Matematik Başarısı Düşük Bir Öğrenciye Temel Çarpma İşlemlerine Akıcılık Kazandırmaya Keşfet-Kopyala-Karşılatır Tekniğinin Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Keşfet-Kopyala-Karşılaştır (KKK) ile yapılan öğretim uygulamalarının matematik başarısı düşük bir öğrencinin temel çarpma işlemlerinde akıcılık düzeyini artırmaya olan etkisini, öğrencinin ulaşmış olduğu akıcılık düzeyini aradan belli bir süre geçtikten sonra da sürdürüp sürdürmediğini ve elde edilen sonuçların sosyal açıdan önemini belirlemektir. Araştırmada tek denekli desenlerden beceriler (setler) arası çoklu yoklama modeli kullanılmıştır. Katılımcı, 9 yaşında, genel eğitimde ikinci sınıfa devam eden (ikinci dönemin son iki ayında) bir kız öğrencidir. Aynı zamanda bir devlet üniversitesinde gelişimsel yetersizliği olan öğrenciler için özel eğitim hizmeti veren bir araştırma merkezinde haftada dört saat bireysel özel eğitim hizmeti almaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, KKK tekniği ile yapılan öğretimlerin tüm setlerde öğrencinin temel çarpma işlemlerindeki akıcılık düzeyini artırmada etkili olduğunu, öğrencinin ulaşmış olduğu akıcılık performansını aradan belli bir süre geçtikten sonra da sürdürdüğünü göstermektedir. Araştırmanın sosyal geçerliğe yönelik öznel değerlendirme bulguları, araştırmaya katılan öğrenci ve uygulamacının KKK tekniği ve elde edilen sonuçların öğrenci üzerindeki etkilerine yönelik olumlu görüşlere sahip olduğu yönündedir. Araştırmanın sosyal geçerliğe yönelik sosyal karşılaştırma bulguları ise, öğrencinin çarpma işlemlerindeki akıcılık düzeyinin akranlarının seviyesine ulaştığını göstermektedir. Elde edilen bu bulgular diğer araştırmaların bulguları ile birlikte tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Keşfet kopyala karşılaştır,Kapat kopyala karşılaştır,Matematikte akıcılık,Matematik başarısı düşük öğrenciler,Temel matematik becerileri,Özel eğitim

The Effect of Cover-Copy-Compare Interventions to Enhance Fluency in Basic Multiplication Facts of a Student with Low Performance in Math

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Cover-Copy-Compare (CCC) interventions to increase the level of fluency in basic multiplication facts of a student having low performance in math, whether the student can maintain the level of fluency that she attained after a period of time and the social significance of the obtained data. A multiple-probes-across tasks (sets) design was employed in this study. The participant is a 9-year-old female student who is attending the second grade in general education (in the last two months of the second semester).  Besides, she receives four hours of individual special education per week in a research center providing special education services for students with developmental disabilities at a state university. The findings of the study indicate that the education done with the CCC technique is effective in increasing the level of fluency of the student in basic multiplication operations in all sets, and she maintains the fluency performance after a certain period of time. The subjective evaluation findings of the study on social validity suggest that the student and the implementer who participated in the study had positive opinions about the effects and the obtained results of the CCC technique on the student. In addition, the social comparison findings of the study regarding social validity show that the student's level of fluency in multiplication facts reached the level of her peers. These findings were discussed together with the findings of other studies.

Keywords

• Cover copy compare,Math fluency,Low performance students in math,Basic math skills,Special education

References

1. Alptekin, S., Vural, M., & Aksoy, Y. (2016). Matematik performansı düşük öğrencide toplama işlemi yapma akıcılığını artırmaya yönelik örnek uygulama: Keşfet-kopyala-karşılaştır (cover-copy-compare). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1), 103-116.
2. Baykul, Y. (2006). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi (9. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
3. Becker, A., McLaughlin, T., Weber, K. P., & Gower, J. (2009). The effects of copy, cover and compare with and without additional error drill on multiplication fact fluency and accuracy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(2), 747–760. Retrieved August, 01, 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288047647
4. Benson, G. (2013). The effects of cover, copy, and compare, performance feedback and rewards on the mathematical calculation skills of students identified with math difficulty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The City University, New York.
5. Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education & Treatment of Children (ETC), 2(3), 237-249.
6. Burns, M. K., Codding, R. S., Boice, C. H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill by treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83.
7. Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 130-141.
8. Carnine, D., Jitendra, A., & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 66-81.

9. Carr, L. (2016). Using cover, copy, and compare to improve math fluency for struggling students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Mary's College of California, California.
10. Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance: An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 23-34. doi:1053-0819/03/0300-0023/0
11. Cawley, J. F., & Miller, J. H. (1989). Cross-Sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(4), 250-254. doi:10.1177/002221948902200409
12. Codding, R. S., Eckert, T. L., Fanning, E., Shiyko, M., & Solomon, E. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: The effects of cover-copy-compare alone and combined with performance feedback on digits correct and incorrect. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(2), 125-141. doi: 10.1007/s10864-0069006-x
13. Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing math interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness?. Journal of School Psychology, 45(6), 603–617. doi: org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.005
14. Cressey, J., & Ezbicki, K. (2008). Improving automaticity with basic addition facts: do taped problems work faster than cover, copy, compare?. Paper 12 presented NERA Annunal Conference. Connecticut, USA. 26. Retrieved June, 2018, https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=nera_2008
15. Erbaş, D. (2012). Güvenirlik. E. Tekin-İftar (Ed.), Eğitim ve davranış bilimlerinde tek denekli araştırmalar içinde (s. 109-128). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları
16. Erdem, E , Gürbüz, R , Duran, H . (2013). Geçmişten Günümüze Gündelik Yaşamda Kullanılan Matematik Üzerine: Teorik Değil Pratik. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 2(3) 232-246. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turkbilmat/issue/21565/231447
17. Gagne, R.M. (1982). Some issues in psychology of mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 7-8.
18. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552. doi:10.1037/a0025510
19. Grafman, J. M., & Cates, G. L. (2010). The differential effects of two self-managed math instruction procedures: Cover, copy, and compare versus copy, cover, and compare. Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 153–165. doi: 10.1002/pits.20459
20. Gurganus, S.P. (2017). Math instruction for learning problems (2th ed). Newyork: Routledge.
21. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bradsford, J. D. (1987). Effective math İnstruction: Developing automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 19(3), 30-33.
22. Hinton, V., Strozier, S. D., & Flores, M. M. (2014). Building mathematical fluency for students with disabilities or students at-risk for mathematics failure. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(4), 257-265.
23. İşitmez, S. (2006). Az gören öğrencilere çarpma işlemlerinde akıcılık kazandırmak için işlem okuma yapma ve karşılaştırma yöntemiyle sunulan öğretim materyalinin etkililiği. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara
24. Johnson, T. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of cover, copy, and compare with student goal setting to increase mathematics fluency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cincinati Üniversitesi, Ohoio.
25. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 281-288.
26. Joseph, L. M., Konrad, M., Cates, G., Vajcner, T., Eveleigh, E., & Fishley, K. M. (2012). A meta-analytic review of the cover-copy-compare and variations of this self-management procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 122–136. doi: 10.1002/pits.20622
27. Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C. Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M.D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2th ed). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
28. Kitchens, V. D. (2012). Effects of an intervention on math achievement for students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis.
29. Lee, R. L. (2014). The differential effects of three variations of cover-copy-compare on fluency, generalization, and maintenance of basic division. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Retrieved 22, Mayıs, 2018, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1398972625&disposition=inline
30. Lee, M. J., & Tingstrom, D. H. (1994). A group math intervention: The modification of cover, copy, and compare for group application. Psychology in the Schools, 31(2), 133–145.
31. McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2011). The taped problems intervention: Increasing the math fact fluency of a student with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 276-284.
32. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20 (2), 129-147. doi: 10.1300/J370v20n02_08
33. Mercer, C. D., & Miller, S. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-35.
34. Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2010). Efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(4), 273-288. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9114-5
35. Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2012). The utility of brief experimental analysis and extended intervention analysis in selecting effective mathematics interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(2), 99-118. doi: 10.1007/s10864-011-9143-8
36. Morton, R. C., & Gadke, D. L. (2018). A comparasion of math cover, copy, compare intervention procedures for children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(1), 80-84. doi:10.1007/s40617-017-0180-0
37. Özyürek, M. (2010). Bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programını geliştirme ve temelleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık.
38. Poff, B., McLaughlin, T. F., Mark Derby, K., & King, K. (2012). The effects of cover, copy and compare with free time in math for elemantary students with severe behavior disorders. Academic Research International, 2(2), 217-228.
39. Poncy, B. C., & Skinner, C. H. (2011). Enhancing first-grade students’ addition-fact fluency using claswide cover, copy and compare, a sprint and group rewards. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(1), 1-20. doi.10.1080/15377903.2011.5404999
40. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H. & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 27- 37. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9025-7
41. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A comparison of class-wide taped problems and cover, copy, and compare for enhancing mathematics fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 744- 755. doi:10.1002/pits.21631
42. Rahschulte, R. L. (2014). An Examination of the effectiveness and efficiency of detect, practice, and repair versus traditional cover, copy, and compare procedures: A component analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cincinnati University, Ohio.
43. Reys, R., Lindquist, M. M., Lamnbdin D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2009). Helping children learn mathematics (9th ed.). USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
44. Sayelski, K. L. & Paulsen, K. J. (2010). Mathematics reform curricula special education: Identifying intersections and implications for practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(1), 13-21.
45. Saygılı, S. (2016). 3K ve hesaplama stratejileri öğretiminin toplama ve çarpma işlemleri akıcılıklarının gelişimi üzerine etkililiklerinin karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(6), 1337-1369.
46. Shapiro, E.S. (2011). Academic skills problems, direct assessment and intervention (4th ed). New York: Guilford Press.
47. Skinner, C. H., Bamberg, H. W., Smith, E. S., & Powell, S. S. (1993). Cognitive cover, copy, and compare subvocal responding to increase rates of accurate division responding. Remedial and Special Education, 14 (1), 49-56.
48. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 54–64.
49. Skinner, C. H., Ford, J. M., & Yunker, B. D. (1991). A comparison of instructional response requirements on the multiplication performance of behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 17(1), 56–65.
50. Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(3), 295-306.
51. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D., & Davis, K. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42(4), 389-403. doi: 10.1002/pits.20065.
52. Skinner, C. H., Shapiro, E. S., Turco, T. L., Cole, C. L., & Brown, D. K. (1992). A comparison of self- and peer-delivered immediate corrective feedback on multiplication performance. Journal of School Psychology, 30(2), 101–116.
53. Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: A method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18(3), 412–420.
54. Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2014). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed). Edinburgh: Pearson.
55. Smith, C. A. (2017). Determining the correct intervention based on initial fluency: A comparison of explicit timing and cover, copy, compare. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Oklohama.
56. Stading, M., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1996). Effects of a copy, cover, and compare procedure on multiplication facts mastery with a third grade girl with learning disabilities in a home setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 19(4), 425-434.
57. Stein, M., Kinder, D., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. (2006). Desining effective mathematics instruction a direct instruction approach, (3th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
58. Stocker Jr, J. D., & Kubina Jr, R. M. (2017). Impact of cover, copy, and compare on fluency outcomes for students with disabilities and math deficits: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(1), 56-68. doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2016.1196643
59. Stone, S., McLaughlin, T. F., & Weber, K. (2002). The use and evaluation of cover, copy, and compare with rewards and a flash cards procedure with rewards on division math facts mastery with a fourth grade girl in a home setting. International Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 82–91.
60. Tekin-İftar, E. (2012). Çoklu yoklama modelleri E. Tekin-İftar (Ed.), Eğitim ve davranış bilimlerinde tek denekli araştırmalar içinde (s.217-243). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları
61. Tekin-İftar, E. & Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2016). Özel eğitimde yanlışsız öğretim yöntemleri (3. Baskı). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
62. Uysal, H. (2017). Zihin yetersizliği olan öğrencilere temel toplama işlemlerinde akıcılık kazandırmada iki farklı uygulamanın karşılaştırılması, Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
63. Vuran, S., & Sönmez, M. (2008). Sosyal Geçerlik Kavramı ve Türkiye’de Özel Eğitim Alanında Yürütülen Lisansüstü Tezlerde Sosyal Geçerliğin Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1) 55-65.
64. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
65. Woodward, J. (2006). Developing Automaticity in Multiplication Facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 269-289. doi: org/10.2307/30035554
66. Yıkmış, A. & Kot, M. (2017). Bölme işlemleri. O. Gürsel (Ed), özel gereksinimli öğrencilere matematik beceri ve kavramlarının öğretimin planlama ve uygulama içinde (s. 343-366). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık