İlkokul Öğrencilerinin İşlemde Esnekliklerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

İşlemde esneklik, öğrencilerin herhangi bir işlemi farklı stratejilerle çözebilme, bu stratejileri verilen işleme bağlı olarak uygun bir şekilde seçip uygulayabilme eğilimi olarak tanımlanabilir. Esneklik aynı zamanda sayıları da esnek ve parçalı bir şekilde düşünmeyi gerektir ve işlemde esneklik sayı hissinin bir bileşeni olarak da ele alınır. Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, ilkokul 2., 3. ve 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin toplama, çıkarma ve çarpma işlemlerine ilişkin olarak kullanılabilecek farklı stratejileri nasıl algıladıklarını ve yorumladıklarını ortaya koymak, bu bağlamda işlemde esnekliklerini incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda nitel betimsel bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmaya Ankara’nın Çankaya ilçesinde yer alan bir ilkokulda öğrenim görmekte olan toplam 135 öğrenci katılmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde her bir sınıf düzeyi için ayrı ayrı hazırlanan, toplama, çıkarma ve çarpma işlemlerini kapsayan üç soruluk bir strateji değerlendirme formu kullanılmıştır. Tüm sınıf düzeyleri ve stratejiler bir arada incelendiğinde, öğrencilerin en yüksek düzeyde doğru kabul ederek yöneldiği strateji geleneksel algoritma, en düşük düzeyde doğru kabul edilen strateji zihinsel işlemin sözel anlatımının yer aldığı strateji olmuştur. Öğrenciler genel olarak verilen stratejide işlem sayısı arttıkça veya işlem sürecine sembolik temsil dışında başka temsil biçimleri dahil olduğunda çözümü karışık ve anlaşılmaz bulmuşlardır.

Keywords

• esneklik
• işlemde esneklik
• sayı hissi
• dört işlem
• ilkokul öğrencileri

Examining Elementary School Students’ Flexibility in Operations

Abstract

Strategy flexibility in operations can be defined as students' tendency to solve any operation using different strategies and to select and apply these strategies appropriately depending on the given operation. Flexibility also requires thinking about numbers in a flexible and part-whole relation, and flexibility in operations is also considered a component of number sense. The main aim of this study is to reveal how 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade primary school students perceive and interpret different strategies that can be used for addition, subtraction, and multiplication operations and to examine their flexibility in operations in this context. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted for this purpose. A total of 135 students attending an primary school in the Çankaya district of Ankara participated in the study. During the data collection process, a three-question strategy assessment form covering addition, subtraction, and multiplication operations, prepared separately for each grade level, was used. When all grade levels and strategies were examined together, the strategy that students accepted as correct at the highest level was the standard algorithm, while the strategy accepted as correct at the lowest level was the strategy involving the verbal description of the mental process. In general, students found the solution confusing and incomprehensible when the number of operations in the given strategy increased or when other forms of representation besides symbolic representation were included in the strategy.

Keywords

• flexibility
• flexibility in operations
• numbersense
• four operations
• elementary school students

References

1. Ambrose, R., Clement, L., Philipp, R., & Chauvot, J. (2004). Assessing prospective elementary school teachers' beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning: Rationale and development of a constructed‐response‐format beliefs survey. School Science and Mathematics, 104(2), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb17983.x
2. Baroody, A. J. (2006). Why children have difficulties mastering the basic number combinations and how to help them. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.13.1.0022
3. Baroody, A. J., & Dowker, A. (Eds.). (2013). The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Routledge.
4. Baroody, A.J., Purpuro, D.J., Eiland, M.D., Reid, E. E., & Poliwal, V. (2016). Does fostering reasoning strategies for relatively difficult combinations promote transfer by K-3 students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 576-591. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000067
5. Blöte, A. W., van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: Instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.627
6. Borji, V., Radmehr, F., & Font, V. (2021). The impact of procedural and conceptual teaching on students' mathematical performance over time. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(3), 404-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1688404
7. Can, D. (2025). İlkokul öğrencilerinin sayıların denk gösterimlerine dair kavrayışları ve esnek hesaplama becerileri. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(3), 3950-3981. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1630256
8. Canobi, K. H. (2004). Individual differences in children’s addition and subtraction knowledge. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.10.001

9. Carpenter, T. P. (1989). Teaching as problem solving. In R. I. Charles & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 187–202). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
10. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., Fennema, E., & Empson, S. B. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.29.1.0003
11. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Heinemann.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
13. Çekirdekçi, S., Şengül, S., & Doğan, M. C. (2016). 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin sayı hissi ile matematik başarıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Qualitative Studies, 11(4), 48-66.
14. Erdoğan, A., & Erdoğan, E. (2015). Toplama ve çıkarma kavramlarının öğretimi ve öğrenci güçlükleri. In E. Bingölbali, & M. F. Özmantar (Eds.), İlköğretimde Karşılaşılan Matematiksel Zorluklar ve Çözüm Önerileri (pp. 31-49), Pegem Akademi.
15. Filiz, A. & Moralı, H. S. (2020). Öğrencilerin sayı duyusu stratejilerinin sınıf düzeyi ve sayı duyusu bileşenlerine göre analizi [An analysis of students’ number sense strategies in terms of their grades and number sense components]. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8(2), 39-62.
16. Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Hiebert, J. C., Murray, H. G., Human, P. G., Olivier, A. I., Carpenter, T. P. & Fennema, E. (1997). Children's conceptual structures for multidigit numbers and methods of multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 130-162. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.28.2.0130
17. Gravemeijer, K., van Galen, F. (2003). Facts and algorithms as products of students' own mathematical activity. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 114-122). NCTM.
18. Heinze, A., Arend, J., Gruessing, M. (2018). Instructional approaches to foster third graders’ adaptive use of strategies: An experimental study on the effects of two learning environments on multi-digit addition and subtraction. Instructional Science, 46, 869–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9457-1
19. Heinze, A., Grüßing, M., & Arend, J. (2023). Fostering children’s adaptive use of mental arithmetic strategies: A comparison of two instructional approaches. Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(1), 18-34.
20. Heirdsfield, A. & Lamb, J. (2005). Mental computation: The benefits of informed teacher instruction. In P. Clarkson et al. (Eds). Proceedings MERGA 28- 2005 Building Connections: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 419-426).
21. Hickendorff, M. (2020). Fourth graders’ adaptive strategy use in solving multidigit subtraction problems. Learning and Instruction, 67, Article 101311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101311
22. Hickendorff, M. (2022). Flexibility and adaptivity in arithmetic strategy use: What children know and what they show. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7277
23. Karabulut, T. (2019). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin matematiksel problem çözmedeki stratejik esneklikleri ve bu konuyla ilgili öğretmen görüşleri [Sixth-grade students' strategic flexibility in solving mathematical problems and teachers' views on this topic] (Master's thesis, Bursa Uludağ University).
24. Kayhan Altay, M. (2023). İlkokul öğrencilerinin sayıların parça-bütün ilişkisine yönelik toplama işlemlerindeki performanslarının ve stratejilerinin incelenmesi [An analysis of the elementary grade students’ performance and strategies in addition operations regarding the part-whole relationship of numbers]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 57, 1887-1905. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1300137
25. Lisarelli, G., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Di Martino, P. (2021). From how to why: A quest for the common mathematical meanings behind two different division algorithms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 63, 100897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100897
26. Markovits, Z., & Sowder, J. (1994). Developing number sense: An intervention study in grade 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.25.1.0004
27. McIntosh, A., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1992). A proposed framework for examining basic number sense. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(3), 2–8.
28. MEB [MoNE]. (2018). İlköğretim matematik dersi öğretim programı [Primary and secondary school mathematics curriculum]. MEB Yayınları.
29. MEB [MoNE]. (2024a). İlkokul matematik dersi öğretim programı [Primary school mathematics curriculum]. MEB Yayınları.
30. MEB [MoNE]. (2024b). İlkokul matematik 1. sınıf ders kitabı (2. Kitap) [Elementary school mathematics 1st grade textbook]. MEB Yayınları.
31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
32. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
33. Olkun, S., & Toluk-Uçar, Z. (2012). İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi. Eğiten Kitap.
34. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and evaluation methods], (M. Bütün, & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Pegem Akademi.
35. Sievert, H., Hickendorff, M., van den Ham, A. K., & Heinze, A. (2025). Children’s arithmetic strategy use and strategy change from grade 3 to grade 4. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10578-3
36. Star, J. R., & Seifert, C. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.10.005
37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
38. Takır A. (2017). 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sayı duyusu becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigating the relations number sense ability of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students between their grade level, gender and mathematics self-efficiency level]. Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 309-323.
39. Torbeyns, J., Hickendorff, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2017). The use of number-based versus digit-based strategies on multi-digit subtraction: 9–12-year-olds' strategy use profiles and task performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.004
40. Ünlüer, İ., & Kurtuluş, A. (2021). Investigation of conceptual and operational understanding processes of eighth grade students to identities and factorization. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(1), 22-70. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.698535
41. Van De Walle, J. A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Pearson.
42. Whitacre, I., & Rumsey, C. (2018). Documenting the process of a prospective elementary teacher’s flexibility development: Scaffolded strategy ranges and sociomathematical norms for mental computation. Cognition and Instruction, 36(4), 330-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1491580
43. Willis, D. G., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Cohen, M. Z. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1185-1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916645499
44. Xu L., Liu R.-D., Star J.R., Wang J., Liu Y., & Zhen R. (2017). Measures of potential flexibility and practical flexibility in equation solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01368
45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.