve bu memnuniyet derecesini etkileyen etmenleri tespit etmeyi amaçlamışlardır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, şu araştırma sorularına yanıt aranmıştır: 1) Ülkemizde düzenlenmekte olan hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinde öğretmenlerin memnuniyet düzeyi nedir? ve 2) Öğretmenlerin hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerindeki memnuniyet düzeyini etkileyen etmenler nelerdir? Nitel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı bu araştırmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki çalışmaya katılan öğretmenlerin katılmış oldukları hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerine yönelik olarak sahip oldukları memnuniyet düzeyi oldukça düşüktür. Bunun doğal bir sonucu olarak öğretmenler herhangi bir hizmet içi eğitim etkinliğine katılmamayı tercih etmektedirler. Ayrıca araştırmacılar bu çalışmada düşük memnuniyet düzeyine sahip olma ve hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetlerine katılmamayı tercih etmeye ilişkin sebepleri; sadece geleneksel hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin önerilmesi, hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin planlamasına öğretmenlerin çok dâhil edilmemeleri, hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin planlanması sürecinde öğretmenlerin ihtiyaçlarının göz ardı edilmesi, önerilen hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin öğretmenlerin eğitim ve öğretim faaliyetlerini icra ettikleri sınıf ortamlarında karşılaştıkları gerçek durumlarla çok ilgili olmaması ve hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinde eğitmen olarak görev yapan kişilerin gerekli yeterlilikte olmamaları olarak sıralanmıştır. Elde edilen bu bulgular doğrultusunda, araştırmacılar hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerinin düzenleyicisi olan Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı'na hizmet içi eğitim etkinliklerine arttırabileceğini düşündükleri birtakım önerilerde bulunmuşlardır. katılan öğretmenlerin memnuniyet düzeylerini arttırabileceğini düşündükleri birtakım önerilerde bulunmuşlardır.

SATISFACTION LEVELS OF TEACHERS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN TURKEY

Literature shows that professional development activities are beneficial for teachers’ self-improvement and students’ learning and achievement. In spite of global efforts to address them, some issues surrounding professional development activities persist. The researchers in this study examined the satisfaction level of teachers in professional development activities in Turkey and identified the factors affecting their satisfactions in these activities. For this aim, this study addressed the following research questions: 1) what are the satisfaction levels of teachers in professional development activities in Turkey? and 2) what factors affect the satisfaction levels of teachers in professional development activities? The results of this qualitative study demonstrate that the satisfaction of Turkish teachers with professional development activities is really low; as a result, teachers are choosing not to participate in any activities. The reasons for this dissatisfaction and unwillingness to participate include: 1) offering only traditional professional development activities, 2) not involving teachers in the design of professional development activities, 3) ignoring teachers’ needs during the process of planning of professional development activities, 4) offering activities unrelated to authentic classroom situations, and 5) having low quality of instructors in professional development activities. Finally, the researchers have some suggestions about how the Ministry of National Education might increase teacher satisfaction in professional development activities

PDF

___

ABATE-VAUGHN, J. & PAUGH, P. (2009). The paraprofessional to teacher pipeline: Supports throughout graduation. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(1), 14-27.
ASCHER, C. & FRUCHTER, N. (2001). Teacher quality and student performance in New York City’s low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Places at Risk, 6(3), 199-214.
AYTAÇ, T. (2000). Hizmet içi eğitim kavramı ve uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunlar. [The concept of in-service training and issues in the process of its implementation]. Milli Egitim, 147, 66-69.
BAYINDIR, N. (2009). Teachers’ perception levels of activities directed towards professional progress. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_1_130/ai_n35666692/pg_6/
BİRMAN, B. F., DESİMONE, L., PORTER, A. C., & GARET, M. S. (2000). Designing professionaldevelopment that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
BORKO, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-15.
BORMAN, G. D. & KİMBALL, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teachers with higher standards based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 3-20.
BOYDAK, O. M., & DİKİCİ, A. (2001). Hizmet içi eğitim programlarının etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi.[The evaluation of the effectiveness of in-service training programs]. Firat Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 225-240.
BOYLE, B., WHİLE, D., & BOYLE, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professional development effective? The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45-68.
CARVER, C. L. & KATZ, D. S. (2004). Teaching at the boundary of acceptable practice: What is a new teacher mentor to do? Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 449-462. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487104269524
CHENG, Y. C. (1996). Relation between teachers’ professionalism and job attitudes, educational outcomes, and organizational factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(3), 163- 171.
COLLİNSON, V. & COOK, T. F. (2000). “I don’t have enough time” Teachers’ interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(3), 266- 281.
DEMİRTAŞ, Z. (2010). Öğretmeni hizmet içinde yetiştirmenin bir aracı olarak denetim [As a tool for training teacher in-service, supervision]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences (Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi), 9(31), 41-52.
DESİMONE, L. M., PORTER, A. C., GARET, M. S., YOON. K. S., & BİRMAN, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.
DUCHENY, K., ALLEZHAUSER, H. L., CRANDELL, D., & SCHNEİDER, T. R. (1997).
Graduate student professional development. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 87–91.
EASTON, L. B. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi delta Kappan,89(10), 755-761.
ELMAN, N. S., ILLFELDER-KAYE, J., & ROBİNER, W. N. (2005). Professional development: Training for professionalism as a foundation for competent practice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 367–375.
ERİŞEN, Y. (1998). Öğretmenlere yönelik hizmet içi egitim programlarını geliştirmede eğitim ihtiyacı belirleme süreci. [The process of the determination of the needs of teachers on inservice training programs]. Milli Egitim, 140, 1-12.
FULLAN, M. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey, & M. HUBERMAN (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teacher College Press.
GARET, M. PORTER, A., DESİMONE, L., BİRMAN, B., & YOON, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
GÖNEN, S. & KOCAKAYA, S. (2006). Fizik öğretmenlerninin hizmetici eğitimler üzerine görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. [The evaluation of physics teachers on in-service training]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 37-44.
GUSKEY, T. R. (1994). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix (Report No: ED 369181). American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
GUSKEY, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3).
HARRİS, A., DAY, C., GOODALL, J., LİNDSAY, G., & MUİJS, D. (2005). What different does itmake? Evaluating the impacts of continuing professional development in schools. Retrieved from http://www.scotedreview.org.uk/pdf/228.pdf
HİRSH, S. (2001). We’re growing and changing. Journal of Staff Development, 22(3), 255-258.
HODGE, C. L. & KRUMM, B. L. (2009). NCLB: A study of its effects on rural schools- School administrators rate service options for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28(1), 20-27.
HODKİNSON, H. & HODKİNSON, P. (2005). Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning. Research Paper in Education, 20(2), 109-131.
JONSON, K. F. (2002). Being an effective mentor: How to help beginning teachers succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
KAYA, A., ÇEPNİ, S. & KÜÇÜK, M. (2004). Fizik öğretmenleri için üniversite destekli bir hizmet içi eğitim model önerisi. [An in-service training model at university for psychics teachers]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 112-119.
KELLEHER, J. (2003). Professional development that works: A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 751-756.
LİEBERMAN, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (8), 591-596.
LOWDEN, C. (2005). Evaluating the impact of professional development. The Journal of Research in Professional Learning, 1-22. Published by the National Staff Development Council www.nsdc.org MAHON, J. P. (2003). Professional development for K-12 reform. Principal Leadership (Middle School Edition), 3(6), 51-53.
MCCAUGHTRY, N., MARTİN, J., KULİNNA, P. H., & COTHRA, D. (2006). What makes teacher professional development work? The influence of instructional resources on change in physical education. Journal of In-service Education, 32(2), 221-235.
MCLAUGHLİN. M. W., & TALBERT, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teacher College Press.
MEİSTER, D. M. (2010). Experienced secondary teachers’ perceptions of engagement and effectiveness: A guide for professional development. The Qualitative Report, 15(4), 880- 898.
MERRİAM, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MERTENS, D. M. (2009). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integratingdiversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
MİLLER, E. (1998). The old model of staff development survives in a world where everything else has changed. In R. Tovey (Ed.), Professional development, Harvard education letter focus series, 4. Cambridge: Harvard Education Letter.
MOİR, E. & GLESS, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109-114. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from ERIC database.
OKOYE, S. N., MOMOH, S. O., AİGBOMAİN, D. O. & OKECHA, R. E. (2008). Teachers’ quality, instructional strategies and students’ performance in secondary school science. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4), 204-211.
OPFER, V. D. & PEDDER, D. (2011). The lost promise of teacher professional development in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 3-24.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS).
ÖZER, B. (2001) Ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişime yaklaşımı [Secondaryschool teachers’ approach to professional development]. Yayimlanmamis arastirma raporu, Eskisehir.
ÖZER, B. (2004). In-service training of teachers in Turkey at the beginning of the 2000s. Journal of In-service Education, 30(1), 89-100.
QUİCK, H. E., HOLTZMAN, D. J., & CHANEY, K. R. (2009), Professional development and instructional practice: Conceptions and evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,14(1), 45-71.
PALARDY, G. J. & RUMBERGER, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
PAYNE, D. & WOLFSON, T. (2000). Teacher professional development: The principal's critical role. NASSO Bulletin, 84(13), 13-21.
PEDDER, D., JAMES, M., & MACBEATH, J. (2005). How teachers value and practice professional learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 209-243.
PENUEL, W. R., FİSHMAN, J. B., YAMAGUCHİ, R., & GALLAGHER, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958 http://aerj.aera.net
PESKE, H. C. & HAYCOCK, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality, A report and recommendations by The Education Trust. The Education Trust, 1-18.
PORTER, A. C., & BROPHY, J. (1988). Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 74-85.
ROCKOFF, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement evidence from Panel Data. The American Economic Review. 94(2), 247-252.
ROGERS, M. P., ABELL, S., LANNİN, J., WANG, C-Y., MUSİKUL, K., BARKER, D., & DİNGMAN, S. (2007). Effective professional development in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ and facilitators’ views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 507-532.
SABAN, A. (2000). Hizmet içi eğitimde yeni yaklaşımlar. [New approaches in in-service training] Retrieved from http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/145/saban.htm
SANDHOLTZ, J. H. & SCRİBNER, S. P. (2006). The paradox of administrative control in fostering teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1104- 1117.
SCANLAN, C. L. (1986). Deterrents to participation: An adult education dilemma. Information Series No. 308. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus, Ohio. Sponsoring Agency: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. 1986. (ERIC #ED272768)
SEFEROĞLU, S. S. (2001). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of professional development (Sınıf öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişim uygulamaları ile ilgili görüşleri). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 117 -125.
SEFEROĞLU, S. S. (2007). Professional teaching standards: The case of Turkish teacher candidates. World Applied Science Journal, 2(4), 412-419.
SPARKS D. & LOUCKS-HORSLEY, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
STARKEY, L., YATES, A., MEYER, L. H., HALL, C., TAYLOR, M., STEVENS, S. & TOİA R. (2009). Professional development design: Embedding educational reform in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 181-189.
TAYLOR, S. J., & BOGDAN, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
TORFF, B. & SESSİONS, D. (2008). Factors associated with teachers’ attitudes about professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 123-133.
UÇAR, R. & İPEK, C. (2006). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenlerin MEB hizmet içi eğitim uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşleri.[The views of principals and teachers about in-service training activities]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 34-53.
VİSSER, T. C. & COENDERS, F. G. M. (2010). Essential characteristics for a professional development program for promoting the implementation of a multidisciplinary Science Module. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 623-642.
VOGT, F. & ROGALLA, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1051-1060.