An Investigation of Teachers’ Beliefs about Learning/Istraživanje o uvjerenjima što ih učitelji imaju o učenju

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate teachers beliefs about learning. So, we investigated the level of teachers beliefs about the traditional and constructivist approach (cognitive, social and radical). Further, it was questioned how teachers developed qualifications needed for the constructivist approach. The study was conducted on 233 teachers working in the city centre of Gaziantep in Turkey during 2011-2012 school year. Beliefs about Learning Scale, developed by the researchers, was used for data collection. The results revealed that the teachers adopted the constructivist approach at a higher level than the traditional approach. Speaking about the constructivist approach dimensions, the teachers adopted the social constructivist approach at a higher level than cognitive and radical constructivist approaches. According to the gender variable, the extent to which the female teachers adopted the constructivist approach was higher in comparison with the male teachers. Moreover, it was found that the level of classroom teachers beliefs about the traditional approach was higher than that of subject teachers beliefs according to seniority. Another finding was that the increase in seniority increased the teachers beliefs about the traditional approach. The findings indicated that the teachers adopted qualifications for the constructivist approach mostly during their undergraduate and post-graduate education.Key words: beliefs about learning; constructivist learning; cognitive, social and radical constructivism; teachers educational beliefs; traditional learning. ---SažetakCilj je ovog istraživanja odrediti uvjerenja koja učitelji imaju o učenju. Istražili smo stoga razinu njihovih uvjerenja o tradicionalnim i konstruktivističkim pristupima (kognitivni, drutveni i radikalni). tovie, tražili smo odgovor na pitanje kako učitelji razvijaju kompetencije potrebne za konstruktivistički pristup. Istraživanje je provedeno na uzorku od 233 učitelja koji poučavaju u sreditu turskog grada Gaziantepa tijekom k. godine 2011./2012. Ljestvica za utvrđivanje uvjerenja o učenju, koju su izradili sami autori, koritena je za prikupljanje podataka. Rezultati su otkrili da učitelji usvajaju konstruktivistički pristup na vioj razini u odnosu na tradicionalni pristup. Kada je riječ o dimenzijama konstruktivističkog pristup, učitelji usvajaju drutveni konstruktivizam na vioj razini nego kognitivni ili radikalni konstruktivizam. S obzirom na rod kao varijablu, učiteljice usvajaju konstruktivistički pristup na vioj razini od učitelja. Pokazalo se, tovie, da je razina uvjerenja to ih razredni učitelji imaju o tradicionalnom pristupu via nego u slučaju predmetnih učitelja kada se promatraju godine staža. S porastom godina staža rastu i uvjerenja učitelja o tradicionalnom pristupu. Rezultati istraživanja ukazuju na to da učitelji usvajaju kompetencije potrebne za konstruktivistički pristup uglavnom tijekom dodiplomskog i poslijediplomskog obrazovanja. Ključne riječi: kognitivni, drutveni i radikalni konstruktivizam; konstruktivističko učenje; uvjerenja o učenju; uvjerenja učitelja o učenju; tradicionalno učenje.

Understanding and practice of active learning among upper primary school science and mathematics teachers

“…This implies that the majority of degree holders are in general more experienced than diploma holders. Nevertheless, a study report indicated that as the teachers' seniority increases, the level of their beliefs about traditional learning also increases [ 39 ]. This implies that the primary teachers' positive belief in the current study stands against the result found elsewhere.…”

Investigation of pre-service teachers cognitive awareness and their perspectives on educational philosophy

“…In spite of the efforts to train teachers who can apply CU-based curricula since then, some studies in the literature concluded that many teachers did not feel competent, did not implement the curriculum in a proper manner, or encountered various problems (e.g. Adanur-Kudal & Altun, 2012;Bay et al, 2014;Çaycı & Altunkeser, 2015;Çiftçi et al, 2013;Çubukçu, 2006;Gür-Erdoğan & Kanbur, 2013;Özaydın-Özkara, 2017;Yücel et al, 2006).…”