Examination with the Structural Equation Modeling of the Relationship between Mathematical Metacognition Awareness with Skill Perception of Problem Solving of Secondary School Students

Year 2016, Volume 17, Issue 1, 0 - 0, 20.04.2016

Abdullah KAPLAN Murat DURAN Gökhan BAŞ

https://doi.org/10.17679/iuefd.17119785

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between mathematical metacognition awareness and skill perceptions of problem solving of students. The relational model of quantitative research model was used in this study. The study carried out on secondary school students (n = 145) determined by the maximum variation method of the kind of purposeful sampling studying on three state secondary schools in the fall semester of 2014-2015 academic terms in the province of Kars city of the Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Problem solving inventory for research in children and mathematical metacognition awareness inventory located in the literature are used in the study. AMOS 5.0 statistical software package is utilized in the study while the observed variables are being predicted in the process of model creation. According to the results of the study, there is a significant positive relationship between mathematical metacognition awareness and skill perception of problem solving (r = .52). However, skill perception of problem solving directly affects mathematical metacognition awareness in a positive manner (β = .28, p < 0.01). In this context, about %28 of the differentiation in mathematical metacognition awareness of students originate from skill perception of problem solving for all three variables are included in the regression equations.

Keywords

Mathematical Metacognition Awareness, Skill Perception of Problem Solving, Structural Equation Modeling

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Matematiksel Üstbiliş Farkındalıkları İle Problem Çözme Beceri Algıları Arasındaki İlişkinin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeliyle İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı ortaokul öğrencilerinin matematiksel üstbiliş farkındalıkları ile problem çözme beceri algıları arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Araştırmada nicel araştırma modellerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, 2014-2015 öğretim yılının güz döneminde Doğu Anadolu Bölgesinin Kars ilindeki, amaçsal örnekleme çeşitlerinden maksimum çeşitleme yöntemiyle belirlenmiş, üç devlet ortaokulunda öğrenim gören öğrenciler (n = 145) üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada alanyazında yer alan matematiksel üstbiliş farkındalık envanteri ile çocuklar için problem çözme envanteri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada gözlenen değişkenlerin yordanarak model oluşturulmasında AMOS 5.0 istatistik paket programından faydalanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre problem çözme beceri algısı ile matematiksel üstbiliş farkındalık arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki (r = .52) olduğu görülmekle birlikte, problem çözme beceri algısının matematiksel üstbiliş farkındalığı doğrudan pozitif yönlü bir biçimde etkilediği (β = .28, p < 0.01) sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, regresyon eşitliğine dâhil edilen tüm üç değişkenin problem çözme beceri algısının matematiksel üstbilişsel farkındalığın %28’ini açıkladığı anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Matematiksel Üstbiliş Farkındalık, Problem Çözme Beceri Algısı; Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli; Ortaokul Öğrencileri

References

• Alcı, B., Erden, M., & Baykal, A. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin matematik başarıları ile algıladıkları problem çözme becerileri, özyeterlik algıları, bilişüstü özdüzenleme stratejileri ve öss sayısal puanları arasındaki açıklayıcı ve yordayıcı ilişkiler örüntüsü. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 25(2), 53-68.
• Artzt, A.F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1997). Mathematical problem solving in small groups: Exploring the interplay of students’ metacognitive behaviors, perceptions, and ability levels. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 63-74.
• Aydemir, H., & Kubanç, Y. (2014). Problem çözme sürecinde üstbilişsel davranışların incelenmesi. International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 203-219.
• Aydurmuş, L. (2013). 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme sürecinde kullandığı üstbiliş becerilerin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon, Türkiye.
• Bakioğlu, B., Alkış-Küçükaydın, M., Karamustafaoğlu, O., Uluçınar-Sağır, Ç., Akman, E., Ersanlı, E., & Çakır, R. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişötesi farkındalık düzeyi, problem çözme becerileri ve teknoloji tutumlarının incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1), 22-33.
• Bakrecevic Vukman, K. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition and their connections with cognitive development in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 12(4), 211-221.
• Balcı, A.S. (2007). Fen öğretiminde yapılandırmacı yöntem uygulamasının etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya, Türkiye.
• Başol, B., Ader, E., & Babür, N. (2014). Relationship between reading comprehension, metacognition and mathematical problem solving. 6th Biennial Meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Special Interest Group 16, 3-6 September, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Baxter, G.P., Elder, A.D., & Glaser, R. (1996). Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31, 133-140.
• Bingham, A. (1998). Developing the skills of problem solving of children. (Translation, A. F. Oğuzhan). İstanbul: National Education.
• Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. Syracuse, NY: Eric Information Center Resources [ED327218].
• Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.
• Butler, L., & Meichenbaum, D. (1981). The assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In P.C. Kendall & S.D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions (pp. 197-225). New York: Academic Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak-Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
• Carlson, M.P. (2000). A study of the mathematical behaviour of mathematicians: The role of metacognition and mathematical intimacy in peoblem solving. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Hiroshima, Japan: PME.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Coutinho, S.A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate~7(1), 39-47.
• Coutinho, S.A., Weimer-Hastings, K., Skowronski, J.J., & Britt, M.A. (2005). Metacognition, need for cognition and use of explanations during ongoing learning and problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 321-337.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• DeCorte, E. (1995). Learning theory and instructional science. In P. Reiman & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines. Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 97-108). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
• Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get. Metacognition Learning, 3, 189-206.
• Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435-447.
• Dixon, W.A., Heppner, P.P., & Anderson, W.P. (1991). Problem-solving appraisal, stress, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in a college population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 51-56.
• Doğan, A. (2013). Üstbiliş ve üstbilişe dayalı öğretim. Middle Eastern and African Journal of Educational Research, 3, 6-20.
• Duran, M., & Kaplan, A. (basılmamış makale). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik matematiksel üstbilişsel farkındalık envanterinin geliştirilmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, ?(?), ???-???.
• Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?. Educational Research Review, 1, 3-14.
• Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving: Metacognition, motivation, and self-regulation. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297-323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
• Gail, M. (1996). Problem solving about problem solving: Framing a research agenda. Proceedings of the Annual National Educational Computing Conference, 11-13 June, Minnesota, USA.
• Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Garner, R., & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143-158.
• Garofalo, J., & Lester, F.K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 163-176.
• Gelen, İ. (2003). Bilişsel farkındalık stratejilerinin türkçe dersine ilişkin tutum, okuduğunu anlama ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana, Türkiye.
• Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193-223.
• Hacker, D.J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not all metacognition is created equal. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 73-79.
• Hartman, H.J. (1998). Metacognition in teaching and learning: An introduction. Instructional Science-International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 26, 1-3.
• Heppner, P.P., & Baker, C.E. (1997). Application of problem solving inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29(4), 129-143.
• Heppner, P.P., Baumgardner, A., & Jackson, J. (1985). Problem-solving, self-appraisal, depression, and attributional style: Are they related?. Cognitive Theraphy and Research, 9, 105-113.
• Heppner, P.P., Lee, D.G., Wei, M., Anderson, C., & Wang, Y.M. (2001). Does negative affectivity confound the problem-solving psychological adjustment link?. Paper Presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, USA.
• Heppner, P.P., & Petersen, C.H. (1982). The development of implications of a personal problem solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 66-75.
• Heppner, P.P., Pretorius, T.B., Wei, M., Lee, D.G., & Wang, Y.W. (2002). Examining the generalizability of problem-solving appraisal in black south africans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 484-498.
• Heppner, P.P., & Stephen, W.C., Stroizer, A.L., & Heppner, M.J. (1991). An investigation of coping styles and gender differences with farmers in career transition. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 167-174.
• Heppner, P.P., & Wang, Y. (2003). Problem-solving appraisal. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Synder (Eds.), Positive psychology assessment: Handbook of models and measures (pp. 127-138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Heppner, P.P., Witty, T.E., & Dixon, W.A. (2004). Problem solving appraisal: Helping normal people lead better lives. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 466-472.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Namsoo, H. (2000). Metacognitive self regulation and problem solving: Expanding the theory base through factor analysis. American Educational Research Association, 24-28 April, New Orleans: Roundtable.
• Jakobse, A.E., & Harskamp, E.G. (2012). Towards efficient measurement of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Metacognition Learning, 7, 133-149.
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
• Kanadlı, S., & Sağlam, Y. (2013). Üstbilişsel davranışlar problem çözmede faydalı mıdır?. İlköğretim Online, 12(4), 1074-1085.
• Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized enviroment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 317-336.
• Karakelle, S. (2012). Üstbilişsel farkındalık, zekâ, problem çözme algısı ve düşünme ihtiyacı arasındaki bağlantılar. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 239-252.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (15. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Karataş, İ., & Güven, B. (2004). 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerilerinin belirlenmesi: Bir özel durum çalışması. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 163.
• Kaur, B. (1997). Difficulties with problem solving in mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 2(1), 93-112.
• Kayan, F., & Çakıroğlu, E. (2008). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel problem çözmeye yönelik inançları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 218-226.
• Kiremitçi, O. (2011). Beden eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık ve problem çözme becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilim Dergisi, 13(1), 92-99.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.
• Koç, G. (2007). Eğitimde yeni yönelimler. Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Larson, L.M., Allen, S.J., Imao, R.A.K., & Piersel, W.C. (1993). Self-perceived effective problem solvers differential view of their partners’ problem-solving styles. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 528-532.
• Lester, F.K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660-675.
• Lester, F.K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D.L. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs, and metacognition: Key influences on problem solving behavior. In D.B. McLeod & V.M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective (pp. 75-88). New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and metacognition: What is the nature of relationship?. Mathematical Cognition, 3, 121-139.
• Marge, J.J. (2001). The effect of metacognitive strategy scaffolding on student achievement in solving complex math word problems. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, California University, Riverside.
• Mayer, R.E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49-63.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence based inquiry. Boston: Brown and Company.
• Metallidou, P. (2009). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ metacognitive knowledge about problem solving strategies. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25, 76-82.
• Metcalfe, J. (1996). “Metacognitive processes”. In E.L. Bjork & R.A. Bjork (Eds.), Memory: Handbook of perception and cognition. New York: Academic Press.
• Mohamed, M., & Nai, T.T. (2005). The use of metacognitive process in learning mathematics. In j. Bahru (Eds.), Reform, revolution and paradigm shifts in mathematics education (pp. 159-162), Malaysia.
• Naglieri, J.A., & Das, J.P. (2006). Are intellectual processes important in the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD?. The ADHD Report, 14(1), 1-6.
• Ormrod, J.E. (2003). Educational psychology. New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.
• Özsoy, G. (2006). Problem çözme ve üstbiliş. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Kongresi, Gazi Üniversitesi, 14-16 Nisan, Ankara, Türkiye.
• Özsoy, G., & Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82.
• Özsoy, G., Çakıroğlu, A., Kuruyer, H.G., & Özsoy, S. (2010). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler bakımından incelenmesi. 9.Sınıf Öğretmenliği Sempozyumu, 20-22 Mayıs, Elazığ, Türkiye.
• Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. New York: Penguin.
• Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
• Pugalee, D. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections thorugh students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101, 236-244.
• Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
• Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding. In E.A. Silver (Eds.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 361-380). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Schurter, W.A. (2001). Comprehension monitoring and polya’s heuristics as tools for problem solving by developmental mathematics student. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio.
• Serin, O., Bulut Serin, N., & Saygılı, G. (2010). İlköğretim düzeyindeki çocuklar için problem çözme envanteri’nin (ÇPÇE) geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 446-458.
• Soylu, Y., & Soylu, C. (2006). Matematik derslerinde başarıya giden yolda problem çözmenin yolu. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(11), 97-111.
• Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Stevens, M. (1998). Sorun çözümleme. (Çev. A. Çimen). İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Swanson, H.L. (1992). The relation between metacognition and problem solving in gifted children. Roeper Review, 15(1), 43-48.
• Şahin, N. H., Şahin, N., & Heppner, P. (1993). Psychometrics properties of the problem solving inventory in a group of turkish university students. Cognitive Theraphy and Research, 17(3), 379-385.
• Şengül, S., & Işık, S.C. (2014). 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin üst bilişsel becerilerinin “webb’in bilgi derinliği seviyeleri”ne ait problemleri çözme süreçlerindeki rolü. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 24, 93-127.
• Şengül, S., & Yıldız, F. (2013). Öğrencilerin işbirlikli öğrenme grupları ile problem çözme sürecinde sergiledikleri üstbilişsel davranışlar ve matematik öz-yetkinlikleri arasındaki ilişki. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(1), 1295-1324.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
• Tabachnick B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Teong, S.K. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46-55.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association.
• Tüysüz, C. (2013). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin problem çözme becerisine yönelik üstbiliş düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(21), 157-166.
• Van der Walt, M., & Maree, K. (2007). Do mathematics learning facilitators implement metacognitive strategies?. South African Journal of Education, 27(2), 223-241.
• Weinert, F. (1987). Metacognition and motivation as determinants of effective learning and understanding. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 1-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Wertheimer, M. (1945/1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper and Row.
• Wheatley, G.H. (1984). Problem solving in school mathematics. MEPS Technical Report 84.01, School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
• Wityy, T.E., Heppner, P.P., Bernard, C.B., & Thoreson, R.W. (2001). Problem-solving appraisal and psychological adjustment of chronic low back pain patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 8, 149-160.
• Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
• Yıldırım, S., & Ersözlü, Z.N. (2013). The relationship between students’ metacognitive awareness and their solutions to similar types of mathematical problems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 411-415.
• Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). LISREL ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Yong, H.T., & Kiong, L.N. (2005). Metacognitive aspects of mathematics problem solving. Paper Presented at the 3rd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (ICMI Regional Conference), Shanghai, Nanjing, and Hangzhou, China.