PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

International Journal of Progressive Education 2018, Vol. 14(1) 75-87

Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions on and Adaptation of Student-Centered Approach to Teaching

Aslihan Osmanoglu & Emrah Oguzhan Dincer

pp. 75 - 87   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.129.6   |  Manu. Number: .R1

Published online: February 11, 2018  |   Number of Views: 105  |  Number of Download: 127


Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ perceptions on and adaptation of student-centred approach to teaching. The study was conducted with 58 prospective secondary mathematics teachers during Teaching Methods course in 2014-2015 fall academic year in a western university in Turkey. In this mixed method study, Constructivist Learning Environment Survey was administered to the participants, and reflection papers were collected at the end of the semester in order to understand whether and how prospective teachers adapted student-centred curriculum into their teaching. The selected videos of the class discussions were also analyzed for triangulation. The findings indicated that there was an improvement on prospective teachers’ scores on CLES indicating that the instruction helped them improve their perceptions towards student-centred approach to teaching. It was also found that prospective teachers’ perception towards student-centred approach to teaching was organized under several themes, and they satisfied several expectations of the approach during microteaching.

Keywords: student centred education; adaptation of curriculum; prospective mathematics teachers; videos of teaching


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Osmanoglu, A. & Dincer, E.O. (2018). Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions on and Adaptation of Student-Centered Approach to Teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(1), 75-87. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.129.6

Harvard
Osmanoglu, A. and Dincer, E. (2018). Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions on and Adaptation of Student-Centered Approach to Teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(1), pp. 75-87.

Chicago 16th edition
Osmanoglu, Aslihan and Emrah Oguzhan Dincer (2018). "Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions on and Adaptation of Student-Centered Approach to Teaching". International Journal of Progressive Education 14 (1):75-87. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2018.129.6.

References
  1. Aglagul, D. (2009). Besinci sinif sosyal bilgiler dersinde sinif ogretmenlerinin yapilandirmaci ogrenme ortami duzenleme becerilerinin degerlendirilmesi. Yayinlanmamis yuksek lisans tezi, Cukurova Universitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Adana.  
  2. Arellano, E. L., Barcenal, T. L., Bilbao, P. P., Castellano, M. A., Nichols, S., & Tippins, D. J. (2001). Case-based pedagogy as a context for collaborative inquiry in the Philippines. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 502-528.
  3. Ari, E., & Bayram, H. (2011). The influence of constructivist approach and learning styles on achievement and science process skills in the laboratory. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 311-324. 
  4. Ayaz, M. F., & Sekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on student’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 143-156. 
  5. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., Parmentier, E., & Vanderbruggen, A. (2016). Student-centred learning environments: An investigation into student teachers’ instructional preferences and approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 19(1), 43-62.
  6. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: the unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  7. Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers' beliefs that matter in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 95-120. 
  8. Bogar, Y., Kalender, S., & Sarikaya, M. (2012). The effects of constructive learning method on students’ academic achievement, retention of knowledge, gender and attitudes towards science course in “matter of structure and characteristics” unit. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1766-1770. 
  9. Cochran-Smith, M., & Power, C. (2010). New directions for teacher preparation. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 6-13.
  10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Choosing a mixed methods design. In Designing and conducting mixed methods research (chapter 4), 58-88.
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1.
  12. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153-187.
  13. Eryaman, M. Y., & Riedler, M. (2010). Teacher-Proof Curriculum. In C. Kridel (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies. Sage Publications.
  14. Eryaman, M. Y. & Bruce, B. C. (Eds.) (2015). International Handbook of Progressive Education. New York: Peter Lang.
  15. Fan, J., & Zhang, L. F. (2014). The role of learning environments in thinking styles. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 252-268.
  16. Fer, S., & Cirik, I. (2006). Ogretmenlerde ve ogrencilerde yapilandirmaci ogrenme ortami olceginin gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi nedir? Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://sevalfer.com/files/Yapılandırmacı_Olcegi.pdf 
  17. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). The nature of qualitative research. How to design and evaluate research in education (7th edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
  18. Frykholm, J. A. (1999). The impact of reform: Challenges for mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 79-105. 
  19. Gul, S., & Yesilyurt, S. (2011). The effect of computer assisted instruction based constructivist learning approach on students’ attitudes and achievements. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 94-115. 
  20. Gursoy, E., & Karatepe, C. (2006). Attitudes of student teachers towards a collaborative and student-centered learning in an EFL teacher education setting. Uludag Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 19(1), 135-152.
  21. Harrington, H. L. (1995). Fostering reasoned decisions: Case-based pedagogy and the professional development of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 203-241.
  22. Hill, L. H. (2014). Graduate students’ perspectives on effective teaching. Adult Learning, 25(2), 57-65.
  23. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 11-24. 
  24. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
  25. Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 7-19. 
  26. Liang, L. L., & Gabel, D. L. (2005) Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143-1162.
  27. Mayo, J. A. (2004). Using case-based instruction to bridge the gap between theory and practice in psychology of adjustment. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 137–146.
  28. McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004). You can teach for meaning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 265.
  29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  30.  National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989, 2000). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  31. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  32. Ocak, G. (2012). Ogretmenlerin yapilandirmaci ogrenme ortami kurma basarilarinin ogretmen ve ogretmen adaylarinca degerlendirilmesi. Education and Science, 37(166), 25-40. 
  33. Orrill, C. H., & Anthony, H. G. (2003). Implementing reform curriculum: A case of who’s in charge. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting. April, 2003.
  34. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. 
  35. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 15. Nova Iorque: McGraw Hill.
  36. Plourde, L. A., & Alawiye, O. (2003). Constructivism and elementary preservice science teacher preparation: Knowledge to application. College Student Journal, 37(3), 334-342. 
  37. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: a framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
  38. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
  39. Savasci, F., & Berlin, D. F. (2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 65-86.
  40. Shirvani, H. (2009). Does your elementary mathematics methodology class correspond to constructivist epistemology? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36(3), 245-259. 
  41. Singer, F. M., & Moscovici, H. (2008). Teaching and learning cycles in a constructivist approach to instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1613–1634.
  42. Sural, S., & Saritas, E. (2015). Pedagojik formasyon programina katilan ogrencilerin ogretmenlik meslegine yonelik yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. Mersin Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 11(1), 62-75.
  43. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.
  44. Talim Terbiye Kurulu (TTKB) (2006). MEB müfredat geliştirme süreci. Retrieved September, 23, 2016, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/72
  45. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87-111. 
  46. Toraman, C., & Demir, E. (2016). The effect of constructivism on attitudes towards lessons: A meta–analysis study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 115-142, http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.8
  47. Uredi, L. (2013). The relationship between the classroom teachers’ level of establishing a constructivist learning environment and their attitudes towards the constructivist approach. International Journal of Academic Research Part B, 5(4), 50-55.
  48. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140. 
  49. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher and N. Noddings, (eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 19–29. 
  50. Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education 75(1), 9-21.