İşbirlikli Problem Çözme Alanında Yapılan Çalışmaların Meta Değerlendirmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 28 - 46, 23.06.2020

Gülçin Karakuş

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı işbirlikli problem çözme alanında literatürde yer alan çalışmaları değerlendirmektir. 71 adet araştırma bu çalışmada değerlendirilmiştir. Bu amaçla işbirlikli problem çözme alanında yapılan çalışmalara Web of Science, ERIC, SCOPUS, ULAKBİM (Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi), Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi ve Google Akademik veri tabanlarından ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi 57 adet makale ve 14 tezden oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada yer alan araştırmalar türü, yayın yılı, yayın yeri, araştırma yöntemi, örneklem, örneklem belirleme yöntemi, veri toplama araçları, süre ve değişken özellikleri incelenerek sınıflandırılmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Teorik çalışmaların betimsel özellikleri temel önermeleri doğrultusunda sunulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular şekil, grafik, frekans ve yüzdeler ile sunulmuştur. Çalışma sonunda yapılan araştırmaların çoğunluğunun makale türünde olduğu, yurt dışında daha fazla çalışma yapıldığı, nicel araştırmaların nitel araştırmalardan fazla olduğu, ilkokul, ortaokul ve üniversiteye yönelik çalışmaların diğer örneklemlere göre daha fazla tercih edildiği, araştırmaların çoğunda örneklem belirleme yöntemlerinin belirtilmediği, bağımlı değişken olarak en fazla problem çözme becerisinin, bağımsız değişken olarak ise en fazla işbirlikli öğrenme becerisinin kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

İşbirlikli öğrenme, problem çözme, işbirlikli problem çözme, meta değerlendirme

References

• Adayemi, B.A. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 16 (3), 691-708.
• Akarçay, Ö. & Gündüz, M. A. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Nicel karma nitel tasarımlar için bir rehber. Ankara: Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Akça-Üstündağ, D. (2013). Türkiye’de bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi alanındaki yüksek lisans tezlerinin araştırma eğilimleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 3(1), 55-71.
• Altun, M. (2000). İköğretimde Problem Çözme Öğretimi. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları,3526, 147, Ankara.
• Azizinezhad, M., Hashemi, M. & Darvishi, S. (2013). Application of cooperative learning in EFL classes to enhance the students’ language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,93,138 – 141.
• Axinn, W. G., Fricke, T. E., & Thornton, A. (1991). The microdemographic community-study approach: Improving survey data by integrating the ethnographic method. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(2), 187-217.
• Blumberg, B. Cooper, DR. & Schindler, PS.(2011). Business research methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E. & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning With Peers: From Small Group Cooperation to Collaborative Communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37-39.
• Bouas, J.M. (1996). Are we giving cooperative learning enough attention in preservice teacher education? Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(4), 45-58.
• Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological Theory and the Design of Innovative Learning Environments: on Procedures, Principles, and Systems. In: Schauble L. and Glaser R. (Eds). Innovations in Learning: New Environments for Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 289–325.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (5. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Carlan, V., Rubin, R. & Morgan, B. (2005). Cooperative learning, mathematical problem solving, and latinos. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/morgan.
• Clearwater, S. H., Hogg, T. &Huberman, B. A. (1992). Cooperative Problem Solving. In Computation: The Micro and The Macro View, (33-70).
• Cohen, E. (1994).Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Çardak, C.S. & Selvi, K. (2018). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri dersi için bir başarı testi geliştirme süreci. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(26), 379-406.
• Çepni, S. (2007). Performansların Değerlendirilmesi. E. Karip (Ed.), Ölçme ve Değerlendirme içinde (s.196-234). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Dağyar, M. & Demirel, M. (2015). Probleme dayalı öğrenmenin akademik başarıya etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(181), 139-174.
• Dalton, D. W., Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). Effects of individual and cooperative computer assisted instruction on student performance and attitude. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37(2),15-24.
• Demirci, A. (2014). Araştırma konusunun belirlenmesi ve planlanması. Coğrafya araştırma yöntemleri içinde, 51-72.
• Demirel, İ. H., Saraç, C., & Gürses, E. A. (2007). Türkiye bilimsel yayın göstergeleri (I) 1981-2006. Ankara: TÜBİTAK-ULAKBİM Yayınları, 19.
• Dinçer, S. (2018). Eğitim bilimleri araştırmalarında içerik analizi: Meta-Analiz, meta-sentez, betimsel içerik analizi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 176-190.
• Dunne, T. (2014). Conducting Cooperative Problem Solving Activities in Communities. Retrieved from https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/community.pdf.
• D’Zurilla, T.J. & Nezu, A.M. (2001). Problem-Solving Therapies. In Dobson KS (Ed) Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
• Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2001). Effective strategies for cooperative learning. Journal of Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69-75.
• Genç, M. ve Şahin, F. (2013). İlköğretim sekizinci sinif fen bilgisi dersinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37,138-155.
• Gillies, R. B. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behavior during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 271–287.
• Gillies, R. M. ve Haynes, M. (2011). Increasing explanatory behaviour, problem-solving, and reasoning within classes using cooperative group work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 349-366.
• Greiff, S., Holt, D. & Funke, J. (2013). Perspectives on Problem Solving in Cognitive Research and Educational Assessment: Analytical, Interactive, and Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Problem Solving (The), 5, 71-91.
• Gooyert, V. & Grössler, A. (2018).On the difference between theoretical and applied system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, (34), 575-583.
• Gök, T. ve Sılay, İ. (2009). İşbirlikli Problem Çözme Stratejileri Öğretiminin Öğrencilerin Başarısı ve Başarı Güdüsü Üzerindeki Etkileri. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 13-27.
• Greiff, S., Holt, D.,& Funke, J. (2013). Perspectives on Problem Solving in Cognitive Research and Educational Assessment: Analytical, Interactive, and Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Problem Solving (The), 5, 71-91.
• Güven, M., Aslan, B., & Yıldız Akyol, E. (2017). Türkiye’de psikolojik danışma ve rehberlik alanında yapılan doktora tezlerinin incelenmesi (2000-2016). Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 136-147.
• Havennar, M. (2018). How to select a brilliant research topic retriwed from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328043130_How_to_select_a_brilliant_research_topic on .01.05.2020
• Hovhannisyan, A. & Sahlberg, P. (2010). Cooperative learning for educational reform in Armenia. Intercultural Education, 21:3, 229-242, DOI: 10.1080/14675981003760424.
• Jenkins, J., Antil, L., Wayne, S. & Vadasy, P. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Exceptional Children, 69 (3), 279–292.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. ( 2000). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Johnson, D. W, Johnson, R. T. & Johnson Holubec E. (1999) Circles of learning cooperation in the classroom. Edina, Minnesota.
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. E. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A Meta-analysis. Retriewed from http://www.ccsstl.com/sites/default/files/Cooperative%20Learning%20Research%20.pdf
• Johnston, J. H., Johnston, H.H. & Markle, G. C. (1986). What Research Says to the Middle Level Practitioner. Middle School Journal, 12 (4), 22-24.
• Kagan, S. (1994).Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
• Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
• Karasözen, B., Bayram, Ö. G. & Burcu, U. (2009). 1997-2006 Türkiye Bilim Göstergeleri Analizi. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 23(1), 4-21.
• Klein, J. D., & Pridemore, D. R.(1992). Effects of cooperative learning and need for affiliation on performance, time on task, and satisfaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 39-48.
• Kroll, D. L. (1992). Grading Cooperative Problem Solving. Mathematics Teacher, 85(8), 619-627.
• Lapp, D. & Flood, J. (1989). Cooperative Problem Solving: Enhancing Learning in the Secondary Science Classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 51(2), 112-115.
• Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.
• Leung, C. & Chung, C. (1997).Student achievement in an educational technology course as enhanced by cooperative learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, (6), 337-343.
• Lumpe, A.T. & Haney, J.J. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (9), 971-993.
• Madzivhandila, T. P., Griffith, G. R., Fleming, E. M., & Nesamvuni, A. E. (2010). Meta-evaluations in government and government institutions: A case study example from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (No. 421-2016-26762).
• Manning, M.L. &Lucking, R. (1991). The what, why, and how of cooperative learning. The Clearing House, 64(3),152-156.
• McGuire, J. (2001). What is Problem Solving? A Review of Theory, Research and Applications. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11, 210–235.
• Meyer, W.R. (2010). Independent learning: a literature review and a new Project, Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 1-4 September 2010.
• Nebesniak, A. (2007). Using Cooperative Learning to Promote a Problem-Solving Classroom, Math in the Middle Institute Partnership Action Research Project Report.
• Ning, H. & Hornby, G. (2014). The impact of cooperative learning on tertiary EFL learners’ motivation. Educational Review, 66(1), 108-124, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2013.853169.
• Osanloo, A. and Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your house. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4, (2), 12-26.
• Pablo, M.N. & Saborido, E.J.G. (2015). Teaching to training teachers through cooperative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,180, 401 – 406. Payne, G. ve Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
• Poore, S. (2008). Cooperative Learning In Relation to Problem Solving in the Mathematics Classroom. Math in the Middle Institute Partnership Action Research Projects.
• Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.
• Rittle-Johnson, B. & Star, JR. (2009). Compared with What? The Effects of Different Comparisons on Conceptual Knowledge and Procedural Flexibility for Equation Solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544.
• Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & T. R. Miller(2003).Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 240–257.
• Saracaloğlu, A. S., Gündoğdu, K., Altın, M., Aksu, N., Kozağaç, Z. B.,& Koç, B. (2013). Yaratıcı düşünme becerisi konusunda 2000 yılı ve sonrasında yayımlanmış makalelerin incelenmesi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(2), 62-74.
• Schroth, S. T., Helfer, J. A., Crawford, M. A., Dixon, J. D., & Hoyt, H. M. (2015). Establishing groups in the college or university classroom: using VIEW to form better cooperative groups and improve learning Outcomes. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(2), 3.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park: Sage.
• Skilbeck, M., & Connel, H. (2003). Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers: Australian country background report. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
• Slavin, R.E., (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Slavin, R. E.(1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Slavin, R. E. (2010).Cooperative learning. In International Encyclopedia of Education, edited by E. Baker, P. Peterson, and B. Mc Gaw, 3rd ed., 161–178.Oxford: Elsevier.
• Slavin, R. (2013). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. In Handbook of Psychology, edited by W. Reynolds, G. Miller, and I. Weiner,(7), 199–212. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Stewart, D., & Klein, S. (2016). The use of theory in research. International journal of clinical pharmacy, 38(3), 615-619.
• Strommen, E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Technology may be a Trojan Horse that brings collaboration into the classroom. Electronic Learning. 14(4), 24-35 (Online).
• Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M., & Dündar, H. (2014). Eğitim ve bilim dergisinde yayınlanan araştırmaların eğilimleri: İçerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 430-453.
• Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative learning for academic and social gains: valued pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45(2),300–313.
• Slavin, R.E., (1990) Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Stufflebeam, D. (2000). The Methodology of metae valuation as reflected in meta evaluations by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 95–125.
• Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Uysal, Ö., Kobak, K., Berk, C., Kılıçer, T., & Çiğdem, H. (2009). İkibinli yıllarda Türkiye’deki eğitim teknolojisi araştırmalarında gözlenen eğilimler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 115-120.
• Tam, H. (2013). Cooperative Problem-Solving and Education. In FORUM: for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education (Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 185-202). Symposium Books. PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford, OX11 9ZQ, UK.
• Telli, E., & Yurdugül, H. (2009). 2011 yılları arasında eğitim bilimleri araştırmalarında kullanılan örnekleme yöntemleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Özel sayı, 2, 183-189.
• Wadlington, E. (1993). Integrating Writing and Cooperative Problem Solving in Elementary Mathematics Methods Classes. Teacher Education Quarterly, 121-127.
• Wang, T.P.(2007).The comparison of the difficulties between cooperative learning and traditional teaching methods in college English teachers. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 23-30.
• Watson, S.B.(1992).The essential elements of cooperative learning. The American Biology Teacher, 54 (2 ),84–86.
• Williams-Dixon, R. (1991). Cooperative learning: A social approach to learning. American Secondary Education, 19(3), 18–22. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41063964.
• Yarrow, F.ve Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative Writing: The Effects of Metacognitive Prompting and Structured Peer Interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261-282.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zhang, H. J., Li, Q. H. & Zhang, W. (2004). Commitment in Cooperative Problem Solving. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 993-996.