Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

SOSYAL BİLGİLER ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN SOSYAL BİLGİLER ÖĞRETİMİNİN AMACINA YÖNELİK GÖRÜŞLERİ

SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE AIM OF TEACHING SOCIAL STUDIES

Journal Name:

  • Turkish Studies

Publication Year:

  • 2015
DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7613

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose and Signifiance Today, Social Studies teachers are far more than mere conduits of information or curriculum developed by the experts. Social studies teachers are the key to what happens in classrooms (Thornton, 2005). To use Thornton’s (2005) term, social studies teachers are the “curricular-instructional gatekeepers.” As gatekeepers, teachers actively shape an instructional program. Teachers can interpret what counts as successful passage through the gate, open the gate wide or narrow, based on what they believe students can or should profit from on the other side, allow innovation through or block it based on their estimation of its educational or practical worth, and so forth (Thornton, 2010:16). In short, it is assumed that teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, thinking, and attitudes serve as the basis for the decisions they make about their practice and student learning (Adler, 2008:340). The aim of this study was to explore Social Studies teachers perception of the aim of teaching Social Studies in the school cirriculum. Although the lack of consensus about the meaning of Social Studies itself (Nelson, 2001; Evans, 2004; Adler, 2008), the definition and meaning of Social Studies has significant implications for the school curriculum, teacher/classroom practice, the teacher education curriculum, and the forms of research valued in the field (Nelson, 2001:15). As described in the published framework for K-12 social studies education the overarching aim is to prepare Turkish citizens who embrace Atatürk’s principles and revolutions, understand Turkish history and culture, espouse democratic values, respect human rights, care about the environment, know about their rights and responsibilities as citizens, and think critically and creatively in order to make informed decisions (TTKB, 2009). The reforms to Social Studies education in Turkey required new approaches to curriculum, instruction and teacher education. The most important innovation in the new Social Studies curriculum is a student-centered approach and an emphasis on active participation and involvement by students in the learning activities (Doğanay, 2005; Öztürk, 2006; Saftan, 2008; Açıkalın, 2010). It is cleared that traditional education has been changed and the student-centered approach is made in planning. Although, the meaing and aim of the teaching social studies changes some studies showed that Social Studies make nothing of the new meaning and aim of teaching Social Studies ( Doğanay & Sarı, Dinç & Doğan; 2010). In short, it is clear relevant literature that, there is need to examine social studies teachers’ perceptions of the aim of teaching social studies. Methods Survey model has been employed in this study to investigate, social studies teachers’ perceptions. 63 social studies teachers’ participated the study. Questionnaire containing open ended questions was used to data collection tool. Prior to application, the questionnaire was examined by experts, and administered to social studies teachers for a pilot study. Following the expertise and pilot study, questionnaire took its final form to be applied. Descriptive analysis techniques—one of qualitative analysis techniques—was utilized for the analysis of the data collected through open ended questions (Yıldrım, Şimşek; 2005). The answers were coded two times by one of the researchers to understand the reliability of the findings. The reliability of this research was found as 92%. Findings In the light of analyses 7 categories were defined. Namely; teaching Social Studies for transforming citizenship, for social studies, for reflecting inquary, for social efficience, for adapte to life, for social development and for global education. The research results showed that, the most importand aim for social studies teachers was transforing citizenship (% 23,8) than, for adop to life (20.6%), for social efficience (% 17,5), for social development (% 17,5), for social efficience (% 4,8), for reflecting inquary (% 4,8), for global education (% 4,8). Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions Although, the categories about the purpose of teaching Social Studies varied, 7 major categories emerged from the data Namely; teaching social studies for transforming citizenship, for social studies, for reflecting inquary, for social efficience, for adapte to life, for social development and for global education. The research results showed that, the most importand aim of teaching Social Studies for Social Studies teachers was transforing citizenship. Almost all the participants, pointed to the main purpose of teaching Social Studies as being good citizens. This participants cited being good citizens who knows Turkish history and geography, embrace Atatürk’s principles and revolutions, , know about their rights and responsibilities as citizens, understand Turkish culture and volunteer to inform nex generation about Turkish history and culture. The second major category for the purpose of social studies was the adapting fo to real life (outside the school) category. These participants pointed to the sole purpose of teaching social studies as being to improve students for life outside the schools. This participants mention teaching values and communication skills were the most important role of Social Studies teacher. The third category was teaching for social efficience. For this participants the major aim of teaching social studies was to improve society via education. Teaching social studies for reflecting inquary was one of the lest mentioned category for social studies teachers. Despite the fact that traditional education has been changed, some Social Studies teachers make nothing of the new meaning and aim of teaching Social Studies. Global education also other lest mentioned category. One of thi improtand finding of this study that, Social Studies teachers’ working experiences, gender, schools and departments they graduated and were determined as effective factors in perseptions of the aim of teaching social studies. Therefore the findings in this study suggest that Social Studies teachers perceptions about teaching Social Studies need to examine deeply.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu araştırmanın amacı, Sosyal Bilgiler öğretmenlerinin Sosyal Bilgiler öğretiminin amacına ilişkin görüşlerininin neler olduğunu belirlemektir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını İzmir İlinde görev yapmakta olan 63 Sosyal Bilgiler öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. Katılımcılara “Çevrenizdeki kişiler (anneniz, babanız, arkadaşlarınız, öğretmen arkadaşlarınız, öğrencileriniz ya da velileriniz…) okullarda neden sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretiliyor? Bu dersin öğretim amacı nedir? Diye sorarlar ise onlara ne gibi cevaplar verirsiniz? Sorusunun yazılı olarak sunulduğu ve kendilerinin cevaplarını yazılı olarak iletebilecekleri bir anket uygulanmıştır. Anketten elde edilen veriler doküman olarak değerlendirilmiş ve doküman analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Ayrıca içerik ve betimsel analiz yöntemlerinden yararlanılarak alan yazınına göre kategorileştiriler çerçevesinde kod ve temalar yoluyla veriler analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler ışığında Sosyal Bilgiler öğretmenlerinin, Sosyal bilgiler öğretminin amaçını 7 yaklaşım çerçevesinde değerlendirdikleri anlaşılmıştır. Bu yaklaşımlar; vatandaşlık aktarımı, sosyal bilimler, yansıtıcı inceleme, toplumsal yeterlilikler, yaşama uyarlayıcı, bireysel gelişim ve küresel eğitim olarak sosyal bilgilerdir. Öğretmenler arasında en çok benimsenen yaklaşımın vatandaşlık aktarımı olarak sosyal bilgiler öğretimi yaklaşımı olduğu tesbit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda Sosyal Bilgiler öğretmenlerinin, Sosyal Bilgiler öğretiminin amacına ilişkin benimsemiş oldukları yaklaşımların mesleki kıdem, cinsiyet, mezun olunan fakülte ve bölüm değişkenlerine göre farklılıklar olduğu tespit edilmiş bu sonuçlar ışığında bundan sonra bu alanda yapılacak araştırmalar ve sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerine yönelik hazırlanacak hizmet içi eğitimlere yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-sosyal-bilgiler-ogretmenlerinin-sosyal-bilgiler-ogretiminin-amacina-yonelik-gorusleri.pdf
  • 3
303
330
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

AÇIKALIN, Mehmet. (2011). Turkish Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about the Nature of Social Studies, Social Studies Research and Practice 6 (3) Winter, 18-35.
ALTINKULAÇ, Ali., USLU, Salih. (2014). “ Sosyal Bilgiler Dersinden Beklentilerin Karşılaştırılması / The Comparıson Of Expectatıons From Socıal Studıes Course, TURKISH STUDIES -International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic-, ISSN:1308-2140, (Prof. Dr. Ahmet Topaloğlu Armağanı -Tarih),
Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretiminin Amacına Yönelik Görüşleri 327
Turkish Studies
International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 10/3 Winter 2015
Volume 9/7 Summer 2014, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7202, p. 165-175.
BANKS, Jacson. (1995). Transformative challenges to the social science disciplines: Implications for social studies teaching and learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 23(1), 2-20.
BARR, Robert. D., BARTH, James. L., & SHERMIS, Samuel. S. (1977). Defining the social studies. Arlington,
BRUBAKER, D. L., SIMON, L. H., & WILLIAMS, J. W. (1977). A conceptual framework for social studies curriculum and instruction. Social Education, 41(3), 201-205.
BRUNER, Jerome. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
BRUNER, Jerome.(1977). The Relevance of Education. New York: W.W.Norton, Inc.
CARR, Eric. R. (1950). Education for life adjustment through the social studies. In H. R. Douglass (Ed.), Education for life adjustment: Its meaning and implementation (pp. 110-133). New York: The Ronald Press Company.
CONRAD, D. (1991). School-community participation for social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning: A project of the National Council for the Social Studies (pp. 540-548). New York: Macmillan.
CROWE, Alicia. R. (2006). Technology, citizenship, and the social studies classroom: Education for democracy in a technological age. International Journal of Social Education, 2(1), 111-121.
ÇULHA ÖZBAŞ, Banu, (2012). “As a social studies teacher who am I?” analyzing in service social studies teachers’ perception of social studies teacher via metaphors / “Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmeni Olarak, Ben Kimim?” Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Mesleki Kimliklerine İlişkin Görüşlerinin Metafor Analizi Yoluyla İncelenmesi. TURKISH STUDIES -International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic-, ISSN:1308-2140 (Prof. Dr. Coşkun Ak Armağanı) Volume 7/ 2 Spring 2012 www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Numner: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3151, p. 821-838.
ÇULHA ÖZBAŞ, Banu., DOĞAN, Yasin. (2014). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Sosyal Bilgiler Öğrenmeye ve Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmeni Olmaya İlişkin Yaşam Deneyimleri. Tarih Okulu Dergisi, 7 (18) 543-565.
DEWEY, John. (1910). How we think. London, UK: D. C. Heath & Company.
DEWEY, John. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
DEWEY, John. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. (Original work published 1938).
DIEM, R. A. (1997). Information technology and civic education. In P. H. Martorella (Ed.), Interactive technologies and the social studies: Emerging issues and applications (91-110). New York: State University of New York Press.
DİNÇ, Erkan., DOĞAN, Yasin.(2010). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programı ve Uygulanması Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşleri , Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 1(1).
328 Banu ÇULHA ÖZBAŞ – Kadir Can ERBUDAK
Turkish Studies
International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 10/3 Winter 2015
DOĞANAY Ahmet. (2003), Hayat Bilgisi ve Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi, (Ed) Cemil ÖZTÜRK-Dursun DİLEK, Pegem A Yayıncılık: Ankara
DOĞANAY, Ahmet. ,SARI, Media. (2008). Öğretmen Gözüyle Yeni Sosyal Bilgiler Programı: Adana İlinde Bir Araştırma. İlköğretim Online, 7 (2), 468-484.
DOUGLASS, Harl. R. (1952). Secondary education for life adjustment of American youth. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
ENGLE, Shirley. H. (1960). Decision making: The heart of social studies instruction. Social Education, 24(7), 301-306.
EVANS, Ronald. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach all children. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
GOODMAN, J., ADLER, S.(1988). Becoming an Elementary Social Studies Teacher: A Study in Perceptives. Theory and Research in Social Education, Summer
GOOLER, D. D. (1995). Perspectives: Technology as content in social studies curricula for young learners. Social Studies & the Young Learners, 7(3), 27-30.
HASS, J. D. (1979). Social studies: Where have we been? Where are we going? The Social Studies, 70(4), 147-154.
HERTZBERG, Hazel Whitman. (1971). Historical parallels for the sixties and seventies: Primary sources and core curriculum revisited. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium Inc.
HERTZBERG, Hazel Whitman. W. (1981). Social studies reform: 1880-1980. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium Inc.
HULL, J. Douglas. (1950). Development of the current life adjustment movement. In H. R. Douglass (Ed.), Education for life adjustment: Its meaning and implementation (pp. 3-21). New York: The Ronald Press Company.
JANZEN, Rod. (1995). The social studies conceptual dilemma: Six contemporary approaches. The Social Studies, 86(3), 134-140.
KAN, Çiğdem. (2014).Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Görüşlerine Göre Demokratik Öğretmenin Tanımı Ve Öğretmenlerin Demokratik Açıdan Kendilerini Değerlendirmeleri / Defınıtıon of A Democratıc Teacher Accordıng To The Opınıons of Socıal Studıes Teachers And The Self-Evaluatıon of Those Teachers In Relatıon To The Democratıc Aspects of Teachıng TURKISH STUDIES -International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic-, ISSN: 1308-2140, (İsmail Yıldırım Armağanı), Volume 9/6 Spring 2014, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number:http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/Turkish Studies.6679, p. 1141-1153.
KARASAR, Niyazi. (2007). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Nobel Yayınları: Ankara.
MARTORELLA, Peter. H. (2001). Teaching social studies in middle and secondary schools (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.
MILLS, H. H. (1950). Extra-class activities in a life adjustment program. In H. R. Douglass (Ed.), Education for life adjustment: Its meaning and implementation (pp. 332-355). New York: The Ronald Press Company.
National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. (1989). Charting a course: Social studies for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretiminin Amacına Yönelik Görüşleri 329
Turkish Studies
International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 10/3 Winter 2015
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2006). Technology position statement and guidelines. Social Education, 70(5), 329-332.
NEWMANN, F. M. (1977). Building a rationale for civic education. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Building rationales for citizenship education (pp. 1-33). Arlington, VA: National Council for the Social Studies.
OLIVER, Donald W. (1969). Categories of social studies instruction. In R. E. Gross, W. E. McPhie, & J. R. Fraenkel (Eds.), Teaching the social studies, what, why, and how (pp. 124-133). Scranton, PA: International Texbook Company.
ROMINE, Terry, S. (1950). Areas and objectives of life adjustment education. In H. R. Douglass (Ed.), Education for life adjustment: Its meaning and implementation (pp. 45-67). New York: The Ronald Press Company.
ROSS, E. Wayne. (1997). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (pp. 3-21). New York: State University of New York Press.
SAXE, David W. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years. New York: State University of New York Press.
SOBOL, T. (1993). Revising the New York State social studies curriculum. Teachers College Record, 95(2), 258-272.
SOBOL, Thomaz. (1990). Understanding diversity. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 27-30.
SÖNMEZ Veysel, (1993). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretimi ve Öğretmen Kılavuzu, M.E.B. Yayınları: İstanbul
STANLY, William. B., & NELSON, Jack. L. (1986). Social education for social transformation. Social Education, 50(7), 528-534.
TABACHNICK, B. R. (1991). Social studies: Elementary-school programs. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 725-731). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
TAY, Bayram. (2011). Sosyal Bilgilerin Temelleri (Ed) Refik Turan, Kadir Ulusoy, 2. Baskı PegemAkademi Ankara. 2-16
VANFOSSEN, Philips J. (2003). Reading and math take so much of the time: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Paper presented at the College and University Faculty Assembly of the National Council for the Social Studies, Chicago, IL, November 12.
WEHLAGE, Gary., & ANDERSON, Eugene M. (1972). Social studies curriculum in perspective: A conceptual analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
YALI Zhao & JOHN D. Hoge (2005): What Elementary Students and Teachers Say about Social Studies, The Social Studies, 96:5, 216-221
YILDIRIM, Ahmet. & ŞIMŞEK, Hasan. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.

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