Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

SİYASET BİLİMİ EĞİTİMİNDE PARADİGMA DEĞİŞİMİ

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 8, 229 - 240, 30.12.2020

Mustafa Kandırmaz

Öz

Öğrenci popülasyonun son yirmi yılda önemli ölçüde değişmiş olması sınıfların daha kalabalık olmasına yol açmış, bu durum da öğrenci özellikleri bazında daha geniş bir yetenek ve deneyim yelpazesi içermesine öncü olmuştur ancak siyaset biliminde, öğretme tarzı bu değişim yolunu henüz tam olarak izleyememiştir. Siyaset bilimi öğretimi, 1990'lardan bu yana çok farklı özelliklere sahip, artan öğrenci sayısının bir sonucu olarak yeni zorluklarla mücadele etmesi gerekmektedir. Geleneksel öğretim yöntemlerinin birçoğunun faydası olsa da bu kadar çeşitli öğrenci ve kalabalık sınıflar, öğretmenin zorluklarıyla başa çıkmak için yetersizdir. Bu çalışma, siyaset bilimi eğitimi geleneksel paradigmasının, bugün siyaset öğretimi için neden uygun olmadığını ve yapılandırmacı siyaset bilimi eğitimi paradigmasına dayalı aktif öğrenme ilkelerini kullanan yaklaşımların öğrencilerin bilişşsel ve duyuşşal davranışlarını geliştirmede neden daha etkili olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç çerçevesinde yapılan çalışma sonucunda aktif öğrenme ortamlarının siyaset bilimi öğretim programındaki etkilerinin henüz sistematik olarak çalışılmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu durumun iki sebebin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Birincil sebep olarak, siyaset bilimi öğretiminin henüz etki araştırmalarında uzman olan eğitim araştırmacılarının dikkatini çekmediği, ikincil sebep olarak ise, aktif öğrenme araçlarının siyaset bilimindeki etkisi hakkındaki çalışmaların büyük ölçüde etkilerin çalışılmasında yetkin olan ancak eğitim literatürüyle konuşamayan siyaset bilimcilerinin çalışmalarının olmasıdır. İfade edilen sebeplerden dolayı, eğitim bilimleri disiplini içinde öğrenme ortamı araştırması bilgisinin siyaset bilimi aktif öğrenme deneyimleri ile birleştirilmesinin mevcut araştırma alanını aktif öğrenme etkilerine genişleteceğinin üzerinde durulması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

siyaset bilimi eğitim paradigma değişikliğii

Kaynakça

  • AAC [American Association of Colleges]. (1991). Political Science. Reports from the Fields: Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major, vol. 2.Washington: AAC.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2014). APSA task force on improving public perceptions of political science’s value. http://www.apsanet.org/reports, 25.08.2020.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2015a). Six Years of Political Science Doctoral Student Placement, 2009–14. http://www.apsanet.org/RESOURCES/Data-on-the-Profession, 25.09.2020.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2015b). Political Science Education (Section 29). http://www.apsanet.org/section29, 25.09.2020.
  • Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 27(6), 12-26
  • Beltran, C., Cohen, C. J., Collier, D., Goldenberg, E., Keohane, R., Monroe, K., Wallerstein, M., Christopher H.A., & Smith, R. M. (2005). APSA task force on graduate education: 2004 report to the council. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(1), 129-135.
  • Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessmet. In M. Siegers, F. Dochy, & E. Canscallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp.13-36). Dordrecht: Springer/Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered eaching: a practical guide for faculty, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Boyer, E.L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered. New York: Jossey-Bass.
  • Breuning, M., Parker, P., & Ishiyama, J. (2001). The Last Laugh: Skill Building through a Liberal Arts Political Science Curriculum. PS: Political Science & Politics, 34, 657-661.
  • Brock, K. L., & Cameron, B. J. (1999). Enlivening political science courses with Kolb's learning preference model. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(2), 251-256.
  • Brown-Dean, K. L. (2015). Emphasizing the scholar in public scholarship. PS, Political Science & Politics, 48(S1), 55.
  • Cambridge, B. (2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning: Communities of practice. In To Improve the Academy, eds. D. Lieberman and C. Wehlburg. Bolton, MA: Anker, 3-16. Dewey, J. (1948). Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • ECPR. (2015). From Identity To Citizenship in The Global World: How Global Educational Institutions and Networks Can Contribute to A Culture of 'Global Citizenship, Contribute, C., Belyaeva, N. Ecpr Atölye Çalışmaları 2015 Ortaklığı (Varşova).
  • Exley, K., & Dennig, R. (2004). Giving a Lecture. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.
  • Fach, W. (2012). Tintenfische. Bologna und die professoren. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 41(3), 323-330.
  • Hamann, K., Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, B. M. (2009). Who SoTLs where? Publishing the scholarship of teaching and learning in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(4), 729-735. Horgan, J. (2003). Lecturing for Learning’, in H. Fry, S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall (eds) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (London: Kogan Page), 75–90.
  • Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: shifting the focus from teaching to learning. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10-15.
  • Isacoff, J. B. (2014). Achieving what political science is for. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(4), 414-423.
  • Ishiyama, J. (2005). Examining the impact of the Wahlke Report: Surveying the structure of the political science curricula at liberal arts and sciences colleges and universities in the Midwest. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(1), 71-75.
  • Ishiyama, J., Breuning, M., & Lopez, L. (2006). A century of continuity and (little) change in the undergraduate political science curriculum. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 659-665.
  • Ishiyama, J., Miller, W. J., & Simon, E. (2015). Handbook on teaching and learning in political science and international relations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012). Enhancing politics teaching through active learning. In Teaching politics and international relations (pp. 51-64). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Lightfoot, S., & Maurer, H. (2013). Introduction: Teaching European studies-Old and new tools for student engagement. European Political Science, 13, 1-3.
  • Lupia, A. (2014). What is the value of social science? Challenges for researchers and government funders. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 1-7.
  • Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Scholarship of teaching: A study of the approaches of academic staff. Improving student learning: Improving student learning outcomes, 326-331.
  • McManus, M., & Taylor, G. (eds) (2009), Active Learning and Active Citizenship: Theoretical Contexts, C-SAP Monograph No.10 (Birmingham: C-SAP, the Higher Education Academy network).
  • Orr, D. (2004). Earth in mind. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  • Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1993). Listening at the learner’s level. Executive Educator, 15(4), 14-19.
  • Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2000). Politics and international relations’, available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk, 29.09.2020.
  • Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: improving teaching, in P. Ramsden (ed.), Improving learning: new perspectives, London: Kogan Page.
  • Reinalda, B. (2013). Introduction: How does European harmonization affect political science?. European Political Science, 12(4), 409-414.
  • Rorty, R. (1998). Achieving out country. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
  • Shellman, S. M., & Turan, K. (2006). Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(1), 19-32.
  • Smith, E. T., Boyer, M. A. (1996). Designing in-class simulations. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29(4), 690-694.
  • Stammers, N., Dittmar, H., & Henney, J. (1999). Teaching and Learning Politics: a Survey of Practices and Change in UK Universities’. Political Studies, XLVII, 114–26.
  • Wahlke, J. C. (1991). Liberal learning and the political science major: A report to the profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(1), 48-60.
  • Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Welch, P. (2000). Thinking about Teaching Politics. Politics, 20(2), 99-104.
  • Williamson, J., & Gregory, A. S. (2010). Problem-based learning in introductory American politics classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 6(3), 274-296.
  • Wood, B., & Moran, M. (1994). The engine room of instruction: small group teaching. Politics, 14(2), 83-90.

PARADIGMA CHANGE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 8, 229 - 240, 30.12.2020

Mustafa Kandırmaz

Öz

Öğrenci popülasyonun son yirmi yılda önemli ölçüde değişmiş olması sınıfların daha kalabalık olmasına yol açmış, bu durum da öğrenci özellikleri bazında daha geniş bir yetenek ve deneyim yelpazesi içermesine öncü olmuştur ancak siyaset biliminde, öğretme tarzı bu değişim yolunu henüz tam olarak izleyememiştir. Siyaset bilimi öğretimi, 1990'lardan bu yana çok farklı özelliklere sahip, artan öğrenci sayısının bir sonucu olarak yeni zorluklarla mücadele etmesi gerekmektedir. Geleneksel öğretim yöntemlerinin birçoğunun faydası olsa da bu kadar çeşitli öğrenci ve kalabalık sınıflar, öğretmenin zorluklarıyla başa çıkmak için yetersizdir. Bu çalışma, siyaset bilimi eğitimi geleneksel paradigmasının, bugün siyaset öğretimi için neden uygun olmadığını ve yapılandırmacı siyaset bilimi eğitimi paradigmasına dayalı aktif öğrenme ilkelerini kullanan yaklaşımların öğrencilerin bilişşsel ve duyuşşal davranışlarını geliştirmede neden daha etkili olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç çerçevesinde yapılan çalışma sonucunda aktif öğrenme ortamlarının siyaset bilimi öğretim programındaki etkilerinin henüz sistematik olarak çalışılmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu durumun iki sebebin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Birincil sebep olarak, siyaset bilimi öğretiminin henüz etki araştırmalarında uzman olan eğitim araştırmacılarının dikkatini çekmediği, ikincil sebep olarak ise, aktif öğrenme araçlarının siyaset bilimindeki etkisi hakkındaki çalışmaların büyük ölçüde etkilerin çalışılmasında yetkin olan ancak eğitim literatürüyle konuşamayan siyaset bilimcilerinin çalışmalarının olmasıdır. İfade edilen sebeplerden dolayı, eğitim bilimleri disiplini içinde öğrenme ortamı araştırması bilgisinin siyaset bilimi aktif öğrenme deneyimleri ile birleştirilmesinin mevcut araştırma alanını aktif öğrenme etkilerine genişleteceğinin üzerinde durulması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Siyasel bilimi, eğitim, paradigma değişikliği.

Kaynakça

  • AAC [American Association of Colleges]. (1991). Political Science. Reports from the Fields: Project on Liberal Learning, Study-in-Depth, and the Arts and Sciences Major, vol. 2.Washington: AAC.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2014). APSA task force on improving public perceptions of political science’s value. http://www.apsanet.org/reports, 25.08.2020.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2015a). Six Years of Political Science Doctoral Student Placement, 2009–14. http://www.apsanet.org/RESOURCES/Data-on-the-Profession, 25.09.2020.
  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (2015b). Political Science Education (Section 29). http://www.apsanet.org/section29, 25.09.2020.
  • Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 27(6), 12-26
  • Beltran, C., Cohen, C. J., Collier, D., Goldenberg, E., Keohane, R., Monroe, K., Wallerstein, M., Christopher H.A., & Smith, R. M. (2005). APSA task force on graduate education: 2004 report to the council. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(1), 129-135.
  • Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessmet. In M. Siegers, F. Dochy, & E. Canscallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp.13-36). Dordrecht: Springer/Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered eaching: a practical guide for faculty, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Boyer, E.L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered. New York: Jossey-Bass.
  • Breuning, M., Parker, P., & Ishiyama, J. (2001). The Last Laugh: Skill Building through a Liberal Arts Political Science Curriculum. PS: Political Science & Politics, 34, 657-661.
  • Brock, K. L., & Cameron, B. J. (1999). Enlivening political science courses with Kolb's learning preference model. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(2), 251-256.
  • Brown-Dean, K. L. (2015). Emphasizing the scholar in public scholarship. PS, Political Science & Politics, 48(S1), 55.
  • Cambridge, B. (2001). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning: Communities of practice. In To Improve the Academy, eds. D. Lieberman and C. Wehlburg. Bolton, MA: Anker, 3-16. Dewey, J. (1948). Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • ECPR. (2015). From Identity To Citizenship in The Global World: How Global Educational Institutions and Networks Can Contribute to A Culture of 'Global Citizenship, Contribute, C., Belyaeva, N. Ecpr Atölye Çalışmaları 2015 Ortaklığı (Varşova).
  • Exley, K., & Dennig, R. (2004). Giving a Lecture. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.
  • Fach, W. (2012). Tintenfische. Bologna und die professoren. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 41(3), 323-330.
  • Hamann, K., Pollock, P. H., & Wilson, B. M. (2009). Who SoTLs where? Publishing the scholarship of teaching and learning in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(4), 729-735. Horgan, J. (2003). Lecturing for Learning’, in H. Fry, S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall (eds) A Handbook for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (London: Kogan Page), 75–90.
  • Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: shifting the focus from teaching to learning. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10-15.
  • Isacoff, J. B. (2014). Achieving what political science is for. Journal of Political Science Education, 10(4), 414-423.
  • Ishiyama, J. (2005). Examining the impact of the Wahlke Report: Surveying the structure of the political science curricula at liberal arts and sciences colleges and universities in the Midwest. PS: Political Science & Politics, 38(1), 71-75.
  • Ishiyama, J., Breuning, M., & Lopez, L. (2006). A century of continuity and (little) change in the undergraduate political science curriculum. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 659-665.
  • Ishiyama, J., Miller, W. J., & Simon, E. (2015). Handbook on teaching and learning in political science and international relations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012). Enhancing politics teaching through active learning. In Teaching politics and international relations (pp. 51-64). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Lightfoot, S., & Maurer, H. (2013). Introduction: Teaching European studies-Old and new tools for student engagement. European Political Science, 13, 1-3.
  • Lupia, A. (2014). What is the value of social science? Challenges for researchers and government funders. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1), 1-7.
  • Martin, E., Benjamin, J., Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Scholarship of teaching: A study of the approaches of academic staff. Improving student learning: Improving student learning outcomes, 326-331.
  • McManus, M., & Taylor, G. (eds) (2009), Active Learning and Active Citizenship: Theoretical Contexts, C-SAP Monograph No.10 (Birmingham: C-SAP, the Higher Education Academy network).
  • Orr, D. (2004). Earth in mind. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  • Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1993). Listening at the learner’s level. Executive Educator, 15(4), 14-19.
  • Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2000). Politics and international relations’, available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk, 29.09.2020.
  • Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: improving teaching, in P. Ramsden (ed.), Improving learning: new perspectives, London: Kogan Page.
  • Reinalda, B. (2013). Introduction: How does European harmonization affect political science?. European Political Science, 12(4), 409-414.
  • Rorty, R. (1998). Achieving out country. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
  • Shellman, S. M., & Turan, K. (2006). Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(1), 19-32.
  • Smith, E. T., Boyer, M. A. (1996). Designing in-class simulations. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29(4), 690-694.
  • Stammers, N., Dittmar, H., & Henney, J. (1999). Teaching and Learning Politics: a Survey of Practices and Change in UK Universities’. Political Studies, XLVII, 114–26.
  • Wahlke, J. C. (1991). Liberal learning and the political science major: A report to the profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 24(1), 48-60.
  • Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Welch, P. (2000). Thinking about Teaching Politics. Politics, 20(2), 99-104.
  • Williamson, J., & Gregory, A. S. (2010). Problem-based learning in introductory American politics classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 6(3), 274-296.
  • Wood, B., & Moran, M. (1994). The engine room of instruction: small group teaching. Politics, 14(2), 83-90.
Toplam 43 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Eğitim Bilimleri
Yazarlar

Mustafa Kandırmaz 0000-0002-6931-7837

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 2 Aralık 2020
Kabul Tarihi 11 Aralık 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 8

Kaynak Göster

APA Kandırmaz, M. (2020). SİYASET BİLİMİ EĞİTİMİNDE PARADİGMA DEĞİŞİMİ. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(8), 229-240.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

The Aim of The Journal

The Journal of Interdisciplinary Educational Researches (JIER) published by the Interdisciplinary Educational and Research Association (JIER)A) is an internationally eminent journal.

JIER, a nonprofit, nonprofit NGO, is concerned with improving the education system within the context of its corporate objectives and social responsibility policies. JIER, has the potential to solve educational problems and has a strong gratification for the contributions of qualified scientific researchers.

JIER has the purpose of serving the construction of an education system that can win the knowledge and skills that each individual should have firstly in our country and then in the world. In addition, JIER serves to disseminate the academic work that contributes to the professional development of teachers and academicians, offering concrete solutions to the problems of all levels of education, from preschool education to higher education.

JIER has the priority to contribute to more qualified school practices. Creating and managing content within this context will help to advance towards the goal of being a "focus magazine" and "magazine school", and will also form the basis for a holistic view of educational issues. It also acts as an intermediary in the production of common mind for sustainable development and education