Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Okul Öncesi ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi

Analysis of Approaches to Learning of Students in Preschool and Primary School Teaching Departments

Journal Name:

  • Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi (EBAD)

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Biggs (1987) defines approaches to learning as a concept measured by inventories that expresses how students lead off the learning process. Other definitions state that approaches to learning involve a number of strategies used to fulfill the task and create motivation for learning (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Kember, Biggs & Leung, 2004). Studies about students’ approaches to learning started at Gothenburg University in Sweden in the 1970s. This pioneer study used the qualitative research method to determine approaches to learning by giving students the task of reading a scientific article and then evaluating their comprehension levels (Marton, 1975; Marton & Saljo, 1976). According to this research, students’ approaches to learning are divided in two according to their comprehension levels. If students have understood the reading at a high level, they have a deep approach to learning. If students have understood at a low level, they have a surface approach to learning. In other research, Ramsden (1979) found a third approach to learning, which he named strategic approach. A deep approach to learning is based on meaning search and making of student while handling learning procedure. Students who prefer the deep approach to learning pursue a goal of comprehension, deal with the structure of learning a task, correlate theoretical ideas with daily experiences, structure content by converting it into a consistent whole, actively participate in the learning process and use their metacognition skills (Biggs, 1987; Ramsden 2000). The deep approach to learning also includes the effort to correlate previous knowledge and experiences with new knowledge and the analysis of accuracy of knowledge. Someone who adopts the deep approach to learning analyses the meaning of the thing he studies more deeply (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). On the other hand, the surface approach to learning is based on exterior motivation or fear of failure. According to students who use the surface approach to learning, the aim of learning is to get a profession, make their family happy or to prevent boredom. Minimum time and effort are spent to meet their basic needs. Repeating and memorizing information without meaning are most common strategies in the surface approach to learning (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1991, 1993). The priority of students who adopt the strategic approach is to get the highest grade; therefore they use both deep and surface approaches to learning and they have competitor and vocational motivation (Ramsden, 1979). The purpose of this study is to determine the students’ preference levels of approaches to learning and whether there is a significant difference in preference levels regarding the department, gender and class rank of students in preschool and classroom teaching environments.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarını tercih etme düzeylerini ve tercih düzeylerinin bölüm, cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyi değişkenleri açısından anlamlı farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemektir. Araştırma tarama modelinde bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın evreni, 2011-2012 eğitim-öğretim yılı, bahar yarıyılında, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi, Okul Öncesi Öğretmenliği ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Programlarında öğrenim gören toplam 854 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemi ise evren içerisinden basit seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 330 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Çalışma Becerileri Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre üç öğrenme yaklaşımı da yüz üzerinden altmış ortalamanın üstünde tercih edilmektedir. Okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları tercihleri arasında anlamlı farklılık yoktur. Cinsiyet değişkenine göre ise sadece yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımında anlamlı farklılık vardır. Yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımını erkek öğrenciler kız öğrencilere göre anlamlı ölçüde daha çok tercih etmişlerdir. Sınıf düzeyi değişkenine göre de sadece yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımında anlamlı farklılık vardır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 5.pdf
  • 2
75-92
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İstanbul: Kültür Yayıncılık.
Andreou, E., Vlachos, F. & Andreou, G. (2006). Approaches to studying among Greek
university students: The impact of gender, age, academic discipline and handedness.
Educational Research, 48 (3), 301-311.
Beşoluk, Ş. & Önder, İ. (2010). Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches,
learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. İlköğretim Online, 9 (2), 679-693.
Betoret, F. D. & Artiga, A. G. (2011). The relationship among basic student need satisfaction,
approaches to learning, 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
for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (Eds.) (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.
OZAN, KÖSE & GÜNDOĞDU
Okul Öncesi ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi
86
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and educational
demands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 5-15.
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.
Booth, P., Luckett, P. & Maldenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting
education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance.
Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8 (4), 277-300.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Veri analizi el kitabı (11. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Byrne, M., Flood, B. & Willis, P. (1999). Approaches to learning: Irish students of accounting.
Irish Accounting Review, 6 (2), 1-29.
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.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through
secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 203-221.
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.
Cope, C. & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students' learning approaches through intervention
in an information systems learning environme nt. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2),
181-197.
Cuthbert, P. F. (2005). The student learning process: Learning styles or learning approaches?
Teaching in Higher Education, 10 (2), 235-249.
Çolak, E. & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme yaklaşımları envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve
geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16 (1), 197-212.
Diseth, A. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian version of the approaches and study skills
inventory for students (ASSIST): An application of structural equation modeling.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45 (4), 381-394.
Duarte, A. M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese
students. Higher Education, 54, 781-794.
Duff, A. (1997). A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of the Entwistle and
Tait’s revised approaches to studying inventory. British Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 67, 529-537.
Duff, A. (1999). Access policy and approaches to learning. Accounting Education: An
International Journal, 8 (2), 99-110.
Ekinci, N. & Ekinci, E. (2007). Hacettepe Üniversitesi İlköğretim Bölümü öğrencilerinin
öğrenme yaklaşımları. I. Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. 15-17
Kasım 2007. Ankara.
Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34 (151),
74-88.
Elias, R. (2005). Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting courses. Journal of
Education for Business, 80 (4), 194-199.
Ellez, A. M. & Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen
Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. ODTÜ Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi. 16-18 Eylül
2002. Ankara.
Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research
87
Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to
studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 15 (1), 33-48.
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. & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning:
Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32 (4), 399-409.
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.
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F. & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship
between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20 (4), 327-341.
Harper, G. & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education students, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 212-222.
Heikkilla, A. & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to
learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (1),
99–117.
Hounsell, D. (1984). Learning and essay-writing. The experience of learning. (Edt: F. Marton, D.
Hounsell & N. Entwistle). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press. pp. 103-123.
Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (20. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kayri, M. (2009). Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu
karşılaştırma (Post-Hoc) teknikleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19 (1), 51-64.
Kember, D., Biggs, J. & Leung, D. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches
to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process
questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-279.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P. & McNaught, C. (2008). A workshop activity to demonstrate that
approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 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.
Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
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.
Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A
phenomonographic study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 10 (2), 1-24.
Magno, C. (2009). Investigating the effect of school ability on self-efficacy, learning
approaches, and metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18 (2), 233-244.
OZAN, KÖSE & GÜNDOĞDU
Okul Öncesi ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi
88
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.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Relational perspectives on higher education teaching and
learning in the sciences. Studies in Science Education, 33, 31-60.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher
Education, 8, 411-427.
Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Reid, W., Duvall, E. & Evans, P. (2005). Can we influence medical students approaches to
learning? Medical Teacher, 27 (5), 401-407.
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.
Rodriguez, F. & Cano, F. (2007). The learning approaches and epistemological beliefs of
university students: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Studies in Higher
Education, 32 (5), 647-667.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). ‘Learning style’: Frameworks and instruments. Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17 (1-2), 51-63.
Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills.
Education and Science, 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.
Sharma, D. (1997). Accounting students' learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and
the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 6 (2), 125-146.
Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a
relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 12, 275-286.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J. & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A re-conceptualisation of the
approaches to studying inventory. Improving students as learners. (Edt: C. Rust).
Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. pp. 262-271.
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.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to
teaching and students’ approaches to learning: A relational perspective. Higher
Education, 37, 57-70.
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.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com