OJER Home

2020 - Volume 4 - Number 1

Science Teacher Candidates’ Skills to Ensure Method-Material Harmony and Integration

Davut Saritaş * davutsaritas@gmail.com * ORCID: 0000-0002-5108-4801
Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Education Faculty, Nevşehir, TURKEY

Emin Tamer Yenen * tameryenen@gmail.com * ORCID: 0000-0003-2359-3518
Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Education Faculty, Nevşehir, TURKEY

Open Journal for Educational Research, 2020, 4(1), 31-48 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojer.0401.03031s
Received: 6 February 2020 ▪ Accepted:  5 May 2020 ▪ Published Online: 15 May 2020

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF)

ABSTRACT:
In this study, it was aimed to determine the harmony and integration levels of the material prepared by the science teacher candidates with the methodical approach they adopted. In this case study, the data was obtained from observations of material practices and documents introducing the materials. In the study of 41 teaching materials prepared by 3rd grade teacher candidates prepared at different levels considering the achievements of the Science curriculum, the data were analyzed by descriptive analysis, content analysis and the “methodological approach-material integration level” rubric developed by the researchers. In the findings it was determined that although teacher candidates design materials in three different categories in accordance with three different teaching approaches of science (discovery learning; inductive reflective materials, expository teaching; direct reflective materials, research method; multiple systematic reflective materials), they mostly use materials with inappropriate methodological approaches and low level of integration during the application process.

KEY WORDS: science education, teaching method, teaching material, learning environment, teacher training undergraduate program.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Emin Tamer Yenen, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Education Faculty, Nevşehir, TURKEY. E-mail: tameryenen@gmail.com.

REFERENCES:

Açıkgöz, Ü. K. (2003). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.

Amadioha, S. W. (2009). The importance of instructional materials in our schools: An overview. New Era Research Journal of Human, Educational and Sustainable Development, 2(3), 61-63.

Basque, J., & Dare, S. W. (1998). Environment and apparatuship Information. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 626-638.

Bektaş, F., Nalçacı, A., & Erçoşkun, H. (2009). Classroom teacher candidates' views on the attainments from "teaching technologies and material development" Course. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 2(2), 19-31.

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.

Bozpolat, E., & Arslan, A. (2018). Preservice teachers’ views about the course teaching technologies and material design, E-International Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 60-84, https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.463977

Cabı, E., & Ergün, E. (2016). The impact of instructional technologies and material development course on the teacher candidates’ concern about using educational technologies. Başkent University Journal of Education, 3(1), 37-43.

Çalışoğlu, M. (2015). Opinion of preservice elementary teachers about the instructional technologies and material development course. Current Research in Education, 1(1), 23-32.

CEH (1997). Science education, education faculty teacher training undergraduate programs. Retrieved from:https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/egitim-fakultesi-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari-mart-1998.pdf.

CEH (2007). Education faculty teacher training undergraduate program. Retrieved from:https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/egitim-fakultesi-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari-mart-1998.pdf.

CEH (2018). Teacher training undergraduate programs. Retrieved from: https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idaribirimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programları.

Çiftçi Ş, K., Yıldız P., & Bozkurt, E. (2015). Middle school mathematics teachers’ opinions about using material. Journal of Educational Policy Analysis, 4(1), 79-89.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Duman, G. B. (2013). Material development and effective use of materials in teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 1(2), 1-8.

Fidan, N. K. (2008). Teachers' views with regard to the use of tools and materials in the primary level Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 1(1), 48-61.

Gömleksiz, M., Kan, A., & Serhatlıoğlu, B. (2010). Prospective teachers’ opinions about the effectiveness of instructional technology and material development course to have them acquire principles of material preparing. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9(32), 1-16.

Goodrich, A. H. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4).

Güneş, F. (2014). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods]. In F. Güneş (Ed.), Öğretim stratejileri [Teaching strategies] (pp. 61-77). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Güven, S . (2006). The evaluation of teaching technologies and materials development course in terms of competencies it provides (a sample of Inönü Unıversity faculty of education). The Journal of Turkish Educational Strategies, 4(2), 165-179.

Hand, B., & Treagust, D. F. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a constructivist framework. School Science and Mathematics, 91(4), 172-176.

İşman, A. (2003), Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme [Instructional technologies and material development]. İstanbul: Değişim Yay.

Kablan, Z., Topan, B., & Erkan, B. (2013). The effectiveness level of material use in classroom instruction: A meta-analysis study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1629-1644.

Kahyaoğlu, M. (2011). The views of elementary teachers on using new technologies in science and technology teaching. EBAD-JESR, 1(1), 79-96.

Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2006). Science and technology teachers' levels of using instructional materials: Amasya sample. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 1(1), 190-101.

Kazu, H., & Yeşilyurt, E. (2008). Teacher’s aims of using instructional tools and materials. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 18(2), 175-188.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

MNE (2017). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science education curriculum of primary education institutions]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

MNE (2017). General Competencies of Teaching Profession. Retrieved from: http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf.

Özcan, H., & Koştur, H. İ. (2019). Analyzing pre-service science teachers’ physics materials. Science Education International, 30(1).

Özden, Y. (2000). Öğrenme ve öğretme [Learning and teaching] (8th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.

Özer, Ö., & Tunca, N. (2014). The opinion of pre-service teachers towards preparing and using of materials. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1(3), 214-229.

Şahin, T. Y., & Yıldırım, S. (2004). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme [Instructional technologies and material development]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Saka, A. Z., & Saka, A. (2005). Teacher candidates' level of development of their professional skills in instructional technologies and material development lesson: Sakarya sample. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty, 10, 81-177.

Sarıtaş, D., & Polat, M. (2017). Removing of misconceptions related with some basic science concepts with purpose-built science teaching materials. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 5(10), 73-100.

Seferoğlu, S. (2006). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarımı [Instructional technologies and material design]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd ed.). MA: John Wiley & Sons.

Ünal, M., Akıncı, Ş., & Şahin, F. (2000, October). Biyolojik kavramların öğretilmesinde modellerin rolü: mitoz bölünme [The role of models in teaching biological concepts: mitosis]. 4th Science Education Congress, MEB Basımevi, Ankara.

Woodcock, S., & Reupert, A. (2012). A cross-sectional study of student teachers’ behaviour management strategies throughout their training years. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 159-172.

Yalın, H. İ. (2004). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme [Instructional technologies and material development] (13th Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.

Yanpar, T (2006). Teknoloji tabanlı eğitim [Technology-based education]. In V. Sönmez (Ed.), Eğitim bilimlerine giriş [Introduction to educational sciences] (pp. 187-212). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Yanpar, T., Koray, Ö., Parmaksız, R. Ş., & Arslan, A. (2006). Investigation of hands-on and technology based materials prepared by preservice teachers with respect to the dimensions of creativity. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 45(45), 129-148.

Yelken, T. Y. (2009). The effects of materials development based on “creativity activities within a group” on teacher candidates’ portfolios. Education and Science, 34(153), 83-94.

Yenen, E. T., & Dursun, F. (2018). Examination of teacher candidates’ opinions on ideal education environment. Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University, 6(6) 1041-1049. https://doi.org/18506/anemon.421565

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (9th Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage Publications.

Zedan, R. (2010). New dimensions in the classroom climate. Learning Environments Research, 13, 75-88.