Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Geometri Hazırbulunuşlukları, Düşünme Düzeyleri, Geometriye Karşı Özyeterlikleri ve Tutumları

Year 2013, , 203 - 218, 01.05.2013

Asuman Duatepe Paksu

https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE585

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ilköğretim matematik dersi programı geometriği içeriği konusundaki hazırbulunuşluklarını, geometri özyeterlikleri, geometriye yönelik tutumlarını ve geometri düşünme düzeylerini belirlemektir. Çalışma kapsamında Türkiyeânin tüm coğrafi bölgelerinde yer alan değişik üniversitelerdeki son sınıfta okumakta olan sınıf öğretmeni adaylarına ulaşılmıştır. Bu amaçla belirlenen 19 üniversiteden toplam 1730 öğretmen adayından veri toplanmıştır. Veriler öğretmen adaylarının geometriye yönelik hazırbulunuşluklarının ve geometrik düşünme düzeylerinin düşük olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarının geometriye yönelik özyeterlikleri ve geometriye yönelik tutumları orta düzeydedir. Kadın öğretmen adayları çember, düzlem ve geometrik cisimler alt öğrenme alanlarında ve geometri hazırbulunuşluk testinin genelinde erkek öğretmen adaylarına göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde daha başarılıdırlar.

Keywords

sınıf öğretmeni adayı, matematik dersi öğretim programı, geometri, hazırbulunuşluk, geometri düşünme düzeyi, özyeterlik, tutum

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Geometry Readiness, Thinking Levels, Self Efficacy and Attitudes towards Geometry

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate preservice elementary teachers geometry readiness, geometry self efficacy, attitude towards geometry and geometric thinking level. Data of the study collected on 1730 senior preservice teachers from 19 universities in each region of Turkey. Findings showed that geometry readiness of preservice teachers was weak and their geometric thinking level was low. Their geometry self efficacy and attitude toward geometry were medium level. Female preservice elementary teachers were statistically got higher scores than male on circle, plane, solids and overall score of the test.

Keywords

preservice elementary school teacher, elementary mathematic curriculum, geometry, readiness, geometr

References

• Cantürk-Günhan B. Başer N. (2007). Geometriye Yönelik Öz-yeterlik Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 33/68-76.
• Çetin, Ö. F. ve Dane, A. (2004). Sınıf öğretmenliği III. sınıf öğrencilerinin geometrik bilgilere erişi düzeyleri üzerine, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 12(2), 427–436.
• Duatepe, A. (2000). An Investigation on the Relationship between Van Hiele Geometric Level of Thinking and Demographic Variables for Preservice Elementary School Teachers. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Duatepe, A., Ubuz, B. (2007). The Development of a Geometry Attitude Scale. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11 (2), 679-685
• Duatepe, A., Umay, A., Eke, N., Avşar, O.,ve Karaca, M. (2006). İlköğretim Matematik 5 Ders Kitabı -Öğretmen Kılavuz Kitabı -Öğrenci Çalışma Kitabı. Koza Yayın Dağıtım. Ankara.
• Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Nobel ,Yayın, Ankara.
• Mayberry, J. W. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 14, 58 – 69.
• MEB (2009). İlköğretim Matematik Dersi (1- 5. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara Devlet Kitapları Basımevi.
• Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997).Children’s Informal Knowledge of Physical Angle Situations. Cognition and Instruction, 7 (1) 1-19.
• Mitchelmore, M. C. & White, P. (2000). Development of Angle Concepts by Progressive Abstraction and Generalization. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41 (3), 209 –238.
• Thirumurthy, V. (2003).Children’s Cognition of Geometry and Spatial Reasoning: A Cultural Process. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, State University Of New York At Buffalo, USA.
• Ubuz, B. (1999). 10. ve 11. Sınıf Öğrencilerin Temel Geometri Konularındaki Hataları ve Kavram Yanılgıları, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16-17, 95-104.
• Ubuz, B. ve Üstün, I. (2003). Figural and Conceptual Aspects in Identifying Polygons, Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA, Cilt. 1, s.328.
• Umay, A., Duatepe-Paksu, A., ve Akkuş, O. (2006). İlköğretim 1.-5. Sınıf Matematik Yeni Öğretim Programının NCTM Prensip Ve Standartlarına Göre İncelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 198211
• Umay, A. Duatepe, A. ve Akkuş-Çıkla, O. (2005). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yeni öğretim programındaki matematiksel içeriğe yönelik hazır bulunuşluk düzeyleri. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi 28–30 Eylül 456-4
• Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1982. ERIC Document
• Reproduction Service no. ED 220 288. Üstün, I. (2003). Developing the Understanding of Geometry through Computer-based Learning Environment, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik
• Üniversitesi, Ankara. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and Insight. New York: Academic Press.
• Van Hiele -Geldof, D. (1984). The Didactics of
• Geometry in the Lowest Class of Secondary School. In David Fuys, Dorothy Geddes, and Rosamond Tischler (Eds.,), English Translation of Selected Writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, no. ED 287 6 Yenilmez, K. ve Yaşa, E. (2008). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Geometrideki Kavram Yanılgıları Uludağ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi XXI (2), 461-483
• Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Geometry Readiness, Thinking Levels, Self Efficacy and Attitudes towards Geometry While geometry is very important area of mathematics, research has shown that it is one of the most difficult areas for the students of mathematics in the world. This is also valid for Turkish samples. A recent research showed that geometry content area on the mathematics curriculum is the most problematics one for the preservice elementry teachers. This can be stemmed from several reasons like new topics as a result of the curriculum revision. The aim of this study is to investigate preservice elementary teachers geometry readiness, geometry self efficacy, attitude towards geometry and geometric thinking level. Determining the readiness level for geometry and which sublearning are is the most problematic one is very important step to improve teachers’ geometry knowledge. On the other hand investigating self efficacy and attitude towards geometry is the first pace to understand their affective status and improve it. Data for the study was collected from 1730 senior pre-service elementary school teachers from 19 universities. All participants had already taken all required mathematics and teaching mathematics courses. Four instruments used in the study were: the geometry readiness test, the self efficacy scale toward geometry, the geometry attitude scale and the Van Hiele geometric thinking level test. Instruments were administered by the researcher to pre-service elementary teachers during one of their courses. The geometry readiness test comprising 39 multiple choice questions was developed to measure the preservice teachers’ basic geometry knowledge.
• Items were devised by considering the elementary school curriculum, particularly on the fifth grade geometry curriculum. Items were on related to quadrilaterals, solids, circle, polygons, symmetry, and planes. Possible scores for this test ranged from 0 to The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .98. The self-efficacy scale toward geometry consists of 25 items all of which have five response categories as never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), frequently (4), always (5).. Possible scores on the instrument ranged from 25 to 125. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .76. The third instrument attitude scale toward geometry involves 12 Likert-type items with five possible options (strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree). The possible scores on this scale ranged from 12 to 60. The scale yielded Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of .76 in this study. Van Hiele geometric thinking level test has 25 items. The possible scores of this test ranged from 0 to 25. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .69.