Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişlerinin Çoklu-Yöntem Görüşme Tekniği ile Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada Üç Bileşenli Üstbiliş Modeli (farkındalık, düzenleme ve değerlendirme) ve Çoklu-Yöntem Görüşme Tekniği kullanılarak ortaokul öğrencilerinin rutin olmayan matematiksel problem çözme sürecindeki bilişsel süreçlerinin doğasının ve üstbilişsel yapılarının ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Keşifsel nitel araştırma deseni kullanılan bu araştırmanın katılımcılarını altıncı ve sekizinci sınıf düzeylerinden dokuzar öğrenci olmak üzere toplam 18 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri rutin olmayan matematiksel problem çözümünü ve eylem kartları sıralama etkinliğini içeren problem tabanlı klinik görüşme aracılığı ile toplanmıştır. Çalışmada her bir öğrenci ile her görüşmede farklı bir problem kullanılarak üçer görüşme yürütülmüş olup, toplamda 54 görüşme yapılmıştır. Görüşmeler sonunda öğrenciler tarafından yapılandıran kart sıralamaları kartların ait oldukları üstbilişsel fonksiyonlar ve eylemler incelenerek analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları Üç Bileşenli Üstbiliş Modeli’nin geçerli ve Çoklu-Yöntem Görüşme Tekniği’nin ortaokul öğrencileri ile uygulanabilir olduğunu göstermiştir. Altıncı ve sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin kart sıralamaları karşılaştırıldığında altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin daha fazla bilişsel eylem, sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin ise daha fazla farkındalık eylemi bildirdiği görülmüştür. Altıncı ve sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin bilişsel süreçlerinin doğası ve üstbilişsel yapı sıralamalarında görülen benzerlikler ve farklılıklar yorumlanarak tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Üstbiliş
• Üstbilişin değerlendirilmesi
• Çoklu-Yöntem Görüşme Tekniği
• Problem çözme

Assessing Metacognition of Middle School Students with Multi-Method Interview Technique

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore the nature of middle school students’ cognitive processes and their metacognitive structures during non-routine mathematical problem solving by using a Three-Component Metacognition Model (Awareness, Regulation, and Evaluation) and the Multi-Method Interview Technique. This exploratory qualitative study involved a total of 18 students as participants, with 9 students selected from each of the sixth and eighth grade levels. The data of the study were collected through a problem-based clinical interview that included non-routine mathematical problem solving and an action card sorting activity. In the study, three separate interviews were conducted with each student using a different problem in each session, resulting in a total of 54 interviews. The card sequences constructed by the students were analyzed by examining the metacognitive functions and actions associated with each card. The findings of the study indicated that the Three-Component Metacognition Model is valid and that the Multi-Method Interview Technique is applicable for use with middle school students. When the card rankings of sixth and eighth-grade students were compared, it was seen that sixth-grade students reported more cognitive actions and eighth-grade students reported more awareness actions. The similarities and differences observed in the nature of the cognitive processes and the metacognitive structure sequences of sixth and eighth-grade students were interpreted and discussed.

Keywords

• Metacognition
• Assessment of metacognition
• Multi-Method Interview Technique
• Problem solving

References

1. Adibnia, A. & Putt, I. J. (1998). Teaching problem solving to year 6 students: A new approach. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(3), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217057
2. Alarcon, E. A. A. (2018). An exploratory qualitative study of employee perceptions of effective manager coach-employee relationship. (Doktora Tezi). https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/pqdtglobal/ sayfasından erişilmiştir.
3. Artz, A. F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_3
4. Aydın, B., Dinç, E., Sezgin-Memnun, D., & Moyu-Yıldırım, M. (2020). Sekizinci ve dokuzuncu sınıf öğrencilerinin üstbiliş becerileri ile rutin olmayan problemleri çözme başarıları: Kosova ve Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası Bilim ve Eğitim Dergisi, 3(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.47477/ubed.818879
5. Bannert, M. & Mengelkamp, C. (2008). Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted: Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9009-6
6. Beydili, R. (2019). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme sürecinde sergiledikleri üstbilişsel davranışlar. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). http://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
7. Desoete, A. & De Craene, B. (2019). Metacognition and mathematics education: An overview. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 51(4), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01060-w
8. Dignath, C. & Buttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231-264. https://doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9029-x

9. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
10. Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K., Jr. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/748391
11. Işık, C. & Kar, T. (2011). İlköğretim 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sayı algılama ve rutin olmayan problem çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 57-72.
12. Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052
13. Kohen, Z. & Kramarski, B. (2018). Promoting mathematics teachers’ pedagogical metacognition: A theoretical-practical model and case study. Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Ed.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching and assessment içinde (s. 229–248). Springer.
14. Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Nobel Akademi.
15. Kuzle, A. (2018). Assessing metacognition of grade 2 and grade 4 students using an adaptation of multi-method interview approach during mathematics problem-solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30, 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0227-1
16. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
17. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
18. MEB. (2021). TIMSS-Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Eğilimleri Araştırması. https://timss.meb.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
19. Muncer, G., Higham, P. A., Gosling, C. J., Cortese, S., Wood-Downie, H., & Hadwin, J. A. (2022). A meta-analysis investigating the association between metacognition and math performance in adolescence. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 301–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09620-x
20. Ohtani, K. & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: A meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 179-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-018-9183-8
21. Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2097
22. Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019) Metacognition in schools: what does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127
23. Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self‑regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning içinde (s. 334–370). Macmillan.
25. Schneider, W., Lingel, K., Artelt, C., & Neuenhaus, N. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge in secondary school students: Assessment, structure, and developmental change. D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Ed.), Competence assessment in education: Research, models and instruments içinde (s. 285–302). Springer.
26. Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
27. Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
28. Thorpe, K. J. & Satterly, D. J. H. (1990). The development and inter‑relationship of metacognitive components among primary school children. Educational Psychology, 10(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341900100102
29. Veenman, M. V. J. & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.12.001
30. Veenman, M. V. J. & van Cleef, D. (2019). Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: Students’ self‑reports versus on‑line assessment methods. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 51(4), 691–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-1006-5
31. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-68930
32. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004
33. Wilson, J. (2001). Assessing metacognition. (Doktora Tezi). https://unimelb.libguides.com/c.php?g=402938&p=2741740 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
34. Wilson, J. & Clarke, D. (2004). Toward the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217394
35. Xie, Y., Zeng, F., & Yang, Y. (2024). A meta-analysis of the relationship between metacognition and academic achievement in mathematics: From preschool to university. Acta Psychologica, 249, 104486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104486
36. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
37. Young, A. E. & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(3), 259-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218755915
38. Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez‑Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self‑regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self‑efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51