International Journal of Progressive Education
Abbreviation: IJPE | ISSN (Print): 1554-5210 | DOI: 10.29329/ijpe

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(3) 102-122

Views of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers and Mentor Teachers about School Practicum: A Model for Web 2.0 based Supervision

Ümit Kul, Selcen Çalık Uzun, Sedef Çelik, Salih Birişçi & Zeki Aksu

pp. 102 - 122   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.7

Published online: June 07, 2021  |   Number of Views: 11  |  Number of Download: 22


Abstract

The current research was conducted to evaluate the views of mentor and pre-service teachers participating school-based practicum about the effectiveness of Web 2.0 based supervision.  The implementation process with a pilot study in the research lasted two years. In the pilot study, the evaluation of school-based practicum was made within the meetings among the lecturer and preservice teacher at the faculty. It was found that there should be an environment independent of time and place to give feedback to preservice teachers during the practicum. In this context, four of the groups of pre-service teachers were randomly selected. A responsible lecturer and mentor teacher were assigned to each group. Google Classroom environment was created to offer pre-service teachers an opportunity to receive feedback from different stakeholders such as a lecturer-mentor-preservice teacher. During the school based practicum, preservice teachers recorded their teaching practice in class and shared their teaching videos in online environment. The data obtained from tools such as video recording of classroom practice, online discussion and interviews were evaluated in the qualitative analysis program. As a result, it was determined that school based practicum in the online environment has its weaknesses and strengths. It was discovered that preservice teachers and teachers have differing views as well as overlapping views. In light of all these views, suggestions regarding school based practicum were made for a model for Web 2.0 based supervision.

Keywords: School Practicum, Web 2.0 Environment, Mathematics Teaching, Feedback, Pre-service Teachers


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Kul, U., Uzun, S.C., Celik, S., Birisci, S. & Aksu, Z. (2021). Views of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers and Mentor Teachers about School Practicum: A Model for Web 2.0 based Supervision . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 102-122. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.7

Harvard
Kul, U., Uzun, S., Celik, S., Birisci, S. and Aksu, Z. (2021). Views of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers and Mentor Teachers about School Practicum: A Model for Web 2.0 based Supervision . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), pp. 102-122.

Chicago 16th edition
Kul, Umit, Selcen Calik Uzun, Sedef Celik, Salih Birisci and Zeki Aksu (2021). "Views of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers and Mentor Teachers about School Practicum: A Model for Web 2.0 based Supervision ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (3):102-122. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.7.

References
  1. Akgün, Ö. E., Gökmen, Ö. F., Özer, E. A., Kaymak, Z. D., Horzum, M. B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2015). Needs analysis results regarding an information system to be developed to monitor and support student teachers internship training. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(2), 54-72. Retrieved from http://www.turkegitimindeksi.com/PDFArticle.aspx  [Google Scholar]
  2. Arkün, S. (2011). The development of a social media based model for faculty - school collaboration: School experiences case [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Hacettepe. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arkün-Kocadere, S., & Aşkar, P. (2013). A review of views about student teaching courses and an application model proposal. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(2), 27-43. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87158  [Google Scholar]
  4. Aslan, M., & Sağlam, M. (2017). Evaluation of teaching practice course according to opinions of student teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(1), 144 - 162. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017030313   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Aydın, F., & Akgün, Ö. E. (2014). Problems of senior teacher students in on-site school training. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty, 0(28), 1-14. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/115885  [Google Scholar]
  6. Ayvacı, H. Ş., Ozbek, D. &  Bülbül, S. (2019). An evaluation of a teaching practice course by different participants. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 19(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.43815-487564  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Baki, M., & Arslan, S. (2015). Examining the effect of lesson study on prospective primary teachers’ knowledge of lesson planning. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 6(2), 209-229. http://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.02379  [Google Scholar]
  8. Al-Bashir, M.M., Kabir, M.R., & Rahman, I. (2016). The value and effectiveness of feedback in improving students’ learning and professionalizing teaching in higher education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 38-41. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105282   [Google Scholar]
  9. Batman, D., & Saka, A. Z. (2019). Determining the effects of micro-reflective teaching practices on the development of reflective thinking tendencies of pre-service physics teachers. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 39(2), 627-654.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 5-24. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/5993/  [Google Scholar]
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective?. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778449  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2006). Do prospective teachers get enough experience in school placements? Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470600981912  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Bulunuz, N.,& Bulunuz, M. (2016). Best teaching practices for preservice teachers’ professional development: clinical supervision model. Uludag University Journal of Education Faculty, 29(2), 401-429. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uefad/issue/26859/282485  [Google Scholar]
  15. Büyüksahin, Y. & Sahin, A.E. (2017). Quality problematic in education from teachers’ view point. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 1131-1152. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.290859  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Calık-Uzun S., Kul Ü., Aksu  Z., Çelik S., Birişçi S.(2019). Views of pre-service mathematics teachers on the process about developing their teaching practice performance. 4. International Turkish Computer & Mathematics Education Symposium, İzmir, Turkey.    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cepni, O., & Aydın, F. (2015). The problems prospective geography teachers encounter in teaching practice lesson and solution suggestions. The Journal of Turkish Social Research, 2(2), 285-304.  Retrieved from   https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200558  [Google Scholar]
  18. Çimer, S. O., Bütüner, S. Ö., & Yiğit, N. (2010). An investigation of the types and qualities of  teacher feedback  Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 23(2), 517-538. [Google Scholar]
  19. Council of Turkish Higher Education [CoHE] (1998). World Bank National Education Development Project for Pre-Service Teacher Education [The Faculty-School Cooperation Booklet]. Ankara: Teacher Education Series. [Google Scholar]
  20. Davis, J. H. (2000). Traditional vs. on-line learning: It’s not an either/or proposition. Employment Relations Today, 27(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.3910270105  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Demir, Ö., & Camlı, Ö. (2011). Schools teaching practice lesson practice problems encountered the investigation of class and opinions of pre-school students: A qualitative study. Uludag University Faculty of Education, 24(1), 117-139. Retrieved from    http://acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423935378.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  22. Demiraslan-Cevik, Y. (2014). Who is more satisfied: assesse or assessor? students’ views on online peer feedback. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 3(1), 10–23. [Google Scholar]
  23. Demirel, Ö. (2012). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri Öğretme Sanatı [The Art of Teaching Principles and Methods]. Ankara: Pegem Press.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Durusoy, O. (2011). Developing the teachers’ self-efficacy through Web 2.0 technologies and digital videos in teacher training [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. University of Balıkesir  [Google Scholar]
  25. Eraslan, A. (2009). Prospective mathematics teachers’ opinions on teaching practice. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 3(1), 207-221.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Fayer, L. (2017). A multi-case study of student perceptions of instructor created videos in online courses. International Journal for Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 67–90.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Gökmen, Ö. F. (2015). The computer education and instructional technologyteacher candidates’ views about teaching practice. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11 (1), 96-115.   https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.49532   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112 https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430298487  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Hurioğlu, L. (2016). The effect of feedback on pre-service teachers’ teachingpractice and lesson plan preparing skills along with selfefficacy levels during the process of teaching experience [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Çukurova . [Google Scholar]
  30. General Directorate of Teacher Training and Development, (2017). Retrieved from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/ [Google Scholar]
  31. Karasu Avcı, E.. ve İbret, B. Ü. (2016). Evaluation of teacher candidates’ views regarding to teaching practice-II. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24 (5), 2519- 2536. Retrieved from      https://kefdergi.kastamonu.edu.tr/index.php/Kefdergi/article/view/1461/456  [Google Scholar]
  32. Kazu, İ. Y., & Yenen, E. T. (2014). A new approach in teacher education: Clinical practice. Elementary Education Online, 13(3). 796-805. Retrieved from      http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/view/2143/1969  [Google Scholar]
  33. Kalender, B. (2020). Sınıf Öğretmenliği Adaylarının Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Sürecine Yönelik Algılarının İncelenmesi: Karma Bir Araştırma. Harran Education Journal 5(1), 88-112. [Google Scholar]
  34. Klemm, W.R. (2000). What’s wrong with online discussions and how to fix it. Proceedings of the WebNet 2000 World Conference on the World Wide Web and Internet, San Antonio, TX [Google Scholar]
  35. Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. (2001). Online teaching and learner control: a research review. Computers & Education, 37, 377-386. [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Reilly T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(Jan), 17-37. Retrieved from     https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1008839  [Google Scholar]
  37. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. McFadzien (2015). Why is effective feedback so critical in teaching and learning? Journal of Initial Teacher Inquiry, 1, 16-18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ozan, S. & Odabası, F. (2016). The opinions of students about the use of social media in the guidance process implemented within school practicum course. Kırşehir University Faculty of Education, (KEFAD), 17(1), 599-613.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Ozmen, H. (2008). Student teachers’ views on school experience I and II courses. Ondokuz Mayıs University, Journal of Faculty of Education 25, 25–37. Retrieved from  https://pegem.net/dosyalar/dokuman/124566-2011081915552-25-25-haluk-ozmen.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  41. Paker, T. (2008). Problems of student teachers regarding the feedback of university supervisors and mentors during teaching practice. XIV. National Educational Sciences Congress, Pamukkale University Faculty of Education, Denizli. [Google Scholar]
  42. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 10(3), 95–102. Retrieved from  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=.Picciano%2C+A.+G.+%282006%29.+Blended+learning%3A+Implications+for+growth+and+access&btnG=  [Google Scholar]
  43. Reece. I., & Walker, S. (2007). Teaching Training and Learning (6th ed.). Business education publishers limited Inc. Great Britain. [Google Scholar]
  44. Shantz, D., & Ward, T. (2000). Feedback, conservation and power in the field Experience of pre-service teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 288- 294.  [Google Scholar]
  45. Simsek, S., Alkan, V., & Erdem, A.R. (2013). A qualitative study about teaching practice. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 34(34), 63-73.   [Google Scholar]
  46. Taşdere, A. (2014). Classroom teacher candidates’ problems regarding teaching practicum class and proposed solutions. Turkish Studies, 9(2), 1477-1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6254  [Google Scholar]
  47. Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Educational Research Review, 9, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.004  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Tunc-Pekkan, Karagöz Akar & Akcan, (2019). University within School Model: Affordances for Teacher Education. Elementary Education Online, 18 (3), 17-32. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2019.612200  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Wang, S., & Wu, P. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51, 1589-1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Unver, Y. (2016). Connection between the theory and practice in pre-service teacherneducation programs in Turkey.  Journal of Higher Education and Science, 6(1), 61-70. DOI: 10.5961/jhes.2016.143   [Google Scholar]
  51. Yeşilyurt, E., & Semerci, C. (2011). The problems and their solutions of practice teachers in teaching practice process. Academic View Journal, 27,1-23. Retrieved from    http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423868092.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  52. Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education.  International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81–94.  [Google Scholar]
  53. Yildirim, A. &  Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods. Seçkin Press: Ankara. [Google Scholar]