Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

UZMAN BAKIŞIYLA ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ EĞİTİMSEL YAZILIM DEĞERLENDİRME SÜRECİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

AN INVESTIGATION OF TEACHER CANDIDATES’ EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE SELECTION AND VALUATION PROCESS FROM EXPERT PERSPECTIVE

Journal Name:

  • Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this research study, the experts’ opinions about the compatibility detailed criteria that was created by teacher candidates with the related main criteria that was presented to them were investigated. The methodology of study was a case study and the data consisted of experts’ evaluation about the detailed criteria create, observation, and open-ended questionnaire results. The participants, selected through purposive sampling strategy, consisted of 64 teacher candidates from Mathematics Education and Science Education departments at Mersin University and three field experts. According to the study results, the experts found that about 50% (%43 for Mathematics; 44% for Science) of detailed criteria created by the teacher candidates were unrelated to the attributed main criteria.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu araştırmada, uzmanlara göre öğretmen adaylarının oluşturduğu eğitimsel yazılım değerlendirme ölçütlerinin, kendilerine sunulan ana ölçütlere ne kadar uygun olduğu incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın yöntemi nitel araştırma yaklaşımı desenlerinden durum çalışması (case study) desenidir ve veriler, öğretmen adaylarının oluşturdukları alt ölçütlerle ilgili uzman değerlendirmeleri, gözlem notları ve açık uçlu anket sorularının cevaplarından oluşmaktadır. Katılımcıların seçiminde amaçlı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmış olup, katılımcılar, Mersin Üniversitesi Fen Bilgisi ve Matematik Öğretmenliği bölümlerinde öğrenim gören toplam 64 öğretmen adayından ve 3 alan uzmandan oluşmaktadır. Bulgulara göre, uzmanlar öğretmen adaylarının oluşturmuş oldukları alt kategorilerin %44’e yakını (matematik=%43; fen bilgisi=%44) ana ölçütlerine tamamen uyumsuz bulmuşlardır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-uzman-bakisiyla-ogretmen-adaylarinin-egitimsel-yazilim-degerlendirme-sureci-uzerine-bir-arastirma.pdf
  • 3
939-954
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Reiser, R. A. & Kegelmann, H. W. (1994). Evaluating Instructional Software: A Review
and Critique of Current Methods. Educational Technology Research and Development.
42(3), 63-69.
2. Mukherjee, M. (2011). Evaluating educational software : A historical overview and the
challenges ahead. In Lê, Thao & Lê, Quynh (Eds.) Technologies for Enhancing Pedagogy,
Engagement and Empowerment in Education: Creating Learning-Friendly Environments.
IGI Global/Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 264-276.
3. Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond Amplification: Using the Computer to Reorganize Mental Functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
4. Yanpar-Yelken, T. (2011). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Tasarımı (21. Baskı). Ankara:
Anı Yayncılık
5. Hofmeister, A. (1984). Micro Computer Application in the Classroom. New York, NY: CBS
College Publishing.
6. Shade, D. D. (1996). Software Evaluation. Young Children, 51(6), 17-21.
7. Haugland S. W., & Shade, D. D. (1994). Early Childhood Computer Software. Journal of
Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1), 83-92. 8. Henniger, M. L. (1994). Software for the Early Childhood Classroom: What Should It Look
Like? Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(2), 167-175.
9. Hickey, M. G. (1995). More Than Drill and Practice: Selecting Software for Learners Who
Are Gifted. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(4), 48-50.
10. Bubnic, A. (1995). Software Evaluation Policies & Procedures. Children’s Software Revue.
http://www.microweb.com/pepsite/Revue/procedures.html
11. Bakker, H. E. & Piper, J. B. (1994). California Provides Technology Evaluations to Teachers.
Educational Leadership, 51(7), 67-68.
12. Wright, J. L., & Thouvenelle, S. (1991). A Developmental Approach to Teacher Training.
Education & Computing, 7, 223-229.
13. Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High School Mathematics Review Lessons: Expert-
Novice Distinctions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(5), 372-387.
14. Stylianou, D. A., & Silver, E. A. The Role of Visual Representations in Advanced Mathematical
Problem Solving: An Examination of Expert-Novice Similarities and Differences.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 353-387.
15. Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Teaching Instructional Design Expertise: Strategies
to Support Students’ Problem-Finding Skills. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and
Learning, 7, 147–170
16. Sancar-Tokmak, H., Incikabi, L. & Yanpar-Yelken, T. (incelemede). Differences in the
educational software evaluation process for experts and novice students.
17. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2 ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
18. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage Publications.
19. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Teddlie, C. and Yu, F. (2007). Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
21. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2002). Instructional Media
and Technologies For Learning (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Miles,M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(2nd ed.), London & Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
23. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Incikabi, L. & Sancar-Tokmak, H. (yayınlanmamış). A Comparison Study: Understanding
Expertise-Based Training Effects on The Software Evaluation Process of Mathematics
Education Pre-Service Teachers.

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