Bir Öğrenciye Temel Bölme İşlemlerinde Akıcılık Kazandırmada Dinleyerek İşlem Yapma Uygulamalarının Etkililiği

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı, dinleyerek işlem yapma (DİY) ile yapılan öğretim uygulamalarının matematik performansı düşük bir öğrencinin temel bölme işlemlerinde akıcılık düzeyini artırmada etkililiğini, öğrencinin ulaşmış olduğu akıcılık performansını başka kişi ve eğitim ortamlarına genelleyip genellemediğini ve aradan belli bir süre geçtikten sonra da sürdürüp sürdürmediğini belirlemektir. Araştırmada beceriler arası çoklu yoklama modeli kullanılmıştır. Katılımcı, 12 yaşında, yedinci sınıf düzeyinde, genel eğitim sınıfına devam eden, tanı almamış ancak matematik performansı düşük bir kız öğrencidir. Araştırmanın bulguları, DİY uygulamalarının matematik performansı düşük bir öğrencinin temel bölme işlemlerindeki akıcılık düzeyini artırmada etkili olduğunu, ulaşmış olduğu akıcılık düzeyini başka öğretmen ve eğitim ortamına genellediğini ve performansını 7, 14 ve 21. günlerde de sürdürdüğünü göstermiştir. Sosyal geçerlik bulguları incelendiğinde, öğretmen ve öğrencinin uygulamaya ilişkin olumlu görüşleri, DİY uygulamalarının kabul edilebilirliğini ve araştırma sonuçlarının yüksek düzeyde anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca sosyal karşılaştırma ortalamaları dikkate alındığında öğrenci akranlarının akıcılık ortalamasına çok yaklaşmıştır. Bu bulgular alanyazın araştırmaları ile tartışılmıştır. 

Keywords

• Akıcılık,temel matematik becerileri,ustalaşma,otomatikleşme dinleyerek işlem yapma,matematikte akıcılık

References

1. Alberto, P. A. & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behaviour analysis for teachers (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
2. Alptekin, S., Aksoy, Y. & Vural, M. (2016). Matematik performansı düşük öğrencide toplama işlemi yapma akıcılığını artırmaya yönelik örnek uygulama: keşfet-kopyala-karşılaştır (cover-copy-compare) [A Sample Activity for Improving the Addition Fluency of Students with Poor Mathematics Performance: Cover-Copy-Compare]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education], 35(1), 103-116.
3. Aspiranti, K.B., Skinner, C.H., McCleary, D.F. & Cihak, D.F. (2011). Using taped problems and rewards to increase addition-fact fluency in a first-grade general education classroom. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(2), 25-33.
4. Baykul, Y. (2006). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi [Teaching mathematics in primary education] (9. Baskı) [9th ed]. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
5. Billington, E. J., & Ditommaso, N. M. (2003). Demonstrations and applications of the matching law in education. Joumal of Behavioral Education, 12, 91-104. doi: 1053-0819/03/0600-009
6. Bliss, S.L., Skinner, C.H., McCallum, E., Saecker, L.B., Rowland-Bryant, E. & Brown, K.S. (2010). A comparison of taped problems with and without a brief posttreatment assessment on multiplication fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(2), 156-168. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9106-5
7. Bryant, B. R., Ok, M., Kang, E. Y., Kim, M. K., Lang, R., Bryant, D. P., & Pfannestiel, K. (2015). Performance of fourth-grade students with learning disabilities on multiplication facts comparing teacher-mediated and technology-mediated interventions: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 255-272.
8. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Kit-hung, L., & Pierce, T. (2001). Teaching mathematics to students with mild-to-moderate mental retardation: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation, 39, 20-31.

9. 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.
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, 23 – 34. doi:1053-0819/03/0300-0023/0
11. Cozad, L.E. & Riccomini, P.J. (2016). Effects of digital-based math fluency interventions on learners with math difficulties: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship. 5, 2 (2016), 12 2016. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/josea/vol5/iss2/2
12. 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. Retrived from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=nera_2008 Duhon, G. J., House, S. H., & Stinnett, T. A. (2012). Evaluating the generalization of math fact fluency gains across paper and computer performance modalities. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 335-345. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.003
13. Erbaş, D. (2012). Güvenirlik [Reliability]. E. Tekin-İftar (Ed.), in Eğitim ve davranış bilimlerinde tek denekli araştırmalar [Single-subject research in education and behavioral sciences] (pp. 109-128). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları [Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Psychological Association Publications].
14. Freeman, T.J. & McLaughlin, T.F. (1984). Effects of a taped-words treatment procedure on learning disabled students' sight-word oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 49-54.
15. Gagne, R.M. (1982). Some issues in psychology of mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7 – 18.
16. Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1539–1552. doi:10.1037/a0025510
17. Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380040301
18. Gurganus, S.P. (2017). Math instruction for learning problems (2nd. ed). Newyork: Routledge.
19. Hayter, E. Scott, T. F. McLaughlin, & K. P. Weber, (2007). The use of a modified direct instruction flashcard system with two high school students with developmental disabilities. J. of Phy. & Dev. Dis. 19, 409-415.
20. 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.
21. Hudson, P. & Miller, S. (2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning needs. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
22. Johnson, K.R. & Layng, T.J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 281-288.
23. Kleinert, W.L., Codding, R.S. Minami T. & Gould, K. (2017). A meta-analysis of the taped problems intervetion. Journal of Behavior Education. 27, 55-80. doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9284-5
24. Kroesbergen, E., & Van Luit,J. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114. doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
25. Lewis, R.B. & Doorlag, D.H. (1999). Teaching Special Students in General Education Classroom. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
26. Maag, J.W. & Webber, J. (1995). Promoting Children’s Social Development in General Education Classrooms, Researcah in Developmental Disabilities. 39(23), 13-20.
27. Mastropieri. M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2004). The Inclusive Classroom Strategies for Effective Instruction (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Colombus Ohio.
28. 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.
29. McCallum, E., Schmitt, A. J., Schneider, D. L, Rezzetano, K., & Skinner, C. H. (2010). Extending research on the taped-problems intervention: Do group rewards enhance math fact fluency development?. School Psychology Forum, 4, 44-61. doi: 10.1080/15377900903175861
30. 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. Joumal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 129-147. doi: 10.1300/J370v20n02_08
31. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using low-tech classwide, time delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
32. Miller, S. P., Hall, S. W., & Heward, W. L. (1995). Effects of sequential 1-minute time trials with and without inter-trial feedback and self-correction on general and special education students fluency with math facts. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 319-345.
33. Miller, K. C., Skinner, C. H., Gibby, L., Galyon, C.E., & Meadows-Allen, S. (2011). Evaluating generalization of addition-fact fluency using the taped-problems procedure in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 203-220. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9126-9
34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education] (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı [Mathematics instruction program]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201813017165445MATEMAT%C4%B0K%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI%202018v.pdf.
35. Mong, M. D. & Mong, K. W. (2010). Efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 273-288. doi: 10.1007/s10864-011-9143-8
36. Morin, V. A. & Miller, S. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 22-26
37. Özyürek, M. (2009). Bilişsel ve devimsel davranışları öğretmeyi kazandırma [To teach cognitive and knesthetic behaviors]. İstanbul: Daktylos Yayıncılık.
38. Poncy, B. C., Fontenelle, S.F.& Skinner, C. H., (2013). Using detect, practice, and repair (dpr) to differentiate and individualize math fact instruction in a class-wide setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22(3), 211-228. doi: 10.1007/s10864-013-9171-7
39. Poncy B.C., Jaspers, K.E., Hansmann, P.R., Bui, L. & Matthew. W.B. (2015) A Comparison of Taped-Problem Interventions to Increase Math Fact Fluency: Does the Length of Time Delay Affect Student Learning Rates?, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31(1), 63-82. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2014.963273
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, 744- 755. doi:10.1002/pits.21631
42. Rhymer, K. N., Henington, C., Skinner, C. H., & Looby, E. J. (1999). The effects of explicit timing on mathematics performance in second-grade Caucasian and African-American students. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(4), 397-407. doi:10.1037/h0089016
43. Salend, J.S. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classroms. Effective and leflective Practices (4th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
44. Shapiro, E.S. (2011). Academic skills problems, direct assessment and intervention (4th ed). New York: Guilford Press.
45. 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, 389-403. doi: 10.1002/pits.20065.
46. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.
47. Stein, M., Silbert, J. & Carnine, D. (2006). Desining effective mathematics instruction a direct instruction approach (3th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.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.
48. Sucuoğlu, B. & Kargın, T. (2006). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma uygulamaları: Yaklaşımlar yöntemler teknikler [Mainstreaming practices in primary education: Approaches, methods, techniques]. Ankara: Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
49. Tekin-İftar, E. (2012). Çoklu yoklama modelleri. [Multiple probe models]. E. Tekin-İftar (Ed.), in Eğitim ve davranış bilimlerinde tek denekli araştırmalar [Single-subject research in education and behavioral sciences] (pp. 217-243). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları [Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Psychological Association Publications].
50. Tekin-İftar, E. & Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2016). Özel eğitimde yanlışsız öğretim yöntemleri [Responce promting methods in special education] (3. baski) [3rd ed]. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık
51. Uysal, H. (2017). Zihin yetersizliği olan öğrencilere temel toplama işlemlerinde akıcılık kazandırmada iki farklı uygulamanın karşılaştırılması [The comparison of two treatments for enhancing basic addition facts fluency of students with intellectuel disabilities]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir [Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir, Turkey].
52. Windingstad, S., Skinner, C. H., Rowland, E., Cardin, E., & Fearrington, J. Y. (2009). Extending research on a math fluency building intervention: Applying taped problems in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 364–381. doi: 10.1080/15377900903175861.
53. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J. & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
54. 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.