THE ROLE OF PROBLEM POSING MATERIALS IN STUDENT’S SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS

Year 2012, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 28 - 35, 31.12.2012

Deniz Kaya , Cenk Keşan Selim Güvercın

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of problem posing materials on students self efficacy beliefs. The reason why we make a research on this study is really specially designed materials used during the lessons have positive effect on students’ beliefs or not. One of the study to test the other two groups formed the control group used the method of experimental study. There are 20 questions in the self-efficacy test whose first category, second category, third category are respectively affirmative, cognitive and conative. First of all, pilot study was conducted with 128 students from 9th grade students to measure the validity and reliabilty of the test. Data was obtained from experimental school students and reliability of the test was measureb by using SPSS statistical program as .85. The results of the research showed that there is positive correlation between used problem posing materials and self efficacy beliefs of the students’affective, cognitive and conative domains.

Keywords

Self-efficacy, affirmative, cognitive, conative, problem posing.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of selfregulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
• Bandura, A. (1989a). Human agency in social cognitive theory. AmericanPsychologist, 44, 1175- 1184.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84, 191 215
• Bandura, A., Locke, E.A., “Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited”. Journal Of Applied Psychology, (88):pp.87-99. 2003.
• Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, selfefficacy and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
• Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1983). The art of problem posing. Hillsdale, NJ: L.Erlbaum Associates.
• Brown , S. I. & Walter, M. I. (1993). Problem Posing in Mathematics Education. InStephen I.
• Brown & Marion I. Walter (Eds.) Problem Posing: Reflection and Applications, Hillsdale. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 16-27
• Collins, A. (1998). National Science Education Standarts: A Political Document. Journal Of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711–727.
• English. L. D. (1996). Children’s problem posing and problem solving preferences, inJ. Mulligan & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Research in Early Number Learning. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
• Fencl, H. S. and Scheel, K. R. (2005). Engaging students: an examination of the effects ofteaching strategies on self-efficacy and course climate in a nonmajors physics course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 20-25.
• Fennema, E. (1989). The study of affect and mathematics: A proposed generic model for research. In D. B. McLeod& V. M. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective. (pp. 207-219). London:Springer-Verlag.
• Fennema, E., Sherman, J., 1978. Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement and related factors: a further study. Journal for Research inMathematics Education, 9(3): 189-203.
• Dew, K. M. H., Galassi, J., & Galassi, M. D. (1984). Mathanxiety: Relation with situational test anxiety, performance, physiological arousal, and math avoidancebehavior.
• Hackett, G. (1985). Role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(1), 47-56.
• Hackett, G., & Betz, N. (1989). An Exploration of the Mathematics Self-Efficacy/Mathematics Performance Correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20 (3), 261-273.
• Kliman, M., & Richard, J.(1992). Writing, sharing, and discussing mathematics stories. Arithmetic Teacher, 40, (3), 138–141.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for schoolmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
• Norwich, B (1987). Self-Efficacy and Mathematics Achıevement- A Study Of Their Relation. Educ Psychol. 79(4), 384-387.
• Margolis, H. & McCabe, P.P. (2006). Improving Self-Efficacy and Motivation: What to Do, What to Say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 4, 218–227.
• Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-Efficacy, Motivation Constructs and Mathematics Performance of Entering Middle School Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-139.
• Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Mathematics Performance: The Need for Specificity of Assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42 (2), 190-198.
• Pajares, F. ve Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental-ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426-443.
• Pintrich, R. P. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining selfregulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31,459-470.
• Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (vol. 3): Goals and cognitions, (pp. 13-44). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.
• Shavelson, R.J. (1983), “Review of research teachers’ pedagogical on judgments, plans and decisions”, The Elementary School Journal, 83 (4), 393-413.
• Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2000). Becoming a successful teacher of mathematics. London: Routledge/Falmer.
• Tanner, H. & Jones, S. (2003). Self-efficacy in mathematics and students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies during assessment events. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty, & J.T. Zilliox, Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME27), pp. 275-82. Honolulu, HI.
• Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Self-efficacy in college teaching. Essays on Teaching Excellence: Toward the Best in the Academy, 15, 8-11. Fort Collins, CO: The POD Network.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeodmer, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. Academic Press.