Özel Eğitim Okullarında Görev Yapan Öğretmenlerin Matematiksel Problem Çözme Sürecine Yönelik Farkındalıkları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırmada özel eğitim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin matematiksel problem çözme sürecine yönelik farkındalıklarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın birinci aşamasında problem çözme süreci farkındalığına yönelik bir ölçek geliştirilmiştir. Hazırlanan taslak ölçek formu özel eğitim okullarında görev yapan 215 öğretmene uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapısını belirlemek için uygulama sonucunda elde edilen verilerin açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) yapılmıştır. AFA sonucunda ulaşılan bulgura göre yirmi dokuz madde içeren ölçek üç faktörlü bir yapıya sahiptir. Üç faktörün açıkladıkları toplam varyans oranı %52.40 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğe ilişkin hesaplanan Cronbach Alfa değeri .93’tür. AFA ile ortaya çıkarılan üç faktörlü yapı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. DFA sonucunda SRMR=.06, RMSEA=.06, CFI=.90, IFI=.90 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Araştırmanın ikinci aşamasında geliştirilen ölçek aracılığıyla öğretmenlerin matematiksel problem çözme sürecine yönelik farkındalıkları çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla ölçek özel eğitim okullarında görev yapan 181 öğretmene uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin analizi sonucunda öğretmenlerin matematiksel problem çözme sürecine yönelik farkındalıklarının cinsiyet ve görev süresi değişkenlerine göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği; mezun olunan bölüm, görev yaptığı kurum ve öğretim yapılan grup değişkenlerine göre ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Bulgular literatüre dayalı olarak yorumlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Özel eğitim
• matematik öğretimi
• problem çözme
• farkındalık
• ölçek

A Study on the Awareness of the Teachers Working in Special Education Schools towards Mathematical Problem-Solving Process

Abstract

This study aims to examine the awareness of teachers working in special education schools towards mathematical problem-solving process. The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage of the study, a scale was developed for the awareness of problem-solving process. The draft scale form was administered to 215 teachers working in special education schools. In order to determine the structural integrity of the scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted for the data obtained. The findings of the EFA indicated that the scale, which contains twenty-nine items, has a three-factor structure. It was calculated that the three factors explained 52.40% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha value of the scale is .93. The three-factor structure revealed by EFA was tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As a result of CFA, it was calculated as SRMR=.06, RMSEA=.06, CFI=.90, IFI=.90. In the second stage of the study, the teachers’ awareness of mathematical problem-solving process was examined in terms of several variables. For this purpose, the scale was administered to 181 teachers working in special education schools. As a result of the analysis of the obtained data, there is no statistically significant in teachers’ awareness of mathematical problem-solving process in terms of their gender and professional seniority; however, there is a statistical significance in terms of the variables such as graduation, the school and the group taught. The results were interpreted based on the previous studies in the literature.

Keywords

• Special needs education
• mathematics instruction
• problem-solving
• awareness
• scale

References

1. Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663717
2. Bahr, D. L., & de Garcia, L. A. (2010). Elementary mathematics is anything but elementary: Content and methods from a developmental perspective. Wadsworth.
3. Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51-73.
4. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
5. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guildford Press.
6. Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/103491299100597
7. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00066
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı [Factor analysis: Basic concepts and its use in scale development]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Manual of data analysis for social sciences]. Pegem Akademi.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
11. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos. Routledge.
12. Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28(4), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250310001616407
13. Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative data analysis in scientific research process with SPSS.]. Pegem Akademi.
14. Fennema, E., & Franke, L. M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147-164). Macmillan.
15. Friend, M., & Bursick, W. D. (2011). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Pearson Education Inc.
16. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Appleton, A. C. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00036
18. Gagnon, J. C., & Maccini, P. (2001). Preparing students with disabilities for algebra. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103400101
19. Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. (2013). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
20. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies. ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
21. Goldman, S. R. (1989). Strategy instruction in mathematics. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510251
22. Gürbüz, S. (2019). AMOS ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Structural equation modeling with AMOS]. Seçkin.
23. Heward, W. L. (2012). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Pearson Education Inc.
24. Hott, B. L., & Isbell, L. (2014). Strategies and interventions to support students with mathematics disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.council-for-learning-disabilities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Math_Disabilities_Support.pdf
25. Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical word-problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 422-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900410
26. Jones, E. D., Wilson, R., & Bhojwani, S. (1997). Mathematics instruction for secondary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000203
27. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
28. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
29. Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
30. Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Multiplication facts 0 to 81. Edge Enterprises.
31. Mercer, C. D., Mercer, A. R., & Pullen, P. C. (2011). Teaching students with learning problems (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
32. Miller, S. P., Stringfellow, J. L., Kaffar, B. J., Ferreira, D., & Mancl, D. B. (2011). Developing computation competence among students who struggle with mathematics. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(2), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400204
33. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, (2018a). Orta-ağır zihinsel engeli ve otizm spektrum bozukluğu olan öğrenciler için matematik dersi öğretim programı. I. kademe (1, 2, 3 ve 4. sınıf). Retrieved from https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/ozel-egitim-ile-ilgili-yayimlar/icerik/123
34. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, (2018b). Orta-ağır zihinsel engeli ve otizm spektrum bozukluğu olan öğrenciler için matematik dersi öğretim programı. II. kademe (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf). Retrieved from https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/ozel-egitim-ile-ilgili-yayimlar/icerik/123
35. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, (2018c). Orta-ağır zihinsel engeli ve otizm spektrum bozukluğu olan öğrenciler için matematik dersi öğretim programı. III. kademe (9,10, 11 ve 12. sınıf). Retrieved from https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/www/ozel-egitim-ile-ilgili-yayimlar/icerik/123
36. Montague, M., Warger, C., & Morgan, T. H. (2000). Solve it! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 110-116. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_7
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM. Osborne, J. W., & Banjanovic, E. S. (2016). Exploratory factor analysis with SAS®. SAS Institute Inc.
38. Owen, M. J. (2003). It’s elementary! 275 math word problems book 3. Educator Publishing Service.
39. Park, M., Chitiyo, M., & Choi, Y. S. (2010). Examining pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards children with autism in the USA. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(2), 107-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01150.x
40. Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.) Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9-25). Springer.
41. Potari, D. (2013). Promoting teachers’ mathematical and pedagogical awareness. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(2), 81-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9238-3
42. Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for 9 students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12001
43. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre‐service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773-785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271
44. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
45. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
46. Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., & Jankowski, C. M. (2000). Children’s attitudes toward peers with severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 17(2), 176-196. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.17.2.176
47. Stein, M., Kinder, D., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. W. (2006). Designing effective mathematics instruction: A direct instruction approach. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
48. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
49. Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS.]. Nobel Yayıncılık.
50. Thaver, T. & Lim, L. (2014). Attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers in Singapore towards people with disabilities and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 1038-1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693399
51. Van Luit, J. E. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Effectiveness of the MASTER program for teaching special children multiplication and division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 98-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200201
52. Woodward, J., Beckmann, S., Driscoll, M., Franke, M., Herzig, P., Jitendra, A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
53. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903231986