THE COMPETENCIES OF SCIENCE TEACHER: A DELPHI STUDY
Abstract
In this study, the authors aim to identify the competencies of science teachers based on the opinions of experts in the field. The Delphi technique was used to attain consensus among experts on science education through 3 rounds with 13 experts from 13 different universities. In the first round of the Delphi technique, open-ended questions sent to the expert group, which were created after a detailed literature review about teacher competencies. Descriptive analysis was applied for the qualitative data obtained at the end of first round. As a result of the analysis, a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire consisting of 172 items in 10 categories was prepared. The questionnaire was sent to the experts in the second round. The experts indicated their participation levels for each item. The data obtained at second round were analyzed by quantitative methods. In the third round, the results of the analysis from the second round were sent to the experts and they were asked to re-evaluate their responses in the previous round by considering other experts’ opinions. By the conclusion of the third round, 161 items referring to competencies of science teachers were identified and categorized into competencies for the science curriculum, competencies to improve students’ cognitive characteristics, competencies to improve students’ affective characteristics, competencies to improve students’ psychomotor abilities, competencies for the objectives of the science curriculum, competencies for the content of the science curriculum, competencies for the learning-teaching process in science, competencies for evaluation in science, competencies for instructional technologies, and competencies for effective communication.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abt, G., & Barry, T. (2007). The quantitative effect of students using podcasts in a first-year undergraduate exercise physiology module. Bioscience Education, 10(1), 1-9.
ACTEQ [Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications] (2003). Towards A Learning Profession: The Teacher Competencies Framework and the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Ager, A., Stark, L., Akesson, B., & Boothby, N. (2010). Defining best practice in care and protection of children in crisis-affected settings: A Delphi study. Society for Research in Child Development, 81(4), 1271-1286.
Akınoğlu, O., & Doğan, S. (2012, September). Eğitimde program geliştirme alanına yeni bir kavram önerisi: Program okuryazarlığı. Paper presented at the 21st National Educational Sciences Conference, İstanbul, Turkey.
Akpınar, E., & Ergin, Ö. (2004). Fen öğretiminde fizik, kimya ve biyolojinin entegrasyonuna yönelik örnek bir uygulama. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 19, 1-16.
Aktay, S. (2016). Teknoloji destekli fen bilimleri öğretimi. In Ş. Anagün & N. Duban (Eds). Fen Bilimleri öğretimi (pp. 425-450). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Alake-Tuenter, E., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Wals, A. E., Oosterheert, I., & Mulder, M. (2012). Inquiry-based science education competencies of primary school teachers: A literature study and critical review of the American National Science Education Standards. International Journal of Science Education. 34(17), 2609-2640.
Allais, S. (2010). The implementation and impact of National Qualifications Frameworks: Report of a study in 16 countries. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Andrée, M. (2003, August). Every day-Life in the Science Classroom: A Study on Ways of Using and Referring to Everyday-Life. Paper presented at the ESERA Conference. 2003. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
Aslan Efe, H. (2015). The relation between science student teachers’ educational use of web 2.0 technologies and their computer self-efficacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1), 142-154.
Ayas, A. (1995) Fen bilimlerinde program geliştirme ve uygulama teknikleri üzerine bir çalışma: İki çağdaş yaklaşımın değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 11, 149-155.
Atalay, C. (2005). Öğretmen liselerindeki öğrencilerin kişilik özellikleri ve öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişkiler. (Master’s thesis). Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company.
Barış, E. T. (2013). Türkiye’nin AB üyeliği sürecinde hayat boyu öğrenmede yetişkin eğitimcisi yeterlikleri. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 38(38), 149-166.
Bass, J. E., Contant, T. L., & Carin, A.A. (2008). Teaching science as inquiry. Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
Chrestensen, A. (2007). Real-world context, interest, understanding, and retention. Unpublished Master's report. Houghton: Michigan Technological University. Retrieved on 30.03.2019 from http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds/536
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.
Conway, P., Murphy, R., Rath, A., & Hall, K. (2009). Learning to teach and its implications for the continuum of teacher education: A nine-country cross-national study. Maynooth: Teaching Council.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. California: Sage Publications.
Crick, R. D. (2008). Key competencies for education in a European context: Narratives of accountability or care. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 311-318.
Çavaş, B., & Huyugüzel Çavaş, P. (2016). Fen bilimlerinde öğrenme-öğretme süreci. In Ş. Anagün ve N. Duban (Eds), Fen bilimleri öğretimi (pp. 167-194). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Çavaş, P., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen ve teknoloji öğretim yeterliklerinin belirlenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 9 (1) , 75-94.
Çepni, S. (2015). Performansların değerlendirilmesi, In E. Karip (Ed), Ölçme ve değerlendirme (pp. 233-292) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Çolak, E. (2014) Öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerinde yeni yaklaşımlara dayalı örnek uygulamalar. In S. Fer (Ed.). Öğrenme öğretme kuram ve yaklaşımları (pp. 236-256). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Çoştu, B., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2007). Kavram yanılgıları ve olası nedenleri: Kaynama kavramı. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(1), 123-136.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung-Wei, R., & Andree, A. (2010). How high achieving countries develop great teachers. California: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Ergin, A. (2014). Eğitimde etkili iletişim. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
European Commission. (2005). Common European principles for teacher competences and qualifications. Retrieved on 30 March, 2019 from. http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/bologna/dokumenti/eu-common-principles.pdf
European Commission (2013). Supporting teacher competence development: For better learning outcomes. Retrieved on 30 March, 2019 from https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2011 2013/teacher/teachercomp_en.pdf
Farmery, C. (2002). Teaching science 3-11: The essential guide. London: Guildford and King’s Lynn.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & H. H. Hyun. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Franklin, K. K., & Hart, J. K. (2007). Idea generation and exploration: Benefits and limitations of the policy Delphi research method. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 237–246.
Green, B., Jones, M., Hughes, D., & Williams, A. (1999). Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements. Health & Social Care in the Community, 7(3), 198-205.
Green, R. D., & Osah-Ogulu, D. J. (2003). Integrated science teachers' instructional competencies: An empirical survey in Rivers State of Nigeria. Journal of Education for Teaching. 29(2), 149-158.
Gustafsson, J. E. (2003). What do we know about effects of school resources on educational results? Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10(3), 77–110.
Gürdal, A., Bayram, H., & Şahin, F. (1999). İlköğretim okullarında enerji konusunun entegrasyon ile öğretilmesi. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, 3rd. National Symposium of Science Education, Ankara: MEB Basımevi, 204-208.
Güven Yıldırım, E., Köklükaya, A. N., & Aydoğdu, M. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının öğretim yöntem-teknik tercihleri ve bu tercihlerinin nedenleri. E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 15-25.
Harlen, W. (2002). Teaching, learning and assessing science 5-12. London: Thousand Oaks.
Hassard, J., & Dias, M. (2008). The art of teaching science: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school. New York: Routledge.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015.
Herring, M. C. (2007). Development of constructivist-based distance learning environment. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 231–242
Howe, A. C. (2002). Engaging children in science. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hsu, C. C. , & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.
Ilgaz, S., & Bilgili, T. (2006). Eğitim ve öğretimde etik. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 199-210.
İnel Ekici, D. (2016). Kavram öğretimi. In Ş. Anagün & N. Duban (Eds), Fen bilimleri öğretimi (pp. 381-423), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Jeris, L., Johnson, K., Isopahkala, U., Winterton, J., & Anthony, K. (2005). The politics of competence: Views from around the globe. Human Resource Development International, 8(3), 379-384.
Kaptan, F., & Korkmaz, H. (2001b). İlköğretimde fen bilgisi öğretimi: ilköğretimde etkili öğretme ve öğrenme öğretmen el kitabı. Module 7. Ankara: T.C MEB Projeler Koordinasyon Merkezi Başkanlığı.
Kaptan, F. (1999). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Karadağ, N., & Usta, İ. (2015). Ölçme araç ve teknikleri. In N. Karadağ ve İ. Usta (Eds), Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme (pp. 146-163). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını.
Karademir, E. (2017). STEM yaklaşımı ve eğitime yansımaları. In E. Karademir (Ed), Örnek ve uygulama destekli fen öğretiminde disiplinlerarası beceri etkileşimi (pp. 255-286). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Karataş, S., Caner, M., Kahyaoğlu, R. B., & Kâhya, S. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının gözünden etik öğretmen ve öğretmenlik meslek etiği dersi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(1), 29-49.
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & Mc Kenna, H. P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(2), 195-200.
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & Mc Kenna, H. (2006). Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(2), 205-212.
Keeney, S., Mc Kenna, H., & Hasson, F. (2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Keskin, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2017, October). Öğretmenlerin “program okuryazarlığı” kavramına yükledikleri anlam. Proocedings of the 5th. International Conference on Curriculum and Instruction. Muğla, Turkey.
Koçdar, S., & Aydın, H. (2013). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme araştırmalarında Delfi tekniğinin kullanımı. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(3), 31-44.
Korkmaz, H. E., & Erden, M. (2013). Demokratik bir eğitim ortamında eğitim programının özellikleri, Education Sciences, 8(2), 209-224.
Lavoie, R. (2008). The motivation breakthrough: 6 Secrets to turning on the tuned-out child. Newyork: Simon &Schuster.
Lazarides, R., Gasrapd, H., & Dicke, A. L. (2019). Dynamics of classroom motivation: Teacher enthusiasm and thedevelopment of math interest and teacher support. Learning and Instruction, 60, 126-137.
Le Deist, F. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence?. Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27-46.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). Introduction. H. Linstone and M. Turoff (Eds), In the Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 3-16). Retrieved on 16 April, 2018 from https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf
Malm, B., & Löfgren, H. (2006). Teacher competence and students' conflict handling strategies. Research in Education, 76(1), 62-73.
Martin, D. J. (2000). Elementary science methods. Australia: Thomson Learning.
McFarlane, D. A. (2013). Understanding the challenges of science education in the 21st century: New opportunities for scientific literacy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences. 4(1), 35-44.
McKinney, D., Dyck, J.L. & Luber, E.S. (2009). iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts replace Professors?. Computers & Education, 52(3), 617-623. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved 16 April, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/66897/.
Mcllrath, C., Keeney, S., McKenna, H., & McLaughlin, D. (2009). Benchmarks for effective primary care-based nursing services for adults with depression: A Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 269–281.
MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Retrieved on 30.03.2019 from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
MEB [Ministry of National Education] (2017a). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Retrieved on 30.03.2019 from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf
MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2017b). STEM Eğitimi Öğretmen El Kitabı. Retrieved on 30.03.2019 from http://scientix.meb.gov.tr/images/upload/Event_35/Gallery/STEM%20E%C4%9Fitimi%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretmen%20El%20Kitab%C4%B1.pdf
MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2016). STEM Eğitimi Raporu). Retrieved on 30.03.2019 from https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Egitimi_Raporu.pdf
MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2008). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Retrieved on 24.12.2017 from http://otmg.meb.gov.tr/YetGenel.html
MEB [Ministry of National Education]. (2006). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlilikleri. Retrieved on 30 March, 2019 from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/13161921_YYretmenlik_MesleYi_Genel__YETERLYKLERi_onaylanan.pdf
MEB ÖYGM (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Retrieved on 30 March, 2019 from http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf
Méhaut, P., & Winch, C. (2012). The European Qualification Framework: Skills, competences or knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 369-381.
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 181-201.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (2016). Qualitative data analysis. USA: Sage Publications.
Mitroff, I., & Turoff, M. (2002). Philosophical and methodological foundations of Delphi. In H. Linstone and M. Turoff (Eds), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 17-34). Retrieved on 16 April, 2018 from https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf
Moreno, N. P., & Tharp, B. Z. (2005). How do students learn science?. In J. Rhoton and P. Shane (Eds), Teaching science in the 21st century (pp. 291-305). Virginia: National Science Teachers Association.
Morris, N. P. (2010) Podcasts and mobile assessment enhance student learning experience and academic performance. Bioscience Education, 16(1),
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: National Academy Press.
Naumescu, A. K. (2008). Science teacher competencies in a knowledged based society. Acta Didactica Napocensia. 1(1), 25-31.
Nessipbayeva, O. (2012). The Competencies of the modern teacher. In P. Nikolay, W. W. Charl, L. Bruno, H. Gillion, O. James, A. P. Albergaria (Eds.), Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (pp.148-154). Kyustendil, Bulgaria.
Nsibande, R. N., & Modiba, M. M. (2012) ‘I just do as expected’. Teachers’ implementation of continuous assessment and challenges to curriculum literacy, Research Papers in Education, 27(5): 629-645.
Nworie, J. (2011). Using the Delphi technique in educational technology research. Tech Trends, 55(5), 24-30.
OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved on 18 December, 2017 from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf
OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/Synergies%20for%20Better%20Learning_Summary.pdf
OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2016). The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion. Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/The_Survey%20_of_Adult_Skills_Reader's_companion_Second_Edition.pdf
OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. (2018). The Future of education and skills: Education 2030. Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
Oprea, C. L. (2012). The enthusiastic teaching – the actor`s art didactically transposed for teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 602-607.
Ornstein, A. C., & Lasley, T. J. (2004). Strategies for effective teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 3(3), 173-184.
Pehlivan Baykara, K. (2008). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyo-kültürel özellikleri ve öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları üzerine bir çalışma. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 4(2), 151-168.
Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376-382.
Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553-576.
Putman S.M., & Kingsley, T. (2009). The atoms family: Using podcasts to enhance the development of science vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 63, 100-108.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi
technique. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting (pp. 125–144). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schleicher, A. (2011), Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the World, OECD Publishing. Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264113046-en
Schleicher, A. (2016), Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform: Lessons from around the world, international summit on the teaching profession, OECD Publishing, Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252059-en
Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri ve mesleki gelişim. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim, 58, 40-45.
Sekayi, D., & Kennedy, A. (2017). Qualitative Delphi method: A four round process with a worked example. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2755-2763.
Selvi, K. (2010). Teachers’ competencies. Cultural International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, 7(1), 167-175.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). Core issues in sustainable supply chain management–a Delphi study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(8), 455-466.
Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21.
Şahin, A. E. (2009). Türkiye’ de ilköğretim okulu müdürlüğünün bir meslek olarak mevcut durumu: Bir Delphi çalışması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26 (26), 125-136.
Şaşmaz Ören, F. (2014). Fen bilimlerinde ölçme değerlendirme. In Ş Anagün & N. Duban (Eds), Fen bilimleri öğretimi (pp. 277-340). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Tanel, R., Kaya Şengören, S., & Kavcar, N. (2009). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin yeterlik ölçütleri ve göstergelerine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler yönünden incelenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 25:63-72.
TED [Turkish Education Association] (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri. Ankara: Adım Okan Matbaacılık.
International Council for Science (ICSU) (2011). Report of the ICSU Ad-hoc Review Panel on Science Education, Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from https://council.science/cms/2017/05/Report-on-Science-Education-final-pdf.pdf
Toledo, D., Révai, N., & Guerriero, S. (2017). Teacher professionalism and knowledge in qualifications frameworks and professional standards, in pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession, Retrieved on 18 January, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-5-en.
Torrance, N., Smith, B. S., Elliot, A. M.,Campbell, S. E., Chambers, W. A., Hannaford, P. C., & Johnston, M. (2010). Potential pain management programmes in primary care.AUK-wide questionnaire and Delphi survey of experts. Family Practice, 28, 41–48. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmq081
Trust, T. (2018) 2017 ISTE standards for educators: From teaching with technology to using technology to empower learners. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (1) 1-3.
Turgut, M. F., Baker, D., Cunningham, R., & Piburn, M. (1997). İlköğretim fen öğretimi. Ankara: YÖK/Dünya Bankası Milli Eğitim Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi.
Uluçınar, U., & Karademir, E. (2017). Fen öğretiminde program beceri ilişkisi. In E. Karademir (Ed.), Örnek ve uygulama destekli fen öğretiminde disiplinlerarası beceri etkileşimi (pp. 87-149). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Volman, M (2005). A variety of roles for a new type of teacher: Educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1), 15–31.
YÖK [Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu/Higher Education Council]. (2018). Öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları. Retreived on 11 March, 2019 from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/AA_Sunus_%20Onsoz_Uygulama_Yonergesi.pdf
Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge.
Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education?. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9-15.
Wilson, D., Koziol-Mclain, J., Garrett, N., & Sharma, P. (2010). A hospital-based child protection programme evaluation instrument: A modified Delphi study. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 22, 283–293.
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessment: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v7i6.3113
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Demet Sever, K. Tuğçe Bostancı
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
