PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(3) 142-155

Determination of Science and Primary Teachers' Teaching and Learning Conceptions and Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions

Tuğba Ecevit & Pınar Özdemir

pp. 142 - 155   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.11   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1909-27-0003.R1

Published online: June 05, 2020  |   Number of Views: 68  |  Number of Download: 142


Abstract

The significance of both science education and scientific communication has increased in parallel to increase in scientific knowledge and rapid advances in technology. In producing students who have science literacy, skills of scientific process and higher-level thinking skills teaching-learning approach of teachers and communication between teachers and students are very significant. The purpose of this study is to determine the science teachers’ and primary teachers’ learning and teaching conceptions and constructivist learning environment perceptions. The sample of the study consists of 100 participants from science teachers and primary teachers working at the public schools in the Central Anatolia region. "Easily accessible sampling method" was used for the selection of the participants.  The study is quantitative research and comparative screening model which is directed to the determination of the current state has been used. Teaching-Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) and Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) have been used as the means of data collecting.   The findings of the study suggest that the classroom teachers had a constructivist approach in contrast to a conventional approach in regard to learning and teaching (X= 4,45 and X=3,37, respectively). Similarly, it was found that the science teachers had a constructivist approach in contrast to a conventional approach in regard to learning and teaching (X= 4,49 and X=3,49, respectively). It was found that the participants generally had a constructivist approach and that their perception about constructivist learning setting is higher than the medium level. It was also found that the science teachers had higher perceived levels of about constructivist learning setting than the classroom teachers. The results of the MANOVA indicated that the professional experience of the participants had a significant effect on the perception levels about the constructivist learning-teaching approach. That’s why the research for the reflections in application gains importance in this study.

Keywords: Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions, Primary Teachers, Science Lesson, Science Teachers, Teaching And Learning Conceptions


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ecevit, T. & Ozdemir, P. (2020). Determination of Science and Primary Teachers' Teaching and Learning Conceptions and Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 142-155. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.11

Harvard
Ecevit, T. and Ozdemir, P. (2020). Determination of Science and Primary Teachers' Teaching and Learning Conceptions and Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), pp. 142-155.

Chicago 16th edition
Ecevit, Tugba and Pinar Ozdemir (2020). "Determination of Science and Primary Teachers' Teaching and Learning Conceptions and Constructivist Learning Environment Perceptions ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (3):142-155. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.11.

References
  1. Acat, B., Anılan, H., and Anagün, Ş. (2007). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarının düzenlenmesinde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri [The problems encountered in the regulation of constructivist learning environment and solutions]. VI.Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi,   [Google Scholar]
  2. Acat, M. B., Anılan, H., and Anagun, S. S. (2010). The problems encountered in designing constructivist learning environments in science education and practical suggestions. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 212-220. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anagün, S. S., Yalçinoğlu, P., and Ersoy, A. (2012). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretme-öğrenme sürecine ilişkin inançlarının yapılandırmacılık açısından incelenmesi [An investigation of primary school teachers’ beliefs on teaching-learning processes in science and technology course in terms of constructivism]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science/Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(1), 1-16.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Aydın, S., Boz, Y., Sungur, S., and Çetin, G. (2012). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamı oluşturmaya yönelik tercihlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of chemistry teachers candidates’ preference for building a constructivist learning enviroment], Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(1), 36-47. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aydın, Ö., Tunca, N. ve Şahin, S. (2015). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(3), 1331-1346. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aypay, A. (2011). The adaptation of the teaching-learning conceptions questionnaire and its relationships with epistemological beliefs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 21-29. [Google Scholar]
  7. Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem teknik ve ilkeler [Research methods in social science techniques and principles]. Ankara: APegem, Yayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baş, G. (2014). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin öğrenme-öğretme anlayışlarının bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of elementary teachers’ teaching-learning conceptions from some variables]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 18-30. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baş, G., and Beyhan, Ö. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme-öğretme anlayışları ile öğrenci kontrol ideolojileri arasındaki ilişki [Correlation between pre-service teachers’ teaching-learning conceptions and their student control ideologies]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel sayı(1), 14-26. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bıkmaz, F. (2017). Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğretme-Öğrenme Anlayışları ve Bilimsel Epistemolojik İnançlarının Araştırılması: Boylamsal Bir Çalışma [Investigating the teaching and learning conceptions and scientific epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers’: a longitudinal study]. Education and Science, 42(189), 183-196. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bıkmaz, F. H. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının öğretme-öğrenme anlayışları ve bilimsel epistemolojik inançları [Teachers candidates’ teaching-learning approach and epistemological beliefs.]. 5-8 Ekim I.uluslararası eğitim programları ve öğretim kongresi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Eskişehir. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks J. G., and Books, M. G. (1999). The Courage to be Constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3) 18-24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chan, K. W. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chan, K. W. (2004). Pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions about teaching and learning: Cultural implication for research in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chan, K. W., and Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817-831.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Cheng, M. M. H., Chan, K-W., Tang, S. Y. F., and Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students' epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319-327. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çınar, O., Teyfur, E., and Teyfur, M. (2006). İlköğretim okulu öğretmen ve yöneticilerinin yapılandırmacı eğitim yaklaşımı ve programı hakkındaki görüşleri [Primary school teachers and administators’ views about constructivist education approach and programs]. İnonu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 7(11), 47-64. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunlop, J. C., and Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for the active learning in higher education. Wilson, G. B. (Ed.), Constructing learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ecevit, T., and Çakmakcı, G. (2017). Kimya eğitiminde etkili söylem tekniklerinin kullanımı ve sınıf için söylem niteliğinin geliştirilmesi [The use of effective discourse techniques in chemistry education and the development of discourse quality for the classroom.]. M. Sözbilir, & A. Ayas (Ed.) KİMYA ÖĞRETİMİ: Öğretmen Eğitimcileri, Öğretmenler ve Öğretmen Adayları İçin İyi Uygulama Örnekleri [CHEMISTRY TEACHING: Good Practice Examples for Teacher Educators, Teachers and Teachers Candidates] (771-796). Ankara: Pegem Publishing (2nd Edition) Doi: 10.145279786053180746. [Google Scholar]
  20. Engin, G., and Daşdemir, İ. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Evaluation of primary school teachers’ teaching-learning conceptions with regards to different variables]. International Journal of Social Science, 33, 425-432. [Google Scholar]
  21. Eren, A. (2009). Examining the teacher efficacy and achievement goals as predictors of Turkish student teachers’ conceptions about teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 69-87. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ersoy, A. (2005). İlköğretim bilgisayar dersindeki sınıf yerleşim düzeni ve öğretmen rolünün yapılandırmacı öğrenmeye göre değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of classroom setting and teachers’ role in computer course in elementary education in terms of constructivist learning principles]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 170-181. [Google Scholar]
  23. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). From reflective practice to practical wisdom: Toward a post-foundational teacher education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 3(1), 87-107. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fisher, D. L., and Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of the my class inventory. Science Education, 65(2), 145-156. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fraenkel, J. R., and Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3(4), 383-396. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karadağ, E., Deniz, S., Korkmaz, T., and Deniz, G. (2008).Yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımı: Sınıf öğretmenleri görüşleri kapsamında bir araştırma [Constructivist learning approach: a research on the scope of views of class teachers]. Uludağ Universitesi Eğitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 21(2), 383-402. [Google Scholar]
  28. Karamustafaoğlu, O., Bayar, A., and Kaya, M. (2014). An investigation of science teachers' teaching methods and techniques: Amasya case. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science/ Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 7(4), 436-462. [Google Scholar]
  29. Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method] (15. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lederman, N.G (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present and Future. In S.K Abell, and N.G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of Research on Science Education. (pp.831-879). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar)  öğretim programı. [Science course curriculum]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ministry of National Education [MNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. (ilkokul ve Ortaokullar 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8) [Science course curriculum]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.  [Google Scholar]
  33. Ocak, G., Ocak, İ., and Kalender, D. (2017). Öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlik algıları ile öğretme-öğrenme anlayışları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Correlation Between Teachers’ Self-Efficacy And Their Teaching-Learning Conceptions]. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(5), 1851-1864. [Google Scholar]
  34. Oğuz, A. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının demokratik değerleri ile öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışları [Pre-service teachers' democratic values and their understanding of teaching and learning]. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(22), 139-160. [Google Scholar]
  35. Özdemir, M., and Kaptan, F. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerileri ve fen öğretimine yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi [An investigation of pre-service primary teachers’ science process skills and attitude toward science education]. Kara Elmas Journal of Educational Science, 1, 62-75. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright. [Google Scholar]
  37. Papanastasiou, C. (2002). School, teaching and family influence on student attitudes toward science: based on TIMSS data for Cyprus, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 71-86. [Google Scholar]
  38. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W and Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory conceptual change, Science Education, 66. 211-227. [Google Scholar]
  39. Riedler, M. & Eryaman M.Y.  (2016). Complexity, Diversity and Ambiguity in Teaching and Teacher Education: Practical Wisdom, Pedagogical Fitness and Tact of Teaching. International Journal of Progressive Education. 12(3): 172-186 [Google Scholar]
  40. Şahin, S., and Yılmaz, H. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of the teaching and learning conceptions questionnaire (TLCQ). Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 194-200. [Google Scholar]
  41. Şaşan, H. H. (2002). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme [Constructivist learning]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 74-75, 49-52. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  43. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., and Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. [Google Scholar]
  44. Selvi, K. (2006). Evaluation of primary education curricula based on the opinions of classroom teachers, Muğla: XV. The Congress of National Educational Sciences, Muğla University, September 13-15, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Simpson, R. D., and Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major influences on atttitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent student. Science Education. 74, 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  47. Taylor, P. C., and Fraser, B. J. (1991, April). CLES: An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. In annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI. [Google Scholar]
  48. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B. J., and Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Education Research, 27, 293-302. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yaşar, Ş., Gültekin, M., Türkkan, B., Yıldız, N., and Girmen, P. (2005). Yeni ilköğretim programlarının uygulanmasına ilişkin sınıf öğretmenlerinin hazırbulunuşluk düzeylerinin ve eğitim gereksinimlerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of readiness levels and educational requirements of primary teachers regarding the implementation of new primary education programs]. Yeni İlköğretim programlarını değerlendirme sempozyumu, 51-63. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yıldırım, A., and Şimşek, H. (2004). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları [Google Scholar]
  51. Yücel, C., Karaman, M. K., Batur, Z., Başer, A. and Karataş, A. (2006). Teacher opinions about the new primary education programme and evaluation of the programme, Proceedings of National Educational Sciences Congress, Vol:15 [Google Scholar]