International Education Studies; Vol. 10, No.

12; 2017
ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Level of History Teachers’ Use Active Learning Methods and

Technics
Sefa YILDIRIM1, Özkan AKMAN2 & Bülent ALAGÖZ2
1
The Faculty of Art and Science, History Department, Agri Ibrahim Cecen University, Agri, Turkey
2
Nizip of Education Faculty, Social Studies Education, Gaziantep University, Turkey
Correspondence: Sefa YILDIRIM, The Faculty of Art and Science, History Department, Agri Ibrahim Cecen
University, Agri, Turkey. Tel: 90-472-215-9994. E-mail: prehistory_tr@windowslive.com

Received: July 29, 2017 Accepted: August 30, 2017 Online Published: November 28, 2017
doi:10.5539/ies.v10n12p140 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n12p140

Abstract
An experience theory is required if the education is to be wisely carried out (John Dewey). Education is a
discipline that saves lives if it is qualified, but loss of which could not be made up throughout generations if it is
not qualified. The roots of society are based on the education, and educated masses and civilizations could either
move into the future or could fall behind in the race of becoming civilized. The classical education notion which
stays on the level of theory and is carried out, centering the teacher is being left by the developed countries and
replaced with the education notion which centers the student and structures information by benefiting from
experiences, thus aims to lead civilization race with citizens knowing the ways to reach the information and
aware of their duties and responsibilities. While Kurt Lewin says nothing is as practical as a good theory, he also
catches attention to the new education notion centering student that has changed and is changing. In this scope,
the aim of this study is analyze how often active learning methods are used by history teachers through several
variables. In the light of the data, after analysis results and explanations made in accordance with these results
are written, the study is concluded with suggestions
Keywords: education, active learning, history teachers, discussion, thinking skills
1. Introduction
Societies are going through a period of social, economic, technological and political change that is called
globalization and is said turn the whole word into a small village. The spoken period is processing too fast and
changing the quality of individuals and international relations. In order to keep up with the globalization, it is
must to develop new notions. In that sense, one of the actors that help societies has concrete and positive results
will be the modern education regulations. In today’s world, where the technological developments unceasingly
break fresh ground, the advancements in the transportation tools, pushing the limits of the mind, close the
distances fast, information technologies make it possible to reach unapproachable areas with a single click, and
consequently reaching the information is easier than ever, the traditional education practices have come to the
point not to be able to meet the needs of the modern world. The change makes it a must to use new teaching
methods in the educational sciences. In that process, that the learner constructs knowledge efficiently in terms of
the relation between the subject and the object, a principle of modern education notion, is becoming prominent
beyond superficial knowledge acquisition, which is a part of traditional education notion.
The relation between learning and teaching and student and teacher takes shape through a pedagogical approach.
This approach underlines the importance that students take an active role to create the knowledge, instead of
learning it passively. According to the traditional education approach, the teacher collects the knowledge and
transfers it to the student. According to the modern education approach, however, by making daily events
real-life problems, the teacher guides student to improve their problem solving skills by thinking analytical and
creatively and therefore makes learning easier (Wright, Pearson, & Lloyd, 2007). According to the spoken
approach under the umbrella of the cognitive approach, student is no longer passive and becoming active and
also taking his/her part in the process as the one who does not memorize the knowledge but construct it. Students
who take active roles get rid of their responsibilities of the behavioral approach and take their new
responsibilities in the process of active learning.

140
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

As writers of different areas interpret several words in different ways, it is not possible to make a definition of
active learning that can be accepted universally. Surprisingly, the way educators use the term of “active learning”
is more based on intuitional understanding than a common definition. In addition to this, it is possible to
emphasize on the differences about how much universal some definitions and terms that are generally accepted.
Active learning is generally defined as any kind of teaching method that guides students during the process of
learning. In short, active learning requires students to carry out meaningful learning activities and think about
what they do. Yet, many academicians claim that the whole learning is naturally active and that students actively
participate in the class while listening to official presentations. However, the analysis of the study literature
shows that students ought to do more than mere listening. They should read, write, discuss or try to solve
problems. Most importantly, in order for students to participate in the active learning, they should take on the
high level tasks of thinking such as analysis, syntheses and evaluation. Most significantly, they should improve
their high level thinking skills such as analysis, syntheses and evaluation so that they could participate in active
learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
Active learning means the activities introduced in the class. The main elements of it are student’s activeness and
participation during the process of learning. Active learning is generally compared to the traditional class in
which students passively get knowledge from the educators (Prince, 2004). Many educators accept that the ideal
learning experience comes from the classes in which students are prepared to actively construct knowledge and
get in the process of learning, instead of taking knowledge passively, and the teachers who teach those classes.
This approach is generally called “active learning” (Cook & Babon, 2016; Gibbs, 1992). Even if the active
learning does not have a universal definition, Scheyvens et al. (2008) make the best definition of the active
learning by saying what it is not: students passively listen to the speech given by the instructor. Those who
support active learning claim that active learning methods could contribute to the development of high level
thinking skills in students. And this will encourage a “deeper” approach that forms a basis for students to learn
and to make some meaning of the knowledge (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Gibbs, 1992; Hanson & Moser, 2003;
Scheyvens et al., 2008).
Bonwell and Eison (1991, p. 19), have listed the various features of active learning:
• Students do more than listening;
• The transition of the knowledge and the development of the students’ skills are less emphasized;
• Students start thinking in high level (in other words analysis, syntheses and evaluation);
• Students take part in activities (ex. Reading, discussion and writing);
• More importance should be put on students to discover their own attitudes and values.
In real, students, instead of learning via classes, learn beforehand and they revise, analyze and examine what
they learn through the interaction with other students and instructors (Cook & Babon, 2016). But, especially the
big and telling-based classes could pose a hindrance to encourage active learning for both educators and students
(Buckley, Bain, Luginbuhl, & Dyer, 2004; Klein, 2003). Literature underlines the importance of the fact that
students should be able to discuss the learning process through such technics as discussion, problem solving,
presentations, group working and role playing and that this process should be inter-active as much as possible so
that they could take part in it (Gibbs, 1992; Revell & Wainwright, 2009). Additionally, students should be
prepared with the required information and confident to be able to participate in group discussions about the
basic concepts while coming to the class. It has been notified by the academicians that preparations works like
reading the texts before the class increase the capacity and the confident of the students to participate in the class
(Revell & Wainwright, 2009; Scheyvens et al., 2008; Williams, 1992).
Collaborator learning might refer to any kind of teaching method in which students work as small groups
towards a single and common aim (Millis & Cottel, 1998). Therefore, it could be viewed that the collaborator
learning contains all teaching methods that are group-based, including cooperative learning (Millis & Cottell,
1998; Felder, Brent, & Stice, 2002). However, some writers divide collaborator learning from cooperative
learning due to the fact that they are based on different historical developments and philosophical roots (Bruffee,
1995). In both interpretations, the main element of the cooperative learning is the emphasis on the student
interaction, instead of seeing learning as a single activity (Prince, 2004).
Cooperative learning could be defined as a structured group work in which students follow their common goals
while they are evaluated individually (Millis & Cottell, 1997; Feden & Vogel, 2003). While there are different
cooperative learning models existing (Slavin, 1983; Stahl, 1994), the common view is that the focus should be
on cooperation, instead of competition, to encourage learning (Prince, 2004).

141
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

Active learning has recently been catching much more attention. Generally, it has been presented or perceived as
a radical change to the traditional learning and has been discussed within poles. Active learning has attracted
strong supporters from the instructors among which there are ones looking for alternatives to the traditional
education methods. However, skeptical instructors perceive it as another actor in a long line of educational
orientations (Ptrince, 2004).
Prince (2004) approached to the topic within engineering, and mentioned about questions for many instructors
about what the active learning is and how much it is different from traditional engineering education. He
underlined that the engineering teaching is already an “active” one due to the assignments and laboratories. In
addition to the confusions, he defended how the common forms of active learning and engineering faculty are
different from one another and most of the engineering faculties do not tend to research the educational literature
for the answers.
On the other hand, Gal, Islam, and Ghahramani (2017) and Cohn, Ghahramani, and Jordan (1986) expressed that
active learning had positive results in the field of mechanical engineering. They drew attention to the fact that
one of the biggest problems in mechanical operations is to obtain labelled data and this could be a long, tiring
and expensive process and could cause the distribution of mechanical learning systems to be non-affordable.
While defending that a system learns from little data and a frame in which user can himself choose which
knowledge to be labelled would be a frame which could operate mechanical learning more broadly, they added
that such frames in the field of education are called active learning. Again, while Gonen, Sabato, and
Shalev-Shwartz (2013), Zuluaga, Sergent, Krause, and Püscheş (2013), Du et al. (2017), who question the place
of active learning in mechanical engineering teaching, expressed that active learning is a repetitive sampling &
labelling procedure and in each repetition, a sample is chosen for hand-labelling and this is expected to increase
the performance of the assortative, approved the activity of active learning from a different perspective.
Another study by Streveler and Menekse (2017), which approaches to the subject from engineering perspective,
starts with questioning the risk of asking whether active learning is beneficial or not and shows that they carry
two concerns within that scope. According to the authors, this question is not answered clearly. In real, the
meta-analysis done by Freeman, Eddy, McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor, Jordth, and Wenderoth (2014) concluded
that the active students averagely learn more than the passive ones. The significance of this difference matched
up with the findings of the study conducted by Springer, Stanne & Donovan (1999). Prince (2004) underlined
that active learning does not cause statistically a significant difference, but there are generally positive views
about active learning in the literary review in which he put forward the roles of the activity-based learning and
passive learning methods for the engineering education. These consistent results make us sure that active
learning methods make learning attractive for students and therefore there emerges a positive increase in learning
(Streveler & Menekse, 2017).
Including the reports of National Research Council (Bransford, Brown & Cocking 2000), American Psychology
Association (1997) and many other academicians (Baxter-Magolda, 1999; Boyatzis, Cowen & Kolb 1995;
Keeton, Sheckley & Griggs 2002; Light, 2001; Mentkowski and Associates, 2000; Zull 2002), the attempts to
improve higher education concentrate on improvement of the process of learning in education by operating the
research called “the new science of research” (Branford et al., 2000). Some of those researches focus on the
notion of experiential learning. Experiential learning is mis-taught to students as the tools and methods to gain
the experiences that they could learn. However, the experiential learning is more than anything an education
philosophy based on the thing Dewey (1938) called as “experience theory”. According to Dewey (1938), the
traditional education was defined by the practical tradition; it did not need the theory very much. But, the new
experiential the approach to education needed a solid experience of practice to lead the action. In this paper, we
examine the experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and related studies, and how this knowledge could be used
to increase the learning in higher education (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
2. Method
2.1 Aim of the Study
The aim of this study is to evaluate the active learning methods and technics used by history teachers in classes
in terms of various reliables (sex, abroad experience, work experience and participation in conferences).
2.2 Participants of the Study
This study was conducted with history teachers working in the towns called Erzurum, Sivas, Ağrı, Gaziantep and
Tokay in 2014-2015 school year fall and spring semesters. The total participants are 123. 79 of the participants
(64.2%) are men, 44 ones (35.5 %) are women. 103 of the participants (83.7%) have bachelor’s degree, 20 ones

142
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

(16.3%) have master’s degree. 80 ones of the participants (65%) are history graduates, 43 ones (35%) are history
teaching graduates. 4 of the participants (3.3%) have abroad experiences, while 119 one (96.7%) have never
been to abroad. In terms of professional seniority, 20 ones (16.3%) are 0-1 year, 51 ones (41.5%) are in 1-5 years,
20 ones (16.3%) are in 6-10 years, 12 ones (9.8%) are in 11-15 years, 8 ones (6.3%) are in 21-25 years and 12
ones (9.8%) are in 26-30 years. 16 of the participants consisted of trainee teachers (13.00%), 87 of them are
regular teachers (70.7%) and 20 ones consisted of administrators (16.3%). 40 of the participants work in the
districts (32,5%), and 83 ones work in the city centers (67.5)%. When it comes to the educational events such as
seminars and workshops that participants take part in to improve themselves, while 71 of them have participated
(57.7%), 52 ones have never done so (42.3%).
2.3 The Research Design
In this study, relational screening model that is one of the quantitative research techniques was used. Relational
screening models are research models that aim to define the existence of covariance between two or more
variables and its level (M. Gall, J. Gall, & Borg, 2014). In descriptive analysis, what events, objects, beings and
institutions and various areas are (Kaptan, 1991) are tried to be explained with descriptive statistics like
frequencies, percentage, average and standard deviation.
2.4 Data Collection Tools
The data of the study was obtained by usinf the “Survey of Active Learning Methods and Technics” prepared by
the researcher. Before scale form was operated on the study group, validity and reliability works were done and
Cronbach Alpha Reliability Index was calculated as 0.83. The survey consists of 73 articles that are about active
learning methods and technics level of knowledge. The scale that was prepared in fivefold likert scale was
operated as “I don’t know at all, I know little, I know but I never used, I know and I sometimes use, I know and I
most of the time use”. Participants gave points to this fivefold likert type survey, ranging from 1 to 5.
2.5 Data Analysis
The data analysis was evaluated with One Way ANOVA and Post Hoc Turkey Test methods by using SPSS 18.00
package program. Also, correlation analyses were made for frequencies and percentage calculations. As the
articles 21th and 23th were not commented by the participants at all, there emerged no value. The values like
variance and average about active learning methods and technics are presented in no. 1.
3. Findings and Comments
In this section, independent t test analyzes of teachers' use of active learning methods and techniques according
to gender, foreign country experience and participation in seminars related to professional experience; according
to the position of the place where he worked, according to the division in which he graduated, the year of his
seniority, the status at the school where he was employed Anova test analysis is conducted. Independent t test
analysis results are given in Table 1 according to gender differences.

Table 1. Independent t test results according to gender differences

Gender n average sh F t df p
Man 79 208.8734 5.79580 .259 -1.065 121 .289
Woman 44 215.0455 5.37311 -1.149 109.387 .253

As it is seen in Table 1, there is no significant difference between teachers' gender differences (p> 0.05).
Independent t test analysis results according to foreign country experience are given in Table.

Table 2. Independent t test analysis results according to foreign country experience

Having experience of going abroad n average sh F t df p
yes 4 239.0000 2.83324 6.175 1.860 121 .000
no 119 210.1429 10.185 118.000

As it is seen in Table 2, there is a significant difference (p <0.05) in favor of teachers with foreign experience
according to the results of the independent t test according to the experiences of the teachers abroad. Accordingly,
it is seen that teachers who have experience going abroad use more active learning techniques and methods.
Table 3 gives the results of independent t test analysis according to participation in seminars related to

143
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

professional experience.

Table 3. The results of independent t test analysis according to participation in seminars related to professional
experience
Participation in seminars n x sh F t df p
Yes 71 202.5493 3.20178 8.174 -3.777 121 .000
No 52 222.7308 4.46058 -3.676 98.116

As it is seen in Table 3, independent t test results according to participation in seminars, workshops and training
programs related to professional experiences reveals significant results in favor of teachers who did not
participate in these studies (p <0.05). Teachers who did not participate in the seminars are more likely to use
active learning techniques and methods. In this case, the result is that the seminars are not done in a proper way
for the purpose. The analysis results of Anova test according to the department that the teacher graduated in table
4 are given.

Table 4. Anova test according to the department that the teacher graduated
Department N average sd sh Ki-kare df f p
History 80 208.8250 28.30743 3.16487 1 1.228 0.270
History Teaching 43 215.2791 35.00770 5.33862 121
Total 123 211.0813 30.82755 2.77963 122
Between Groups 1164.986
In Groups 114776.201
Total 115941.187

As it is shown in Table 4, in terms of the departments where the teachers graduated no significant difference is
found according to the results of Anova test (p> 0.05). It is seen that the teachers’ use of the active learning
methods and techniques are not affected by the departments they graduated. Table 5 shows the results of the
Anova test analysis according to the seniority year in the profession.

Table 5. The results of the Anova test analysis according to the seniority year in the profession
the seniority year in the profession N average sd sh kikare df f p
0-1 Year 20 253.8000 16.76337 3.74840 5 15.739 .000
1- 5 Years 51 205.3137 23.32423 3.26605 117
6-10 Years 20 206.6000 18.23357 4.07715 122
11-15 Years 12 202.6667 21.78128 6.28771
21-25 Years 8 187.5000 59.33200 20.97703
26-30 Years 12 196.0000 7.38549 2.13201
Total 123 211.0813 30.82755 2.77963
Between Groups 46623.540
In Groups 69317.647
Total 115941.187

As it is seen in Table 5, according to the results of the Anova test in terms of the seniority of the profession, it is
found that it is significant for the teachers between 0-1 years in the profession (p <0.05). According to this, it is
seen that teachers who are between 0-1 in profession use active learning methods and techniques more. Teachers
with more seniority in the profession have seen less use of these methods and techniques. Table 6 gives the
results of Anova test analyzes according to their positions in the school where they are working.

144
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

Table 6. Anova test analysis according to their positions in the school where they are working
Their positions in the school N average sd sh Ki-kare df F p
Intern 16 232.5000 33.59762 8.39940 2 6.944 .001
Principal Teacher 87 210.6552 26.72418 2.86513 120
Administrator 20 195.8000 36.68013 8.20193 122
Total 123 211.0813 30.82755 2.77963
Between Groups 12026.332
In Groups 103914.855
Total 115941.187

As it is shown in Table 6, the results of the Anova test according to the positions of the teachers in the schools
are important for the intern teachers (p <0.05). It has been understood that teachers who started teaching in
schools use more active learning methods and techniques than administrators or principle teachers who work in
schools. Among these teachers, it is revealed that administrators use less of these methods and techniques.
According to the position of the place in Table 7, Anova test is given to the analysis results.

Table 7. Anova test results according to the position of the place where they work
Geographical Position N ortalama sd sh Ki-kare df f p
Province 40 236.4500 29.76054 4.70555 1 59.338 .000
City 83 198.8554 22.96611 2.52086 121
Total 123 211.0813 30.82755 2.77963 122
Between Groups 38149.022
In Groups 77792.165
Total 115941.187

As shown in Table 7, the results of the Anova test based on the geographical location of the teachers' working
place are significant in favor of teachers in the province (p <0.05). According to the teachers in the province,
they are using more active learning methods and techniques.
4. Conclusion and Suggestions
The data shows that there is no statistically meaningful difference between sex and active learning. Erdem, Uzal,
and Ersoy (2006, also concluded that there is no difference between science and physics teachers’ level of
teaching methods use and their sexes in the study they conducted nationwide. And Narin and Aybek (2010)
reported that social studies teachers’ choice of teaching methods do not show a meaningful difference
statistically in terms of sexes, teaching methods choices do not change because of sexes. According to the
researchers, considering that analytical thinking skills do not change due to sexes, it could be an expected result
that teaching methods used by teachers who have high capacity of analytical thinking are the methods that make
students active, reach the conclusion on their own, learn by living, ask, question and those that aim to raise
individuals who are open to discuss different ideas. On the other hand, Tokdemir (2013), who has researched
about history teachers’ ideas and methods about the use of discussion method for teaching secondary education
history class, has reported that while history teachers’ ideas about the use of discussion change due to the type of
school, professional seniority and their sexes, it is observed that the type of school from which they graduated do
not have an effect, which could not be said to be meaningful, on the use of discussion method in history classes.
Lastly Uzal, Erdem and Ersoy (2016), could not find any meaningful difference between maths/sciences (science
and technology) teachers’ sexes and their ideas about in-class teaching methods.
The findings of the study show that teachers with abroad experience use active learning methods and technics
more often. It could be said that the teachers who spent some time especially in the Western countries, whose
education system is improved, saw the right examples about the enough use of methods and technics in question
by living is effective on this result. Studies show that constructed operations are the most frequently referred
teaching methods in other countries. The most significant difference between Turkey and international averages
is that small group works and the check of assignments are less often referred in Turkey (Martin, Mullis, & Foy,
2009; OECD, 2009; Uzal et al., 2016).
It was observed that the teachers who do not attend in-service education seminars are more often to use active

145
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

learning technics and methods. Thus, it becomes clear that seminars are not organized in the way that is not
suitable for their purposes. Narin and Aybek (2010) also concluded that the teaching methods social studies
teachers prefer do not change in accordance with whether taking in-service education seminar or not. In the study,
in which it is expressed that the reason for this is that in-service education seminars are not organized suitable for
their purpose, the teachers have commented that in-service education services are organized in a limited amount
of time, as big crowded groups and mostly not given by individuals who are experts in their fields. In that sense,
it has been assumed that either the teachers do not benefit enough from in-service education seminars or
in-service education seminars could not fill their purpose (Narin & Aybek, 2010).
In the light of findings of the study, the history teachers expressed that among active learning methods and
technics, while they most frequently use “problem solving” (avg. 3.9), “examining sample event” (avg. 3.9),
“brain storming” (avg. 3.8), “developing project” (3.7) and “thinking otherwise” (avg. 3.7), those they less
frequently use are “find the treasure” (avg. 1.9), “snowball” (1,9) and “jigsaw” (avg. 1.7). Question-answer
technic, which is one of the traditional teaching methods and technics, is in the middle with 2.2 average. V.
Aktepe and L. Aktepe (2009) found that telling is the most frequently used method in science and technology
teaching. The second and the third methods are experimenting in either laboratory or in classroom. While student
is passive for telling, s/he is active for the experiment. The students want the discussion method, but its ratio is
so low. Question-answer, “tour” outside of class or school and “observation”, project and problem solving
methods are occasionally used, but drama is never used (V. Aktepe & L. Aktepe, 2009). Çelikkaya and Kuş
(2009) put forward that while social studies generally teachers use technics and methods like discussion,
question-answer, brain storming, presentation, project all the time, they use technics and methods such as
benefiting from the source person, tour-observation, telling and drama quite less often. Öztürk (2004) has
expressed that geography teachers keep on using classical teaching methods, but they “never” use the method of
tour-observation, which is one of the irreplaceable elements for geography teaching. According to the author,
teachers has expressed that question-answer method is mostly used, while the students has expressed it is only
mere telling method. Whereas teachers said the less frequently used method is the project, the students made it
clear that it is tour-observation method that they less frequently encounter. Şimşek, Hırça, and Coşkun (2012)
have expressed that the active learning methods science and technology teachers most frequently use are
“question-answer, telling and problem solving” (telling is not actually an active learning method), and the
methods they less frequently use are “tour-observation and project developing”. Yıldırım (2011) concluded that
science and technology and math teachers use the teaching methods in which students are passive in almost
every single class. On the other hand, Yıldırım discovered that the constructed, practical classes in which student
are active occurs between 25% and 50%. The number of the studies which claim that project developing method
is not paid enough attention by the teachers is quite high (Aydede, Çağlayan, Matyar, & Gülnaz, 2006; Duban &
Küçükyılmaz, 2008; Aktepe & Aktepe, 2009; Güneş, Dilek, Hoplan, Çelikoğlu, & Demir, 2010; Geçer & Özel,
2012; Güneş, Dilek, Çelikoğlu, & Demir, 2012; Uzal et al., 2016).
The discussion, one of the important active learning methods, could not be used in the classes very often due to
both lack of capacity and the concerns caused by it. The average of 2,7 ratio also contributes to this scene. In
literature, there are researches which defend the idea that because of both the sensitiveness of the topic (Akman,
2016; Byford, Lennon, & Russel, 2009; Demircioğlu, 2016; Hess, 2004; Kaya, Güven, & Günal, 2013; Philpott,
Clabough, McConey, & Turner, 2011; Reitano, Kivunja, & Porter, 2008; Seng & Jaffar, 2014; Stradling, Noctor,
& Baines, 1984; Waliaula, 2011; Zembylas & Kambani, 2012) and that it is a method that is time consuming and
requires being prepared (Dean & Joldoshaieva, 2007; Dube, 2015; McKernan, 1982; Merryfield, 1993; Oulton,
Day, Dillon, & Marcus, 2004; Waliaula, 2011), social studies teachers do not include this method in classes very
much while teaching controversial topics.
The departments from which the teachers have graduated do not affect the active learning methods and technics
they use. In other words, no relation between the teaching methods history teachers prefer and the higher
education institution from which they have graduated could be found. Therefore, it could be said that the higher
education institutions from which the teachers have graduated do not affect the teaching methods they prefer. But,
Erdem et al. (2006) put forward that science and physics teachers’ level of use of teaching methods could change
in accordance with the education institutions from which they have graduated.
It was observed that teachers who have work a year or less work experiences tend to use active teaching methods
and technics more, and those who have high professional seniority tend to use them less. It was understood that
in schools, the teachers who just started their profession use the active learning methods and technics much more,
in comparison to the administrators or regulars teachers working in school. Besides, Şimşek, Hırça, and Coşkun
(2012), has caught attention to the fact that the science and technology teachers who just started their careers are

146
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

more willing to use active learning methods and technics more, and explained that the reason why is they are
more idealist. According to the study, the more they gain experience, the less idealist they become (Şimşek,
Hırça, & Coşkun, 2012). Erdem et al. (2006) concluded that the teachers’ level of use of teaching methods
differentiates in accordance with professional seniority, but it does not change in terms of the type of school in
which they work. However, it is also known that in recent years, Education Faculties have been organizing their
education programs according to the constructive approach and it is recommended that classes be based on
teacher candidates and be taught in parallel with new approach and developments and this view is placed in the
operations. But, the level of the fact that these suggestions and expectations take place is yet low and change and
improvement should be provided. It could be foreseen that teachers that have been working in school for so long
and have not had the opportunity and chance to refresh themselves have more needs and lacks in the spoken
subject (Uzal et al., 2016). Narin and Aybek (2010), who has reached conclusion opposing to the finding, have
determined that there is a difference in favor of those who have higher professional seniority in the relation
between teachers’ professional seniority and the active learning methods they choose to use.
That the teachers are not good enough at using different teaching methods together could be resulted from lack
of information about method features, lack of understanding of the importance of using them together and lack
of experience in these areas. Besides, the concern to finish off the class in time might be effective on this. For,
using different methods could require more time. Yeşil (2006) notified significant inadequacies at using methods
in the study Yeşil conducted on the teaching quality of social studies teachers. According to Özkal, Güngör, and
Çetingöz (2004), one of the important reasons why students do not choose social studies is the teaching methods
that are used. Doğan (2004) notified that the methods that teachers mostly prefer are question-answer, telling and
discussion. Apart from that, Emiroğlu (2002) concluded that T.R revolution history and kemalism class teachers
could not move beyond the classical choices when it comes to the use and choosing of teaching methods in the
study conducted by Emiroğlu. And the mentioned classical methods are knowledge-based and do not require
material use (Yeşil, 2009).
The data shows that history teachers give place to computer aided teaching technics in their classes (avg. 3.6).
Yet, according to the data of international research, computer and educational technologies are not very much
used in Turkey. According to 58,8 % of the students, computer and educational technologies are rarely used
(Yıldırım, 2011). According to the national data, however, the situation in our country is much more optimistic
(Uzal et al., 2016). Nevertheless, teachers could not make students participate actively in teaching activities in
classes/lessons (Yıldırım, 2011; Uzal et al., 2016).
One of the requirements for teachers to use active learning methods and technics efficiently is to develop skills
of critical-creative thinking and problem solving. For, the teachers who could improve these skills will also
prefer the teaching methods that aim to improve these skills more. In other words, since critical thinking require
to question, research, and think scientifically, the methods the teachers with high level of capacity to think
critically prefer to use for teaching classes will also be active learning methods.
That some of the public funding is spared in order for teachers to gain abroad experience will also have a
positive effect on teachers’ use of active learning methods and technics in their classes. Especially, a research trip
organized for the countries that have well developed education system will contribute a lot to teachers.
It is a surprising and saddening result that the teachers that do not attend in-service education seminars use active
learning methods and technics more efficiently. The purpose of the seminars in question should be to tell the
recent innovations and developments in education to teachers. It could be claimed that a seminar understanding
that does not teach active learning.
When the literature is examine, it is observed that teacher-based teaching method is not very common, it is not
left out altogether, yet. When Einstein said “I do not teach my students, I teach them how to learn, he pointed out
the inadequacies of classical education approach and what is important is that student learn by himself/herself. In
order to do that, the teacher candidates should graduate, acquiring the reading habit and embracing the
discussion culture. The idealism of the newly graduate teachers is very much important, even essential for this
matter. It will play an essential role to create an education army full of qualified teachers that are ready to
improve themselves and constantly refresh themselves in order to endure the struggles of teaching occupation
and to have inner satisfaction. Therefore, it will play the most significant and essential role for the teachers that
both increase the quality of their classes and, by centering students, raise qualified individuals with citizenship
consciousness and responsibility that construct knowledge according to their own experiences by using different
active learning methods and technics together.

147
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

References
Akman, Ö. (2016). Status of the Usage of Active Learning and Teaching Method and Techniques by Social
Studies Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1553-1562.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040708
Aktepe,V., & Aktepe, L. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde kullanılan öğretim yöntemlerine ilişkin öğrenci
görüşleri: Kırşehir BİLSEM örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(10), 69-80.
American Psychological Association Board of Affairs. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A
framework for school redesign and reform. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html
Aydede, M. N., Çağlayan, Ç., Matyar, F., & Gülnaz, O. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları
öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerine ilişkin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. ÇÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(32),
24-33.
Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George
Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.
Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps on a journey
from teaching to learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L, & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind experience, and school.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722
Buckley, G. L., Bain, N. R., Luginbuhl, A. M., & Dyer, M. L. (2004). Adding an “active learning” component to
a large lecture course. Journal of Geography, 103(6), 231-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340408978607
Byford, J., Lennon, S., & Russel, W. B. (2009). Teaching controversial issues in the social studies: a research
study of high school teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,
82(4), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.82.4.165-170
Çelikkaya, T., & Kuş, Z. (2009). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları yöntem ve teknikler. Uludağ
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 741-758.
Cohn, D. A., Ghahramani, Z., & Jordan, M. I. (1986). Active learning with statistical models. Journal of
artificial intelligence research, 4, 129-145.
Cook, B. R., & Babon, A. (2016). Active learning through online quizzes: better learning and less (busy) work.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1185772
Dean, B., & Joldoshaieva, R. (2007). Key strategies for teachers new to controversial issues. In H. Claire, & C.
Holden (Eds), The Challenge of Teaching Controversial Issues (pp. 175-187). Trentham Books Limited:
USA.
Demircioğlu, İ. H. (2016). Tarih derslerinde tartışmalı konuların kullanımı: Türk tarih öğretmenlerinin görüşleri.
Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(1), 147-162.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Doğan, C. (2004). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin derslere ilişkin görüşleri ve tercih ettikleri öğretim yöntemleri. Türk
Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 193-203.
Du, B., Wang, Z., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Liu, W., Shen, J., & Tao, D. (2017). Exploring representativeness and
informativeness for active learning. IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 47(1), 14-26.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2015.2496974
Duban, N., & Küçükyılmaz, E. A. (2008). Primary education pre-service teacher’s opinions regarding to the use
of alternative measurement-evalution methods and techniques in practice schools. Elemantary Education
Online, 7(3), 769-784.
Dube, O. (2009). Addressing current controversial issues through the social studies curriculum: making social
studies come alive. European Journal of Educational Studies, 1(1), 25-34.

148
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

Erdem,A., Uzal, G., & Ersoy, Y., (2006). Fen Bilgisi/Fizik Öğretmenlerinin Eğitim Sorunları: Gelişmeleri
Sürekli İzlemeleri ve Gerekli Yenilikleri Edinmeleri (Araştırma Raporu). TFV Yayını, Tekirdağ.
Feden, P. D., & Vogel, R. M. (2003). Methods of teaching: Applying cognitive science to promote student
learning. McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages.
Felder, R., Brent, R., & Stice, J. (2002). National Effective Teaching Institute: Workshop Materials. In 2002
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319-8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gal, Y., Islam, R., & Ghahramani, Z. (2017). Deep Bayesian Active Learning with Image Data. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1703.02910.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2014). Applying educational research: How to read, do, and use research
to solve problems of practice. Pearson Higher Ed.
Geçer, A., & Özel, R. (2012). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin öğrenmeöğretme sürecinde
yaşadıkları sorunlar (English). Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 2237-2255.
Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning: Based on the Improving Student Learning Project
funded by the Council for National Academic Awards. Technical and Education Services.
Gonen, A., Sabato, S., & Shalev-Shwartz, S. (2013). Efficient active learning of halfspaces: An aggressive
approach. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1), 2583-2615.
Günal, H., & Kaya, R. (2016). Tarih Öğretmenlerinin Tartışmalı ve Hassas Konuların Öğretimi Sırasında
Yaşadıkları Çekince ve Sorunlar (Erzurum Örneği). Türk Tarih Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(1), 44-73.
Güneş,T., Dilek, N. Ş., Çelikoğlu, M., & Demir, E. S. (2012). The using of the teaching methods and techniques
by science and technology teachers and class teachers. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2),
82-91.
Güneş,T., Dilek, N. Ş., Hoplan, M., Çelikoğlu, & Demir, E. S. (2010). Öğretmenlerin alternatif değerlendirme
konusundaki görüşleri ve yaptıkları uygulamalar. In International Conference on New Trends in Education
and Their Implications, 11-13.
Hanson, S., & Moser, S. (2003). Reflections on a discipline-wide project: Developing active learning modules on
the human dimensions of global change. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(1), 17-38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309826032000062441
Hess, D. (2004). Controversies about controversial issues in democratic education. PS: Political science and
politics, 257-261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096504004196
Kaptan, S. (1991). Bilimsel araştırma ve istatistik teknikleri. Gazi Üniversitesi.
Kaya, R., Güven, A., & Günal, H. (2013). Öğretmenlerin gözüyle çağdaş tarihin öğretimi: Erzurum Örneği.
Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD), 6(16), 555-587.
Keeton, M. T., Sheckley, B. G., & Griggs, J. K. (2002). Efficiency and effectiveness in higher education.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.
King, P. M. (2003). Student learning in higher education. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodward, Jr., & Associates
(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 234-268). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Klein, P. (2003). Active learning strategies and assessment in world geography classes. Journal of Geography,
102(4), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340308978539
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in
higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193-212.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Martin, M., Mullis, I., & Foy, P. (2009). TIMSS 2007 international science report. Boston College: TIMSS &

149
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

PIRLS International Study Center.

McKernan, J. (1982). Constraints on the handling of controversial issues in Northern Ireland post-primary
schools. British Educational Research Journal, 8(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192820080106
Mentkowski, M., & Associates. (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development and performance
in college and beyond. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Merryfield, M, M. (1993). Responding to Gulf War: a case study of instructional decision making. Social
Education, 57(1), 33-41.
Millis, B. J., & Cottell Jr, P. G. (1997). Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Series on Higher
Education. Oryx Press, PO Box 33889, Phoenix, AZ 85067-3889.
Narin, N., & Aybek, B. (2010). İlköğretim ikinci kademe sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin eleştirel düşünme
becerilerinin incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(1), 336-350.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD
Pub. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-en
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., & Marcus, M. M. (2004). Controversial issues-teachers' attitudes and practices in
the context of citizenship education, Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489-507.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303973
Özkal, N., Güngör, A., & Çetingöz, D. (2004). Sosyal bilgiler dersine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri ve öğrencilerin
bu derse yönelik tutumları. Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 40, 600-615.
Öztürk, Ç. (2004). Ortaöğretim coğrafya öğretmenlerinin öğretim yöntem ve teknikleri kullanabilme
yeterlilikleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 75-83.
Philpott, S., Clabough, J., McConkey, L., & Turner, T. N. (2011). Controversial issues: to teach or not to teach?
That is the question! The Georgia Social Studies Journal, 1(1), 32‐44.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3),
223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Reitano, P., Kivunja, C., & Porter, K. (2008). Teaching controversial issues in schools to prepare children for a
sustainable global village. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)
Conference Brisbane, November 30-December 4.
Revell, A., & Wainwright, E. (2009). What makes lectures ‘unmissable’? Insights into teaching excellence and
active learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 209-223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260802276771
Scheyvens, R., Griffin, A. L., Jocoy, C. L., Liu, Y., & Bradford, M. (2008). Experimenting with active learning in
geography: Dispelling the myths that perpetuate resistance. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,
32(1), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731496
Seng, L. K., & Jaffar, J. (2014). Academic controversy and Singapore history: context, teachers and subpublics.
In M. Baildon, L. K. Seng, I. M. Lim, G. İnanç, & J. Jaffar (Eds.), Controversial History Education in Asian
Contexts (pp. 165-180). London and New York: Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group.
Şimşek, H., Hırça, N., & Coşkun, S. (2012). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmenlerinin Öğretim Yöntem ve
Tekniklerini Tercih ve Uygulama Düzeyleri: Şanlıurfa ili Örneği. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(18), 249-268.
Slavin, R., (1983). Cooperative Learning. Research on Teaching Monograph Series. ERIC Digest ED242707.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Education Research, 69,
21-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
Stahl, R. J. (1994). The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. ERIC Digest.
Stradling, R., Noctor, M., & Baines, B. (1984). An overview. In S. Hill, & C. C. Reid (Eds.), Teaching
Controversial Issues. Great Britain: Edward Arnold. 103-116.
Streveler, R. A., & Menekse, M. (2017). Taking a Closer Look at Active Learning. Journal of Engineering
Education, 106(2), 186-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20160
Tokdemir, M. A. (2013). Ortaöğretim tarih dersinin öğretiminde tartışma yöntemine ilişkin öğretmenlerin görüş

150
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

ve uygulamaları (Ankara ili örneği) (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Uzal, G., Erdem, A., & Ersoy, Y. (2016). Bir grup matematik ve fen bilimleri öğretmeninin sınıf içinde
gerçekleştirdikleri öğretim etkinliklerinin incelenmesi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 64-85.
Waliaula, A. J. (2011). Teaching local and global controversial issues in the social studies education: a
comparative study of Kenyan and US high schools (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of The Ohio State,
Ohio, USA.
Williams, A. M. (1997). Making the most of assigned readings: Some alternative strategies. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269708725442
Wright, S., Pearson, S. S., & Lloyd, K. (2007). An Interwoven Learning Exchange: Transforming Research
Teaching Relationships in the Top End, Northern Australia, Geographical Research, 45(2), 150-157.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00444.x
Yeşil, R. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi öğretim yeterlikleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 61-78.
Yeşil, R. (2009). Sosyal Bilgiler Aday Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf İçi Öğretim Yeterlilikleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri
Dergisi, 7(2), 327-352.
Yıldırım, K. (2011). Uluslararası araştırma verilerine göre Türkiye’de ilköğretim fen ve teknoloji derslerindeki
öğretim uygulamaları. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(1), 153-174.
Zembylas, M. and Kambani, F. (2012). The teaching of controversial issues during elementary-level history
instruction Greek-Cypriot teachers’ perceptions and emotions. Theory & Research in Social Education, 40,
107-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012.670591
Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Zuluaga, M., Sergent, G., Krause, A., & Püschel, M. (2013, February). Active learning for multi-objective
optimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 28(1), 462-470.

Appendix 1
Active Learning Techniques and Methods Variance Values
Methods and technics N Mean sd Variance Methods and technics N mean sd variance
Brainstorming 123 3.8699 .75704 .573 Empathy 123 2.3171 1.03478 1.071
Mind Mapping 123 3.1545 1.11644 1.246 Mutual Instruction 123 2.6504 1.29301 1.672
Concept Network 123 3.0650 1.17166 1.373 Through Invention 123 3.7236 1.05038 1.103
Finding Cause-Result
Concept Map 123 3.2846 1.09035 1.189 123 3.4634 1.04248 1.087
Relationship
Project 123 3.7967 .96631 .934 Yordama Yapma 123 3.5854 .91371 .835
Conference 123 2.9024 .59250 .351 Making Prediction 123 3.7154 1.14891 1.320
Panel 123 3.0000 .62725 .393 Thinking Aloud 123 3.5203 1.14053 1.301
Speaking in Order
Open Session 123 3.1626 .72851 .531 123 3.0325 1.10093 1.212
(Flash)
Collegium 123 2.2602 .84773 .719 Teaching Someone 123 3.0325 .97455 .950
Information Pouch
Forum 123 2.7317 .75827 .575 123 3.0650 1.02221 1.045
Paper
Problem Solving 123 3.9350 .84679 .717 Interview 123 3.1789 1.28058 1.640
Case Study 123 3.9350 .88466 .783 Socrates (Q&A) 123 2.2846 .96258 .927
Trip-Observation Studies 123 3.6423 1.00922 1.019 Question Network 123 2.7073 1.03013 1.061
Simulation 123 3.1382 .90830 .825 What is the problem? 123 2.9106 1.56293 2.443
Learning by
Demostration 123 2.5854 1.13749 1.294 123 2.7480 1.30317 1.698
Discovery
Discussion 123 2.9024 1.12654 1.269 Workshop 123 2.2927 .92976 .864
Preparing Ven Schemes 123 2.1301 .87740 .770 Find Who 123 2.9431 .98597 .972
Jigsaw Method 123 1.7317 .97571 .952 Sand Watch 123 2.0407 1.03542 1.072
Computer Aided Teaching 123 3.6667 1.12108 1.257 Station 123 2.2276 .91269 .833

151
ies.ccsenet.org International Education Studies Vol. 10, No. 12; 2017

Philipss 66 123 2.0081 1.05190 1.106 Find Treasure 123 1.9350 .88466 .783
Fish Worm 123 3.2033 1.20762 1.458 Learning Gallery 123 2.6504 .82961 .688
Role Play 123 2.7154 1.20464 1.451 Snoball 123 1.9431 .88058 .775
Pantomim 123 3.0081 1.14158 1.303 Buzz 123 2.3984 1.12890 1.274
Poetry/Writing 123 2.9593 .93562 .875 Crossword 123 2.3252 .93647 .877
Making Songs 123 2.2033 .85851 .737 Lotto 123 2.4228 .79967 .639
Aquarium (Inner
Story Completion 123 2.4878 .76143 .580 123 2.8130 .93519 .875
Circle)
Find Title 123 2.3008 .92271 .851 Preparation of Annual 123 2.2927 .89380 .799
Finding a Slogan 123 2.6748 .82478 .680 Letter Writing 123 2.4878 .88119 .776
Ad Preparation 123 3.1301 1.22112 1.491 Summary 123 2.6829 1.31397 1.727
Iconography 123 3.0325 1.15896 1.343 Evaluation Leaves 123 2.7317 1.16699 1.362
Shared Teaching
Court 123 2.5447 1.19598 1.430 123 3.4228 1.29948 1.689
(Synergy)
Teaching Through
Think, Discuss & Share 123 2.7724 1.10745 1.226 123 3.2683 1.27442 1.624
Research
Hypothesis Building/
Newspaper Publishing 123 2.4472 1.04962 1.102 123 3.2683 1.19475 1.427
Testing
Six Hat Concept of
Press Conference 123 3.5528 .98516 .971 123 3.3333 1.14996 1.322
Thinking
Comparing the
Analogy (Metaphor) 123 2.5772 .98354 .967 Rookies to the 123 3.0407 .97003 .941
Masters
Show/Match Card 123 2.4878 .98651 .973

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

152