Hafif Düzeyde Zihinsel Yetersizliği Olan Öğrencilere Yönelik Matematiksel Modelleme Etkinliği Geliştirilmesi: Google Haritalar Örneği

Öz

Gerçek dünyada karşılaştığımız problemleri çözmek için her düzeyden öğrenciye gereksinimlerine uygun olacak şekilde çeşitli çözüm yöntemleri kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliğe sahip kaynaştırma öğrencilerine yönelik “Uzunluk ve Ölçme” öğrenme alanına ait Google Haritalar etkinliğini model oluşturma etkinliklerine uygun olarak tasarlamaktır. Araştırma, tasarım ve geliştirme araştırması yöntemi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilere yönelik Google Haritalar etkinliği ADDIE öğretim tasarım modeli çerçevesinde oluşturulmuştur. Analiz basamağında, öğretim sürecinde gerçek dünya ile ilişkilendirilen etkinlik, özel eğitim öğretmenleri ve konu alanı uzmanlarıyla iş birliği içinde tasarlanmıştır. Tasarım ve geliştirme basamaklarında model oluşturma etkinlikleri bileşenleri ile Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü tarafından yayınlanan destek eğitim programı incelenerek, ölçme öğrenme alanı çerçevesinde Google haritalar etkinliğinin tasarlanmasına karar verilmiştir. Model oluşturma etkinlikleri bağlamında giriş, hazır oluş soruları, problem durumu ve çözümlerin sunumu bileşenleri ile etkinlik oluşturulmuştur. Ayrıca iki özel öğretim öğretmeninin uzman değerlendirmesi sonucunda hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilere uygun hale getirilmiştir. Uygulama basamağında, etkinlikler hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliğe sahip üç lise öğrencisiyle uygulanmıştır. Güvenirliğinin sağlanması için; öğrencilerden alınan cevaplar değerlendirme sürecinde, iki alan uzmanı tarafından kontrol edilmiştir. Araştırmada katılımcıların etkinliğe verdiği cevaplar, araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen model oluşturma etkinlikleri değerlendirme formu kullanılarak ve uygulama esnasında tutulan saha notları ile değerlendirilmiştir. Hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin Google haritalar etkinliğine verdiği cevapların model oluşturma etkinlikleri bileşenlerine uygunluğunun yeterli düzeyde olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları hakkında hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencilerin gerçek dünya problemi olan Google haritalar etkinliğinin model oluşturma etkinlikleri bileşenlerine uygun olduğu sonucuna ulaşılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrenciler
• matematiksel modelleme
• tasarım ve geliştirme araştırması
• öğretim tasarımı
• ADDIE model

Designing a Mathematical Modeling Activity for Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities: Google Maps Example

Abstract

In order to address real-world problems, various solution methods are adapted to meet the needs of students at different levels. This study aims to design a Google Maps activity within the “Length and Measurement” learning domain for students with mild intellectual disabilities, aligned with model-eliciting activities. The research was conducted using the design and development research method. The Google Maps activity designed was developed using the ADDIE instructional design model. In the analysis phase, the activity, connected to real-world contexts, was designed in collaboration with special education teachers and subject matter experts. During the design and development phases, it was decided to frame the Google Maps activity by examining the components of modeling activities and the support education program published by the General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services. Aligned with the principles of model-eliciting activities, the activity was structured into components, including an introduction phase, readiness questions, a problem situation, and a presentation of solutions. Additionally, following the expert evaluation of two special education teachers, the activity was adapted to suit students with mild intellectual disabilities. During the implementation phase, the activities were carried out with three high school students with mild intellectual disabilities. To ensure reliability, the students’ responses were evaluated by two field experts during the analysis process. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that the Google Maps activity, designed as a real-world problem-solving task for students with mild intellectual disabilities, is well-suited to the framework of model-eliciting activities.

Keywords

• Students with mild intellectual disabilities
• mathematical modeling
• design and development research
• instructional design
• ADDIE model

References

1. Bağlama, B. (2018). Zihin yetersizliği olan öğrencilere matematik problem çözme becerisinin öğretiminde doğrudan öğretim yöntemiyle sunulan bilgisayar destekli video ile model olma öğretiminin etkililiği [Effectiveness of computer supported video modeling presented with direct instruction method on teaching mathematical problem solving skills to students with intellectual disability] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Yakın Doğu University.
2. Başal, M., & Batu, E. S. (2002). Zihin özürlü öğrencilere okuma yazma öğretme konusunda alt özel sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüş ve önerileri [Opinions and suggestions of lower special class teachers about teaching reading and writing to mentally handicapped students]. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 3(2) 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000067
3. Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process, Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 86-95. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02655883
4. Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. (2009). Assistive technology and mathematics: What is there and where can we go in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(2), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400202
5. Bukova Güzel, E. (2019). Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme [Mathematical Modeling in Mathematics Education]. Pegem Academy.
6. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Smith, D. D. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Sage Publications.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific Research Methods]. Pegem Academy.
8. Chamberlin, S. A., & Chamberlin, M. T. (2001). On-time Arrival. Unpublished text

9. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-3
10. Chamberlin, S. A., & Moon, S. M. (2008). How does the problem based learning approach compare to the model-eliciting activity approach in mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 78-105. https://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/chamberlin.pdf
11. English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2004). Mathematical modelling with young children. In M. Hoines, & B. Fugelsted (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (2), 335-342.. Bergen: PME. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55967278
12. English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modelling in the early school years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 58–79. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03217401
13. English, L. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary school: Children’s construction of a consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 303–323. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10649-005-9013-1
14. Eric, C. C. M. (2008). Using model-eliciting activities for primary mathematics classrooms. The Mathematics Educator, 11(1/2), 47-66. https://math.nie.edu.sg/ame/matheduc/tme/tmeV11/07%20Article%20by%20Eric%20Chan.pdf
15. Eripek, S. (2003). Rastlanma Sıklığı Yüksek Olan Çocuklar [Children with High Prevalence]. In A. Ataman (Ed.), Özel Eğitime Giriş [Introduction to Special Education] (pp. 60-78). Gündüz Education and Publishing.
16. Goldman, S. R., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 198-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000207
17. Gönener, H. D., Güler, Y., Altay, B., & Açıl, A. (2010). Caring of a mental-lmpaired child at home and nursing approach. Gaziantep Medical Journal, 16(2), 57-65.
18. Gürbüz, R., & Doğan, M. F. (2019). Giriş: Matematiksel modellemeye disiplinler arası bakış: Bir STEM yaklaşımı [Introduction: An interdisciplinary approach to mathematical modeling: A STEM approach.] In R. Gürbüz & M. F. Doğan (Eds) (2nd edition). Matematiksel modellemeye disiplinler arası bakış: Bir STEM yaklaşımı [An interdisciplinary approach to mathematical modeling: A STEM approach], (pp.1-5). Pegem Academy.
19. Güven, M. (2008). Öğretim Materyali ve Tasarım Süreci [Instructional Material and Design Process] In K. Selvi (Ed.), Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Tasarımı [Instructional Technologies and Material Design] (pp. 165-212). Anı Publishing.
20. Hart, J. E., & Whalon, K. J. (2012). Using video self-modeling via iPads to increase academic responding of an adolescent with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(4), 438-446. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879637?seq=1
21. Hohalan, G. G., McFarlard, J., & Picillo, B. A. (1994). Elementary school science for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 86-93.
22. Hord, C. (2023). Middle and high school math teaching for students with mild intellectual disability. Support for Learning, 38(1), 4-16. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12425
23. Karabulut, A., & Yıkmış, A. (2016). The effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on teaching the skill of telling the time to individuals with mental retardation. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Educationi, 10(2), 103-113. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/16708
24. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar-ilkeler-teknikler. [Scientific research method: Concepts-principles-techniques]. Nobel Publishing.
25. Kırcaali-İftar, G. (1998). Özel Gereksinimli Bireyler ve Özel Eğitim [Individuals with Special Needs and Special Education]. Anadolu University Open Education Faculty Publications.
26. Krouse, H. J. (2001). Video modelling to educate patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 748-757. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01716.x
27. Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
28. Kuş, S., & Gökbulut, Y. (2021). Teacher opinions on mainstream and mathematics teaching. Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Scientific Research], 6(2), 345-358. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tubad/issue/67618/939119
29. Lesh R., Hoover M., Hole B., Kelly A. & Post T. (2000). Principles for Developing Thought-Revealing Activities for Students and Teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 591-645). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Lesh, R. A., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Routledge
31. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed.) (pp.763–804). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
32. Lesh R., Young R., & Fennewald T. (2010). Modeling in K-16 Mathematics Classrooms – and Beyond. In R. Lesh, C. R. Haines, P. L. Galbraith & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling Students Mathematical Modeling Competencies (pp. 275-283). Springer.
33. Maaß, K. (2006). “What are modelling competencies?”, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38 (2), 113-142.
34. Mete, P., Çapraz, C., & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Science education for intellectual disabled students. Atatürk University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 21(1), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.18069/ataunisosbil.35347
35. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2010). Okullarımızda Neden Niçin Nasıl Kaynaştırma Yönetici, Öğretmen ve Aile Kılavuzu [Why Why How Inclusion in Our Schools Administrator, Teacher and Family Guide]. Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Special Education, Guidance and Counseling Services.
36. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Regulation on Special Education Services]. Official Gazette, Date of Publication: July 7, 2018, No: 30471. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_07/09101900_ozel_egitim_hizmetleri_yonetmeligi_07072018.pdf
37. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
38. Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (1993). Mathematical problem solving characteristics of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700203
39. NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
40. Ostad, A., & Sorensen, P. M. (2007). Private speech and strategy-use patterns: Bidirectional comparisons of children with and without mathematical difficulties in a developmental perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400010101
41. Öner, G. (2018). Zihinsel engelli öğrencilere fen bilimleri dersinde canlıların sınıflandırılmasının bilgisayar destekli bireyselleştirilmiş öğretim yöntemiyle öğretiminin etkisi [The effect of teaching the classification of living things to students with intellectual disabilities in science course with computer-assisted individualized instruction method] [Unpublished master thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
42. Özkubat, U., & Özmen, E. R. (2018). Analysis of mathematical problem solving process of students with learning disability: Implementation of think aloud protocol. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 155-180. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.299494
43. Özkubat, U. (2019). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrenciler ile düşük ve ortalama başarılı olan öğrencilerin matematik problemi çözerken kullandıkları bilişsel stratejiler ile üstbilişsel işlevler arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. [Investigating the relationships between cognitive strategies and metacognitive functions used by students with learning disabilities and low and average achieving students while solving mathematics problems] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Gazi University.
44. Özsoy, Y., Özyürek, M., & Eripek, S. (2001). Özel Eğitime Giriş [Introduction to Special Education]. Karatepe Publishing.
45. Parmar, R. S., & Cawley, J. F. (1993). Analysis of science textbook recommendations provided for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 518-531.
46. Polo-Blanco, I., González López, M. J., Bruno, A., & González-Sánchez, J. (2024). Teaching students with mild intellectual disability to solve word problems using schema-based instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487211061421
47. Richey, R. C. (1994). Developmental research: The definition and scope. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 7–22.
48. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38.
49. Richey, R., & Klein, J. (2008). Research on design and development. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 748-757.
50. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, And Issues. Routledge. Rosenzweig, C., Krawec, J., & Montague, M. (2011). Metacognitive strategy use of eighth-grade students with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving: A think-aloud analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6) 508-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378445
51. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: implications for mainstream instruction of student with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15-24.
52. Sezgin, N. (2016). Süreç temelli öğretiminin hafif düzeyde zihinsel yetersizliği olan öğrencinin yazma becerisine etkisinin incelenmesi [Examining the effect of process-based instruction on the writing skills of students with mild intellectual disability] [Unpublished master thesis]. Karadeniz Teknik University.
53. Shin, M., & Bryant, D. P. (2015). A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performances of students with mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413508324
54. Sucuoğlu, B., & Kargın, T. (2010). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma uygulamaları [Inclusion practices in primary education]. Kök Publishing.
55. Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 249-274. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002249
56. Şimşek, A. (2013). Öğretim tasarımı ve modelleri [Instructional design and models]. In K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Eds.), Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: Teoriler, araştırmalar, eğilimler [Foundations of instructional technologies: Theories, research, trends] (pp. 99–116). Pegem Academy.
57. Tekin Dede, A., & Bukova Güzel, E. (2014). Model eliciting activities: The theoretical structure and its example. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 33(1), 95-111. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/188037
58. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma [Qualitative Research in Social Sciences]. Seçkin Publishing.
59. Yılmaz, E. B. (2020). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının çevrimiçi eğitimde harita kullanımına yönelik ders planı hazırlama ve uygulama deneyimleri. [Pre-service mathematics teachers’ experiences in preparing and implementing lesson plans for the use of maps in online education] [Unpublished master thesis]. Osmangazi University.
60. Yiğit E. C. (2012). Öğretim Sistemi Tasarımı (ISD) / ADDIE Modeli [Instructional System Design (ISD) / ADDIE Model]. https://ikegitimvegelisim.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/ogretim-sistemi-tasarimi-isdaddie-modeli/
61. Yu, S. Y., & Chang, C. K. (2009). What did Taiwan mathematics teachers think of model-eliciting activities and modeling? In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling international perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling, (pp. 147-156). Springer.