ÜSTÜN VE NORMAL ZEKA DÜZEYİNDEKİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN MATEMATİKTE ÖZ-DÜZENLEYİCİ ÖĞRENMELERİ VE MOTİVASYONEL İNANÇLARI

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 143 - 157, 28.07.2016

Nilgün Kirişçi Ayça Köksal Konik

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacları, üstün ve normal zekâ düzeyindeki 7. ve 8. Sınıf öğrencilerin matematikte öz-düzenleyici öğrenmeleri (bilişsel strateji kullanımı ve öz-düzenleme) ve motivasyonel inançlarındaki (içsel amaçlı odaklanma, dışsal amaçlı odaklanma, konu değeri, sınav kaygısı ve öz-yeterlik) farklılıkları cinsiyet açısından belirlemekve Raven SPM Testi puanı ile matematikte öz-düzenleyici öğrenme ve motivasyonel inançlar birleşenleri arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda İstanbul ilinde,  üç farklı ilköğretim okuluna devam eden, 177’si normal ve 180’i üstün zekâ düzeyinde 7. ve 8. sınıf 357 öğrenciye Öğrenmede Motive Edici Stratejiler Ölçeği ve zeka düzeylerini belirleyebilmek için Raven Standart İlerleyen Matrisler Testi uygulanmıştır.Uygulama bulgularına göre, üstün zekâ düzeyindeki öğrencilerin yüksek öz-yeterliğe sahip oldukları, normal zekâ düzeyindeki öğrencilerin ise daha fazla sınav kaygısı taşıdıkları ve içsel amaçlı odaklanmada daha yüksek ortalamalara sahip oldukları ortaya çıkmıştır.Bunun yanı sıranormal zekâ düzeyindeki öğrencilerde, dışsal amaçlı odaklanma, sınav kaygısı, öz-düzenleme ve bilişsel strateji kullanımında,üstün zekâ düzeyindeki öğrencilerde sadece öz-düzenlemede kız öğrenciler lehine fark ortaya çıkmıştır. Raven SPM Testi puanları ile içsel amaçlı odaklanma, sınav kaygısı, öz-yeterlik ve öz-düzenleme alt boyutları arasında oldukça düşük düzeyde ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

üstün zekâlı öğrenciler, öz-düzenleyici öğrenme bileşenleri, Raven SPM Testi, matematik

Self-Regulated Learning and Motivational Beliefs of Gifted and Normal Intelligence Level Students on Mathematics

Öz

The aims of this research are
to identify the differences between the self-regulated learning (cognitive strategy
use and self-regulation) and motivational beliefs (intrinsic goal orientation,
extrinsic goal orientation, task value, test anxiety, self-efficacy) of gifted and
normal intelligence level students on mathematics as regards to gender. The research took place with 357
students of 7^th and 8^th grades attending three different
schools in İstanbul. Among these students, 177 are normal intelligence level and
180 are gifted. According to the results
of the research, gifted students have got high level of self-efficacy, whereas the
students of normal intelligence level have got more test anxiety and higher average
rate of intrinsic goal orientation. There are differences with regards to extrinsic
goal orientation, test anxiety, self-regulation and cognitive strategy use in
favor of girls among normal intelligence level students; and there are differences
as regards to self-regulation in favor of girls among gifted students. There is
a very slight relation between the Raven SPM Test score and the sub-scales of
intrinsic goal orientation, test anxiety, self-efficacy and self-regulation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

gifted students, self-regulated learning components, Raven SPM Test, mathematics

Kaynakça

• Altun, S. ve Erden, M. (2006). Öğrenmede Motive Edici Stratejiler Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2 (1).
• Boekaerts M., Pintrich, P.R.,& Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation, San Diego: Academic Press.
• Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S. & Larivee, S. (1993). Self-regulation on a concept-formation task among average and gifted students, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 115-134.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, PegemA Yayıncılık, Ankara 2007
• Calero, M.D., Garcia-Martin, M. B., Jimenez, M. I., Kazen, M. & Araque, A., (2007). Self-regulation advantage for high-IQ children: Findings from a research study, Learning and İndividual Differences, 17, 328- 343.
• Corno, L. (1986). The metacognitive control components of self-regulated learning, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11 (4), 333- 336.
• Çağlar, D. (2004). Okulda Başarısız Olan Üstün Zekâlı Çocuklar, 1. Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar Kongresi Seçilmiş Makaleler Kitabı, Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul, 409–415.
• Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, contrives, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50- 72.
• Ergöz, G. (2008). Öz-Düzenleyici Öğrenmenin ve Güdüleyici İnançların Matematik Başarısı İçinde Araştırılması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Orta Öğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü, Ankara.
• Fehrenbach, C.R. (1991). Gifted/Average Readers: Do They Use The Same Reading Strategies?, Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 125.
• Flavell, J.H. & Miller, P.H. (1998). Social cognition, In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, perception, and language. 2, 851–898. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Garcia, T. (1995). The role of motivational strategies in self-regulated learning, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63, 29- 42. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
• Hendricks, N. J., Ekici, C. & Bulut, S. (2000). Adaptation of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Unpublished research report, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Him, Ng. M. (2006). Self-regulated Learning Strategies of Mathematically Gifted Students, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
• Hong, E. & Aqui, Y. (2004). Cognitive and Motivational Characteristics of Adolescents Gifted in Mathematics: Comparisons Among Students With Different Types of Giftedness, Gifted Child Quarterly, 48 (3), 191- 201.
• Kauffman, D.F. (2004). Self-Regulated Learning in Web-Basid Environments: Instructional Tools Designed to Facilitate Cognitive Strategy Use, Metacognitve Processing and Motivatio¬nal Beliefs, J. Educational Computing Research, 30, 139–161
• Lee, A. & Gao, H. (2014). Gifted and talented high school students’ self-regulated motivation and learning strategies, The Snu Journal of Education Research, 51-71.
• Lepper, M.R., Corpus, J.H. & Iyengar, S.S. (2005). Instrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations in the Classroom: Age Differences and Academic Correlates, Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 184-196.
• Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an Enabler for academic success, School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313-327.
• McCoach, D.B. & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47 (2), 144- 154.
• McGrimmond, L. (2009). An Investigation of Gifted Students’ Intrinsic Motivation and Classroom Productivity, Master of Arts, Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Education, Canada.
• Mcnabb, T. (2003). Motivational Issues: Potential to Performance, Hand Book of Gifted Education: Third Edition, 417-424.
• Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C., (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation, Educational Psychologist, 37 (1), 17- 25.
• Murphy, K. & Davidshofer, C. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles and applications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prectice Hall.
• Neber, H. & Schommer-Aikins, M., (2002) Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables, High Ability Studies, 13(1), 59–74.
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Mathematical Problem-Solving of Gifted Students, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(25), 325–344.
• Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and Perceived Self-Efficacy in Self-Regulated Learning, Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 116-125.
• Pajares, F., Graham, L. (1999). Self-Efficacy, Motivation Constructs, and Mathematics Performance of Entering Middle School Students, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139.
• Perry, N.E., Phillips, L. & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support self-regulated learning, Elementary School Journal, 106 (3), 237-254.
• Pintrich, P.R. (2000). An Achievement Goal Theory Perspective on Issues in Motivation Terminology, Theory and Research, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.
• Pintrich, P.R.. Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual fort he Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Office of Educational Research and Improvement(ED), Washington, DC. ED 338 122.
• Risemberg, R. & Zimmerman, B.J. (1992). Self-regulated Learning in Gifted Students, Roeper Review, 15 (2).
• Sontag, C., Stoeger & H., Harder, B. (2012). The Relationship Between Intelligence and the Preference for Self-Regulated Learning: A Longitudinal Study with Forth-Graders, Talent Development & Excellence, 4 (1), 1-22.
• Stoeger, H. & Ziegler, A. (2010). Do pupils with differing cognitive abilities benefit similarly from a self-regulated learning training program?, Gifted Educational International, 26(1), 110-123.
• Tang, W. & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation and self‐regulated science learning in high‐achieving students: differences related to nation, gender, and grade‐level, High Ability Studies, 19 (2), 103-116.
• Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and College students’ regulation of motivation, Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 224- 235.
• Üredi, I. Ve Üredi, L. (2007). Öğrencilerin öz-düzenleme becerilerini geliştiren öğrenme ortamının oluşturulması”,Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2).
• Vallerand, R. J., Gagne, F., Senecal, C. & Pelletier, L.G., (1994) A Comparison of the School Intrinsic Motivation and Perceived Competence of Gifted and Regular Students, Gifted Child Quarterly, 38 (4), 172- 175.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview, Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-17.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective” In M. Boekaerts., P. R. Pintrich., and M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation(pp. 13-39). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis”, In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:Theoretical perspectives(2nd ed., pp. 1–38).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview”, Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70.
• Zimmerman, B.J., Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student selfregulated learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 284–290.
• Zimmerman, B.J., Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student Differences in Self-Regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-Efficacy and Strategy Use, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 51-59.
• Zimmerman, B.J., Paulsen, A.S., (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63, 13- 27.
• Zimmerman, B.J. & Schunk, D.H. (1989) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice, New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Zimmerman, B.J. & Schunk, D.H. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: A social cognitive perspective, In D.Y.Dai, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development.(pp. 323-349). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publieshers.