ABSTRACT
The current education system aimed to train active deliberative individuals who learn to learn with the adoption of the constructivist educational approach. Based on this objective, there have been significant changes in the roles of teachers. To assist the development of teachers, the Ministry of Education organizes several in-service training activities every year. The present study aimed to assess an in-service training activity organized by the Ministry for mathematics teachers based on the teacher views. The study was a case study, which is a qualitative research model. The study group consists of 12 junior high school mathematics teachers who were selected by sampling method from approximately sixty junior high school mathematics teachers who participated in the activity. A semi-structured interview form was used to collect data in the study. The present study scrutinized the expectations, experiences during the process and recommendations of the teachers about the in-service training activity they participated in, and obtained qualitative data obtained were analyzed with the descriptive analysis method. Study findings demonstrated that participating teachers mostly participated in the activity to "learn different teaching methods and techniques". Since the training activity was a "special instructional methods and techniques-mathematics" seminar, the aforementioned expectation was a priority for the teachers. Almost all participants stated that the most positive aspect of the training they attended was "to exchange information with their colleagues.” Furthermore, certain teachers participating in the seminar stated that they refreshed their knowledge in the process, while others mentioned that they learned new information.
Key words: Mathematics teachers, in-service training, instructional methods and techniques, constructivism.
The advances and innovations in the fields of information and technology during recent years introduced significant changes in the field of education (Acar and Anıl, 2009; Birgin and Gürbüz, 2008; Günbayı and TaÅŸdenek, 2012; SaÄŸlam-Arslan et al., 2008). As a result of these changes, new approaches could help train active, inquisitive and productive individuals with problem-solving and critical thinking skills (Acar and Anil, 2009; DiMartino et al., 2007; SaÄŸlam-Arslan et al., 2008). The most effective and fundamental method of keeping up with these advances is undoubtedly "education". Countries, institutions and individuals need to prioritize education to follow these developments and maintain their knowledge base on innovations (Gül, 2000). This approach, which is based on collaborative methods and focus on constructivism (Graue, 1993) was also adopted in Turkish education system as well. However, for the constructivist approach to be successful, it was necessary to change the roles of the teachers, since changing only the curricula was not sufficient (Ayan, 1999).
Because, it is the teacher that would transfer all these rapid developments to their students. The teacher is at the center of the education and instruction services. It is recognized that the quality of education in schools is associated with the teachers’ professional development levels in their respective fields and teaching methods (Klinzing et al., 2002; Lewin, Guskey, 2003; 1990; Spector, 1987). However, it is a very difficult process for teachers to follow developments in different fields and to continue their personal development based on these developments, and transfer the related knowledge to their students (Önen et al., 2008). It is known that the individual efforts of teachers who want to improve themselves are not always sufficient for their professional development (Richert, 1991). In other words, how should the teachers, who aim to educate active, inquisitive, problem-solving, critical thinking and productive individuals, develop and adapt themselves to these advances?
It is clear that the constructivist teaching approach is responsible for the increase in the responsibility and duty of the teachers. Thus, the constructivist teaching approach requires the teachers to command their field and increase the productivity of the learning-teaching process by applying different approaches and methods-techniques in their classes. Therefore, in-service training programs for teachers play a very important role in teachers' personal and professional development (Önen et al., 2008). In-service training is the self-training or education that a professional participates during his or her professional life (Aytaç, 2007). In-service training for teachers could be defined as all related processes that enable the teachers to acquire the skills, attitudes and habits required to train the students to achieve the qualities that are the goals of education, and the professional knowledge, skills, attitudes and habits that they lack as evidenced with scientific and socio-economic facts (Budak, 1998).
In-service training, which is a part of lifelong education, aims to provide employees with the knowledge, skills and attitudes that would enable them to become more successful, productive and happy individuals in their professional lives (Yalın, 2001). Furthermore, to increase the quality of the education system and instruction, not only the teacher but all the school personnel should attend in-service training for the same purpose (Fullan, 1991). According to Garmston (1998), the qualities of having a professional teacher identity are to possess a strong field knowledge, to have extensive knowledge on teaching methods, to have knowledge on child development and learning theories, to be sensitive about the learning styles of the students in the classroom, to have an understanding about own advantages and disadvantages about the norms and value judgments. Thus, the three fundamental elements of in-service training are:
(1) Training the teacher to acquire professional skills.
(2) Providing knowledge to enable the acquisition of these skills.
(3) Influencing the teacher behavior in the positive direction (Önen et al., 2008).
The benefits of in-service training activities for teachers are promoting professional development by increasing the scientific, educational and individual competence of teachers, promoting teachers' professional satisfaction, improving the performance of teachers, instructional material and the teaching atmosphere and conditions (Haris, 1989, as cited in Silvester, 1997). Various previous studies frequently demonstrated that teachers should attend in-service training for better adaptation to the system (Akpınar and Ergin, 2005; Birgin, 2010; Birgin et al., 2008; DemirtaÅŸ, 2008; Kaplan, 2006; Nartgün, 2006; Özen, 2006). The Ministry of National Education also attempts to serve this purpose through several in-service training activities on a local and national basis that it organizes every year. However, the teachers’ activities to transfer the things they learned in-service training and whether they remember the training content is more important than the topics instructed in the training (Mutshekwane, 1999).
Based on the results of various studies, teachers stated that they still did not receive sufficient in-service training (Bal, 2008; Birgin, 2010; Birgin et al., 2008; DemirtaÅŸ, 2008; Kaplan, 2006; Nartgün, 2006; Gökyer, 2011; Özen, 2006), and they were not competent in practicing teaching methods and techniques in particular and wanted to receive education in this field (Birgin and Baki, 2009; Çiftçi, 2010; DoÄŸan et al., 2007; Erdal, 2007; Gelbal and KelecioÄŸlu, 2007; Gök and Åžahin, 2009; Güler et al., 2015; Günbayı and TaÅŸdöÄŸen, 2012; Kramer et al., 2015). Those who organize in-service training programs should prioritize the educational needs of the participants (Wooden and Babtiste, 1990). However, the findings of the present studies did not reveal evaluations on in-service training activities for mathematics teachers.
Mathematics was always considered as a fundamental course for the comprehension of the life and the world, and production of knowledge.
The instruction of the mathematics course is as significant as the course itself. Because, one’s approach to mathematics is associated with how mathematics was learned by this individual (Hare, 1999). Therefore, mathematics teachers are significant in learning mathematics. Thus, it could be argued that it is very important for teachers to organize their classes to guide the students towards knowledge instead of directly conveying the knowledge, and the use of different methods-techniques and approaches during this process. However, previous studies demonstrated that teachers did not have adequate knowledge on different methods, and techniques that would allow their students to participate actively in the classroom (Gönen and Kocakaya, 2006). The present study aimed to obtain the expectations, views and recommendations of mathematics teachers who participated in the national scale "in-service training activities" organized by the Ministry of National Education for Mathematics teachers.
The researchers tried to collect detailed data about “teaching methods and technics (mathematics) for the purpose. The research is a qualitative case study. A case study deals with analyzing one or more cases in their context (environment, time, etc.) in details (Yıldırım ve ÅžimÅŸek, 2011). In this research, the training activity in question was analyzed in its own environment and time in details. In the present study, the case was the in-service training activity attended by approximately sixty junior high school mathematics teachers. As sampling method, extreme or deviant case sampling was chosen. This method is preferred for researches containing efficiency of a single program, for example, of an in-service training program. To assess the efficiency of the in-service training program, the researcher composes the sampling of the participants having achieved high success in the training program, and the ones discarded due to their failure. Thus, the researcher obtains rich and detailed data about the efficiency of the program (Yıldırım ve ÅžimÅŸek, 2011). In this research, all the teachers in the target population of the study who volunteered to share their views and criticisms about the program were included into sampling. The teachers who criticized the program are employed in various provinces. In this way, the sampling also has maximum variation
sampling method characteristics.
Participants
The study group included 12 junior high school mathematics teachers selected by extreme or deviant case sampling from the population of teachers that participated in the aforementioned training activity. The views of each teacher's opinions were analyzed in-depth to determine the similar views among the teachers, and to reveal different dimensions of the problem. To keep the identities of the teachers confidential, the teachers were coded as "T1", "T2", "T3", "T4", etc. based on the interview order (Table 1). Among the teachers that participated in the study (N = 12), 4 were female (N = 4), eight were male (N = 8) and three were with graduate (N = 3), and the others were with undergraduate (N = 9) education. The professional seniority of the teachers varied between 5 and 17 years. The majority of teachers (N = 9) did not participate in an in-service training activity previously. All teachers were employed in different provinces. Teachers mostly (N = 4) chose to participate in this training via the in-service training application module found at Ministry Information Systems web site. A number of other teachers (N = 3) participated in this training due to the recommendation of their colleagues (N = 3), and three teachers due to the information provided by the related school administrations, one teacher learned about the training via an official letter and one teacher participated in the study due to a telephone call from the Provincial National Education Directorate.
Data collection instrument
A semi-structured interview form was used in the interviews conducted in the study. Furthermore, the course textbooks utilized in the in-service training process were used to increase the richness and credibility of the data within the scope of the document review. In the semi-structured interview form, three main questions were posed:
(1) What are the expectations of mathematics teachers that participated in the in-service training?
(2) What were the views of mathematics teachers on the training process?
(3) What were the recommendations of mathematics teachers about the training process?
Data collection
All teachers that attended the seminar were informed by e-mail. and interview forms were sent to 12 teachers that volunteered to participate in the study. Written answers were received from the teachers and communication channels with the teachers were kept open to achieve more detailed and clear answers via telephone when necessary.
Data analysis
Qualitative data collected in the study were analyzed with descriptive analysis. "According to this approach, the data obtained are summarized and interpreted based on predetermined themes" (Yıldırım and ÅžimÅŸek, 2008). After the study, data were coded separately by two researchers, a common code and theme list was formed by comparing the resulting code and theme lists. Then, all data were re-coded by both researchers based on the determined list. Statements that were considered to be used in direct quotations were identified and included in the findings section. Analyzes were also reviewed by a third colleague with experience and knowledge on the topic of investigation for consistency of the determined themes. Furthermore, the participants’ approval about the obtained findings was obtained to improve the internal validity of the study. To keep the identities of the participants confidential, the teachers were coded as "T1" - "T12", based on the interview order.
Expectations of junior high school mathematics teachers that participated in the in-service training
Expectations of junior high school mathematics teachers that participated in the in-service training from the training are presented in Table 2. According to the views of the participants, the teachers mostly preferred to participate in this particular training to "learn different methods and techniques". Since the training activity was a "special instructional methods and techniques-mathematics" seminar, the aforementioned expectation was a priority for the teachers. This was followed by the desire “to see new places.” Teachers stated that they preferred this particular training due to its location, and it was organized during the summer break. Participants considered "sharing knowledge and experience of the academics who are experts in their field" significant. The fact that course administrators were academicians and the participants’ desire to learn new information from them and share their experiences were presented among the reasons for joining the seminar. On the other hand, certain participants stated that they hoped the seminar would contribute to "professional development" and their professional knowledge on the field. While certain participants expressed their expectation to learn practical information about "conducting practical activities", certain others stated that they expected to "share information and experiences with colleagues".
Views of mathematics teachers on the in-service training process
Based on the participant opinions, the negative and positive views of mathematics teachers on in-service training process are presented Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Participants noted certain negative situations they experienced during the seminar as follows:
The most negative aspect was "theoretical presentations and not enough practice" according to the participants.
Teachers expressed their expectations that new methods and techniques should have been demonstrated in the classroom environment, but the instructions were predominantly theoretical. Several teachers also stated that "the seminar duration was short for the seminar content". The teachers observed that the seminar provided too much theoretical knowledge and expressed that either the content should be reduced or the duration should be extended. Teachers complained that "the seminar content was not well planned", and stated that they experienced an educational process which was mostly theoretical and the content should be improved with practical activities and to be laconic. Another negative opinion was that "the spaces where the seminar was organized were technically inadequate". They stated that especially in activities that required the use of computer laboratories, two or three teachers had to share a computer and that caused problems, and certain teachers stated that "there was a cleanliness problem in the accommodations".
They claimed that beds and armchairs were very old, rooms were not cleaned daily, etc. Almost all of the participants considered "exchange of information with colleagues" as the most positive aspect of the training they attended. Teachers stated that they shared their experiences with colleagues from all over Turkey, and learned new things from them. Similarly, they mentioned "exchanging information with instructor professors in the training". They talked about the importance of having the opportunity to chat with academicians outside the class, and share their experience and knowledge. Furthermore, certain teachers stated that participating in the seminar refreshed their knowledge, while others mentioned that they acquired new information. Teachers indicated that they recalled certain theoretical information that they have learned during their undergraduate studies, learned about the new computer software like Geogebra, and obtained information about this software.
Recommendations of mathematics teachers on the in-service training process
Based on the participant opinions, recommendations of mathematics teachers on the in-service training process are presented in Table 5. Participants made several recommendations. These recommendations could be listed as follows; Teachers recommended inclusion of more practical activities, explanation of the application of the methods and techniques that were addressed theoretically in the classroom, consideration of physical facilities and their improvement to be suitable for seminars, improvement of technological equipment, particularly the computers, sharing preliminary information about the future seminars, providing not only the name of the seminar but information about the instructors, related methods and techniques before the seminar and during the application process, improved use of the material, availability of more material on mathematics education during the seminar, necessity of the availability of material associated with mathematics education in the seminar and information on how to use these material at schools, effective planning of content, planning to provide more practical and less amount of content for the teachers in a shorter period of time, inclusion of technology-assisted methods, information about new technology-assisted methods with the introduction of technology to education as a result of smart board, tablet, etc. use, sharing sample applications, sharing the practical applications teachers utilize in their classes with colleagues from all over Turkey, or to watch these applications via videos, sufficient content and time reserved for that content, instead of instructing more content in less time, planning the content with an approach that values quality rather than quantity, reducing number of participants, forming smaller groups in the seminar if technological equipment are insufficient, to continue the seminar with the same individuals, to achieve a more productive training, and the same group should be provided with a more qualified training at a different time to sustain the education.
In-service training organized by the ministry for teachers is undoubtedly very important. The creativity and benefits of the in-service training are reduced if they are conducted without determining the needs and goals, and the requirements of the participants, and the outcomes will not be positive (Taymaz, 1981). In a study conducted by MEB (2008), the in-service training requirements of mathematics teachers were attempted be determined. 62.3% of the 3.134 mathematics teachers who participated in that study expressed that they were in need of training in teaching strategies, methods and techniques in mathematics education, and 59.5% of the same teacher group needed training on mathematics program measurement, assessment methods and techniques. Thus, the in-service training activity that was the topic of the aforementioned study aimed to eliminate the problems of teachers related to teaching methods and techniques. However, findings of the present study indicated that the training did not adequately meet some of the expectations (conducting practical activities, learning different methods and techniques) of teachers.
Erdem et al. (2006) conducted a nationwide survey, and found that teachers did not consider themselves competent in using instructional methods. Yıldırım and Demir (2003) reported that teachers in primary and secondary schools use mostly lecture techniques in their classes, utilized problem solving, question-answer technique partially, and did not use presentation, sightseeing-observation, group discussions, case study, drama, brainstorming method and techniques sufficiently. Also, in their study, ArıbaÅŸ and GöktaÅŸ (2014) demonstrated that mathematics teachers did not have adequate knowledge about new methods and techniques and that they do not have enough knowledge about new methods and techniques. In addition to that, they found that the teachers need more in-service training, however previous trainings they attended did not satisfy their expectations. In short, similar studies demonstrated that teachers had inadequate knowledge on new methods and techniques and required in-service training, however they experienced certain problems with in-service training programs they attended. In another study, Özen (2006) obtained similar findings and found that in-service training of primary school teachers was useful and necessary, however problems such as the theoretical nature of the instructions, the lack of or insufficient practical applications were experienced in in-service training.
In a study by Uçar and Ä°pek (2006), it was found that administrators and teachers in elementary schools considered that in-service training was necessary but did not consider the in-service training programs in Turkish education system effective. In the present study, the perception of the teachers created by the training content, experienced problems and the technical facilities available in the training settings was also important. Because, these perceptions could affect the participation of the teachers to future trainings negatively.The teachers who participated in the seminar were satisfied about the exchange of information with their colleagues and academicians, learning new and refreshing the old information during the seminar. These results were a part of the contributions provided by the in-service training for the teachers. After the study, participants provided several recommendations. Among these recommendations, the most frequently mentioned were the need for practical activities in in-service training programs.
In a study conducted by Saka et al. (2007), a practical seminar activity was organized for science teachers, and the authors attempted to determine whether there was a difference between the knowledge of teachers on instructional methods and techniques before the application and after the application while the data collected in that study demonstrated that the knowledge levels of participating teachers significantly improved after the seminar. Because, the authors initially provided theoretical information on the instructional methods and techniques, and the constructivist approach to the participants of the in-service training, however, this was followed by practical activities. During the application process, the authors monitored the work and provided feedback for the teachers about their mistakes. In the study conducted by Önen et al. (2009), they attempted to determine whether there was a significant difference between methodological-technical knowledge of Anatolian Teacher High School teachers that participated in in-service training before and after the training, and it was determined that methodological-technical knowledge and knowledge on constructivist approach of the teachers improved significantly after the training.
This and similar research results demonstrated that practical and well-planned in-service training activities instructed by experts could be very beneficial. The in-service training content should be renewed and more qualified training settings should be created based on the findings of the present and other studies conducted on the field and the recommendations of the teachers. Furthermore, it was further observed that the studies conducted on mathematics teachers in the field were rather limited. It could be argued that there is a need for further studies, especially on evaluating the quality of in-service training.The participant teachers mostly complained that the activities were mostly theoretical and lacked application activities. Kanlı and Yağbasan (2001) as well found that the participants in an in-service training program for physics teacher pointed out that they could not perform the experiments in the program in their own schools. They also added the most significant outcome of the in-service training programs was the opportunity of exchanging their experiences with the teachers from various districts of Turkey. Teachers participating in the program suggested the activities should be more application-oriented, and more math-teaching materials should be used.
Teacher expectation from the in-service training program and their views differed widely. Some teachers, for example, pointed out that they had participated in the program hoping to learn some new methods and techniques to employ in mathematics teaching, but found the content of the program not organized well, hence, did not serve the purpose. However, they appreciated the opportunity of exchanging views with their colleagues, visiting new places at the end of the program. Following suggestions were developed in the light of the results of the research;
(1) The skills to be acquired through the programs should not be limited with the theoretical ones but be in company with their applications.
(2) In-service training programs should be designed in accordance with the teachers’ needs.
(3) In-service training programs should be long enough.
(4) The content of in-service training programs should be updated.
(5) Application opportunity and environments should be offered to the participants congruent with the content of the program. The facilities allotted to these kind of activities should be renewed and technically updated.
(6) Professional development of the teachers participating in-service training programs should be monitored and supported.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
|
Acar M, Anıl D (2009). Classroom Teacher Evaluation Methods to Use in The Performance Assessment Process Qualification of Able, They Comparison Problems and Solution Proposals. TUBAV Bilim Dergisi, 2(3):354-363.
|
|
|
|
Akpınar E, Ergin Ö (2005). Yapılandırmacı kuramda fen öÄŸretmeninin rolü. Ä°lköÄŸretim-Online, 4(2):55-64. [Online]:
View
|
|
|
|
|
ArıbaÅŸ S, GöktaÅŸ Ö (2014). Secondary school math teachers' views on necessities of ın-service trainings for alternatıve measurement and evaluation. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi.7(16):17-41.
|
|
|
|
|
Ayan Ä° (1999). ÖÄŸretmenlerin geliÅŸtirilmesinde hizmet içi eÄŸitimin rolü. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ä°nönüÜniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Malatya.
|
|
|
|
|
Aytaç T (2007), Hizmetiçi eÄŸitim kavramı ve uygulamada karşılaşılan sorunlar, Milli EÄŸitim Dergisi, 147, 66-69.
|
|
|
|
|
Bal P (2008). The Evaluation of New Mathematic Curriculum in Term of Teachers' Perspectives. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi17(1):53-68.
|
|
|
|
|
Birgin O, Baki A (2009). An investigation of primary school teachers' proficiency perceptions about measurement and assessment methods: Thecase of Turkey. ProcediaSoc.Behav.Sci. 1(1):681-685.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Birgin O, Gürbüz R (2008).Sınıf öÄŸretmeni adaylarının ölçme ve deÄŸerlendirme konusundaki bilgi düzeylerinin incelenmesi Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20:163-179.
|
|
|
|
|
Birgin O (2010). 4 - 5. sınıf Matematik ÖÄŸretim Programında öngörülen ölçme ve deÄŸerlendirme yaklaşımlarının öÄŸretmenler tarafından uygulanabilirliÄŸi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.
|
|
|
|
|
Birgin O, Tutak T, ÇatlıoÄŸlu H (2008). Teachers' viewsabout in-service trainingprogramsrelatedtothenewprimaryschoolmathematicscurriculum: Thecase of Trabzon. In O. Demirel, & A. Murat Sumbul (Eds.), Educationan dPedagogy in Balkan Countries 9: FurtherEducation in the Balkan Countries, Konya: EÄŸitim Kitapevi Yayınları. 2:965-973.
|
|
|
|
|
Budak Y (1998). EÄŸitimde toplam kalite yönetimi açısından öÄŸretmenlere yönelik hizmet içi eÄŸitim ihtiyaçları ve programlarına bir yaklaşım. Milli EÄŸitim 140:35-38.
|
|
|
|
|
Çiftçi S (2010) The Opinions of the Teachers in Upper Primary Classes Concerning the Student Performance Tasks. Elementary Educ. Online, 9(3):934-951.
|
|
|
|
|
DemirtaÅŸ TZ (2008). Ä°lköÄŸretim okulu öÄŸretmenlerinin hizmet içi eÄŸitim ihtiyaçları ile kurum içi iletiÅŸim algıları arasındaki iliÅŸkinin deÄŸerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ä°stanbul.
|
|
|
|
|
DiMartino J, Castaneda A, Brownstein M, Miles S (2007). Authentic Assessment. Principal's Res. Rev. 2(4):1-8.
|
|
|
|
|
DoÄŸan N, Karakaya Ä°, Gelbal S (2007). Ä°lköÄŸretim öÄŸretmenlerinin ölçme araçlarıyla ilgili yeterlik algıları ve bu araçları kullanma durumları. I.Ulusal Ä°lköÄŸretim Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi, Ankara.
|
|
|
|
|
Erdal H (2007). 2005 Ä°lköÄŸretim matematik programı ölçme deÄŸerlendirme kısmının incelenmesi (Afyonkarahisar Ä°li ÖrneÄŸi),(Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Afyon.
|
|
|
|
|
Erdem A,Uzal G, Ersoy Y (2006), Fen Bilgisi/Fizik ÖÄŸretmenlerinin EÄŸitim Sorunları: GeliÅŸmeleri Sürekli Ä°zlemeleri ve Gerekli Yenilikleri Edinmeleri, AraÅŸtırma Raporu, TFV Yayını, TekirdaÄŸ.
|
|
|
|
|
Fullan MG (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College Press, Second ed., New York.
|
|
|
|
|
Garmston RJ (1998). Becoming Expert Teachers. J. Staff Devel. 19:60-63.
|
|
|
|
|
Gelbal S, KelecioÄŸlu (2007),Teachers' proficiency perceptions of about the Measurement and evaluation techniques and the problems they confront. Hacettepe UniversityJ. Educ. 33:135-145.
|
|
|
|
|
Gök B, Åžahin AE (2009). The multiple uses of assessment methods in 4th and 5th grades and the competency levels of teachers. Egitim ve Bilim, 34(153):127-143.
|
|
|
|
|
Gökyer N (2011). Ä°lköÄŸretim okulları II. kademe (branÅŸ) öÄŸretmenlerinin eÄŸitim müfettiÅŸlerinin yeterlik alanlarına iliÅŸkin algıları. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1):129-147.
|
|
|
|
|
Gönen S, Kocakaya S (2006), Fizik öÄŸretmenlerinin hizmet içi eÄŸitimler üzerine görüÅŸlerinin deÄŸerlendirilmesi,Pamukkale Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi,19:37-44.
|
|
|
|
|
Graue ME (1993). Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment. Educ. Assess. 1(4):293-309.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Guskey TR (2003). What makes Professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan 84(10):748-750.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Gül H (2000). Türkiye'de kamu yönetiminde hizmet içi eÄŸitim. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(3).
|
|
|
|
|
Güler M, Altun T, TürkdoÄŸan A (2015). Matematik ÖÄŸretmenlerinin
|
|
|
|
|
Günbayı Ä°, TaÅŸdöÄŸen B (2012). Ä°lköÄŸretim okullarında çalışan öÄŸretmenlerin hizmet içi eÄŸitim programları üzerine görüÅŸleri: Bir durum çalışması. Ä°nsan ve Toplum Bilimleri AraÅŸtırmaları Dergisi.1(3).
|
|
|
|
|
Hare M (1999). Revealing what urban early childhood teachers think aboutmathematics and how they teach ıt:Implications for practice. University OfNorth Texas, December, s.11.
|
|
|
|
|
Kanlı U,YaÄŸbasan R (2002). Fizik öÄŸretmenleri için düzenlenen hizmet içi eÄŸitim yaz kursları. ÇaÄŸdaÅŸ EÄŸitim 283:32-38.
|
|
|
|
|
Kaplan S (2006). Performans deÄŸerlendirme: Performans görevlerinin hazırlanması ve puanlanması.Abant Ä°zzet Baysal Üniversitesi EÄŸitimFakültesi Dergisi 6(2):187-200.
|
|
|
|
|
Klinzing HG, Tisner RP (2002). The Development of Classroom Teaching Skills, in: KremerHayton, L., Vonk, H.C., Fessler, R. (eds), Teacher Professional Development: A Multiple Perspctive Approach, Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer S,Cai J, Merlino FJ (2015). A lesson for the common core standardserafromthe NCTM standards era: The importance of considering school-level buy-in whenimplementingandevaluatingstandards-based instructional materials. InLarge Scalestudies in mathematics education. Springer. pp. 17-44.
|
|
|
|
|
Lewin K (1990). International Perspectives on the Development of Science Education: Food for Thought Stud. Sci. Educ. 18:1-23.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
MEB (2008).Ä°lköÄŸretim okullarında görev yapan matematik öÄŸretmenlerinin hizmet içi eÄŸitim ihtiyaçları. T.C Milli EÄŸitim Bakanlığı EÄŸitimi AraÅŸtırma ve GeliÅŸtirme Dairesi BaÅŸkanlığı.
|
|
|
|
|
Mutshekwane A (1999). Client-based INSET programmes for Geography Teachers: Acase study. J. In-service Educ. 25(2):353-365.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Nartgün ÅžS (2006). Ä°lköÄŸretim okulu öÄŸretmenlerinin hizmet içi eÄŸitim programlarının Etkileri üzerine düÅŸünceleri (Bolu Ä°li ÖrneÄŸi). Abant Ä°zzet Baysal Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi 6(1):157-178.
|
|
|
|
|
Önen F, Saka M, Erdem A, Uzal G, Gürdal A (2008).Hizmet içi eÄŸitime katılan Fen bilgisi öÄŸretmenlerinin öÄŸretim tekniklerine iliÅŸkin bilgilerindeki deÄŸiÅŸimin tesbiti: TekirdaÄŸ örneÄŸi.Ahi Evran Üniversitesi KırÅŸehir EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD) 9(1):45-57.
|
|
|
|
|
Özen R (2006). Ä°lköÄŸretim okulu öÄŸretmenlerinin hizmet içi eÄŸitim programlarının etkilerine iliÅŸkin görüÅŸleri (Düzce ili örneÄŸi). Abant Ä°zzet Baysal Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2):141-160.
|
|
|
|
|
Uçar R, Ä°pek C (2006), Ä°lköÄŸretim okullarında görev yapan yönetici ve öÄŸretmenlerin hizmet içi eÄŸitim uygulamalarına iliÅŸkin görüÅŸleri, Yüzüncü Yıl EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi 3(1):34-53.
|
|
|
|
|
Richert AE (1991). Using Teacher Cases for Reflection and Enhanced Understanding, AnnLieberman ve Lynne Miller (Ed.), Staff Development for Education in the 1990's, Second Teachers College Press, New York.
|
|
|
|
|
SaÄŸlam-Arslan A, Avcı A, Ä°yibil Ü (2008).Fizik öÄŸretmen adaylarının alternatif ölçme deÄŸerlendirme yöntemlerini algılama düzeyleri. D.Ü. Ziya Gökalp EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi 11:115-128.
|
|
|
|
|
Silvester H (1997). Insect Projects And Evaluation: In-Service Teacher Development:International Perspectives, London.
|
|
|
|
|
Spector BS (1987). Overwiew: Meeting the Needs of Science Teachers for Contuing Education, in: Barbara S. Spector (Ed.), A Guide to Inservice Teacher Education: Research into Practice, 1986 AETS Yearbook, 13-56, Colombus, OH: Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, (ERIC Document Service No. ED 288 722).
|
|
|
|
|
Yalın HÄ° (2001). Hizmet içi eÄŸitim programlarının deÄŸerlendirilmesi. Milli EÄŸitim Dergisi,150.
|
|
|
|
|
Yıldırım A, ÅžimÅŸek H (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araÅŸtırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
|
|
|
|
|
Yıldırım A, ÅžimÅŸek H (2011). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel AraÅŸtırma Yöntemleri.(8.baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. Ankara.
|
|
|
|
|
Yıldırım Z, Demir K (2003). Burdur il merkezindeki ilköÄŸretim okullarında görev yapan fen bilgisi öÄŸretmenlerinin alanları ve yeterliliklerine iliÅŸkin görüÅŸleri ile fen bilgisi eÄŸitimi öÄŸrencilerinin bu öÄŸretmenler ile ilgili gözlemleri, Sakarya Üniversitesi EÄŸitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4:134-145.
|
|
|
|
|
Wooden S, Babtiste N (1990). Pre/In Service Training Requires Planning. "Day Care and Early Educ. 18:34-36.
Crossref
|
|
