Öğretmen Adaylarının Matematiksel Düşünme Düzeyleri ile Öğrenme Çeviklikleri Arasındaki İlişki: Kanonik Korelasyon Analizi

Öz

Günümüzde teknolojik gelişmeler, eğitim süreçlerini dönüştürerek öğrencilere matematiksel düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerini geliştirme fırsatı sunarken, öğretmenlerin de değişen koşullara hızla adapte olmasını ve öğretim süreçlerini bu doğrultuda yapılandırmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu araştırma, öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel düşünme düzeyleri ile öğrenme çeviklikleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. İlişkisel tarama modeli kullanılan çalışmanın örneklemi, Aksaray Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi'nde öğrenim gören 454 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Ersoy ve Başer (2013) tarafından geliştirilen “Matematiksel Düşünme Ölçeği” ve Alkan ve Maviş Sevim (2022) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğrenme Çevikliği Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme çevikliği ile matematiksel düşünme düzeyleri arasında pozitif ve orta düzeyde anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Matematiksel düşünme ve öğrenme çevikliği veri setlerinin kanonik korelasyon analizine göre yaklaşık %24'lük bir ortak varyansa sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, öğrenme çevikliği veri setindeki zihinsel çeviklik, kişilerarası çeviklik ve sonuç çevikliği faktörleri, matematiksel düşünme veri setindeki üst düzey düşünme, akıl yürütme ve problem çözme değişkenleri ile pozitif yönde ilişkilidir. Bu bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme çevikliği arttıkça matematiksel düşünme becerilerinin de geliştiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Matematiksel Düşünme
• Öğrenme Çevikliği
• Kanonik Korelasyon Analizi
• Öğretmen Adayları.

The Relationship Between Prospective Teachers' Mathematical Thinking Levels and Learning Agility: Canonical Correlation Analysis

Öz

Today, while technological developments transform educational processes and provide students with the opportunity to develop their mathematical thinking and problem solving skills, they also require teachers to rapidly adapt to changing conditions and to structure their teaching processes accordingly. This study aims to examine the relationship between pre-service teachers' mathematical thinking levels and their learning agility. he sample of the study, in which relational survey model was used, consists of 454 pre-service teachers studying at Faculty of Education, Aksaray University. 'Mathematical Thinking Scale’ developed by Ersoy and Başer (2013) and “Learning Agility Scale” developed by Alkan and Maviş Sevim (2022) were used as data collection tools. The findings of the study showed that there was a positive and moderately significant relationship between learning agility and mathematical thinking levels of pre-service teachers. Mathematical thinking and learning agility data sets were found to have a common variance of approximately 24% according to canonical correlation analysis. In addition, the factors of mental agility, interpersonal agility and result agility in the learning agility dataset are positively correlated with the variables of higher order thinking, reasoning and problem solving in the mathematical thinking dataset. These findings indicate that as the learning agility of pre-service teachers increases, their mathematical thinking skills also improve.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mathematical Thinking
• Learning Agility
• Canonical Correlation Analysis
• Preservice Teachers.

Kaynakça

1. Alkan, H., and Taşdan, B. T. (2011). Mathematical thinking through the eyes of prospective mathematics teachers at different grade levels. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(2), 107-118.
2. Alkan, M. F., and Maviş Sevim, Ö. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of the learning agility scale for pre-service teachers. Teacher Development, 26(5), 644–664. doi:10.1080/13664530.2022.2130420
3. Apino, E., and Retnawati, H. (2016). Creative problem solving to improve students' higher order thinking skills in mathematics instructions. In Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science (pp. 339–346).
4. Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667350
5. Bahadır, H. İ., ve Çarkıt, C. (2024). Eleştirel okuma ve okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalığı arasındaki ilişki: Bir kanonik korelasyon analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 49(220), 1–20. doi:10.15390/EB.2024.12673
6. Ball, D. L. (2017). Uncovering the special mathematical work of teaching. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 11–35). ICME-13 Monographs. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62597-3_2
7. Bedford, C. (2011). The role of learning agility in workplace performance and career advancement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota. ProQuest.
8. Blum, W., Galbraith, P. L., Henn, H.-W., and Niss, M. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1

9. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi.
10. Cheng, H. F. K., et al. (2024). Identifying mathematics teachers' competency to look at multiple representations and forms of algebraic structure: The EMFAS technique application. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1222510. doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1222510
11. Church, A. H., Rotolo, C. T., Ginther, N. M., and Levine, R. (2015). How are top companies designing and managing high potential programs? A follow-up talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67, 17–47. doi:10.1037/cpb0000030
12. Clark, R. (2007). Convenience sample. In The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 1–2). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc131.pub2
13. Çelik, H. C., and Özdemir, F. (2020). Mathematical thinking as a predictor of critical thinking dispositions of pre-service mathematics teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 81–98. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.6
14. Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., and Tang, K. Y. (2013). The role of learning agility in executive career success: The results of two field studies. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(2), 108–131.
15. Dai, G., De Meuse, K. P., Clark, L. P., and Cross, J. (2011). Criterion-related validation of the Choices assessment: Findings from two recent studies (Technical report). Korn Ferry International.
16. De Meuse, K. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relationship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(4), 267–295. doi:10.1037/cpb0000100
17. De Meuse, K. P. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relationship between learning agility and leader success. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 1–12. doi:10.33423/jop.v19i1.1088
18. De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., Eichinger, R. W., Page, R. C., Clark, L. P., and Zewdie, S. (2011, January). The development and validation of a self-assessment of learning agility. In Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Chicago, IL, United States. doi:10.1037/e518362013-267
19. DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., and Myers, C. G. (2012). Learning agility: In search of conceptual clarity and theoretical grounding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(3), 258–279. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01444.x
20. Dray, B., Perkins, A., Faller Fritsch, L., and Burke, L. (2010). Numeracy competence requirements for admission to undergraduate degree programmes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(1), 83–96. doi:10.1080/03098770903477128
21. Dries, N., Vantilborgh, T., and Pepermans, R. (2012). The role of learning agility and career variety in the identification and development of high potential employees. Personnel Review, 41(3), 340–358. doi:10.1108/00483481211212977
22. Duncum, J. (2020). The role of learning agilities in student reading and math achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Tarleton State University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
23. Edens, K. M., and Potter, E. F. (2013). An exploratory look at the relationships among math skills, motivational factors and activity choice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(3), 235–243. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0540-y
24. Ersoy, E., ve Başer, N. (2013). Matematiksel düşünme ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(4), 1471–1486.
25. Fidan, M. (2022). Pedagogical agility in Turkey. Yıldız Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 34–41.
26. Freudenthal, H. (1981). Problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 133–150. doi:10.1007/BF00305618
27. Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105–128. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_3
28. Gravett, L., and Caldwell, S. (2016). Learning agility: The key to leader potential. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(1), 15–21. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59965-0_1
29. Harvey, V. S., and De Meuse, K. P. (2021). Learning agility. In The Oxford handbook of leadership development. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190085353.003.0019
30. Hayeen-Halloun, M., and Ayalon, M. (2025). How novice mathematics teacher-educators notice mathematical and pedagogical thinking. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 28(2), 369–397. doi:10.1007/s10857-024-09662-2
31. Hoareau, L., and Tazouti, Y. (2024). Effect of teachers' acceptance of an educational app. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 8393–8414. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12175-9
32. Hodgen, J. (2011). Knowing and identity. In T. Rowland and K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 27–42). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_3
33. Jacob, S. M. (2012). Mathematical achievement and critical thinking skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 800–804. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.144
34. Kaya, A. (2023). Teachers' learning agility as a predictor of lifelong learning. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 11(1), 61–76. doi:10.47215/aji.1298611
35. Keskin, S., ve Özsoy, A. N. (2004). Kanonik korelasyon analiz ve bir uygulaması. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 67–71. doi:10.1501/Tarimbil_0000000871
36. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., and Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
37. Kongcharoen, J., et al. (2025). Relationships of mathematical proficiency with learning agility. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 5(4), eM087. doi:10.29333/mathsciteacher/16859
38. Kooloos, C., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., van Boven, S., Kaenders, R., and Heckman, G. (2022). Making sense of student mathematical thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110(3), 503–524. doi:10.1007/s10649-021-10124-2
39. Lombardo, M. M., and Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 321–329. doi:10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:4<321::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-1
40. Mason, J. (1985). Thinking mathematically. Prentice Hall.
41. Mason, J., Burton, L., and Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd ed.). Pearson.
42. Mulyani, S. (2023). Empowering minds. Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 17(2), 185–203. doi:10.30957/cendekia.v17i2.860
43. Ordu, A., Altınmakas, N., ve Erdoğan, M. (2024). Öğretmenlerin denetime yönelik tutumları. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 38(3), 519–536. doi:10.33308/26674874.2024383751
44. Palmér, H., and Björklund, C. (2024). The real world of toddler mathematics. In Teaching mathematics as to be meaningful (pp. 221–232). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37663-4_17
45. Pradhan, R. K., Dash, S., and Jena, L. K. (2019). Do HR practices influence job satisfaction? Global Business Review, 20(1), 119–132. doi:10.1177/0972150917713895
46. Riccio, P. A. (2015). Predictors of improvement in critical thinking skills. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 606–609. doi:10.13189/ujer.2015.030904
47. Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–254. doi:10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751
48. Rotman, B. (2008). Becoming beside ourselves. Duke University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11hpj7g
49. Ruthven, K. (2011). Conceptualising mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland and K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 83–96). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9766-8_6
50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
51. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). MacMillan.
52. Sherry, A., and Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 37–48. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8401_09
53. Simkus, J. (2023). Convenience sampling: Definition, method and examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/convenience-sampling.html
54. Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M., de Villiers, M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., and Owens, K. (2016). Recent research on geometry education. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 48(5), 691–719. doi:10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6
55. Soenyono, S., and Basrowi, B. (2020). Form and trend of violence against women. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(05), 3165–3174.
56. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Routledge.
57. Şimşek, A. S. (2025). Exploring learning motivation and agility in educational adoption of generative AI. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13591-
58. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
59. Thomas, A., and Thorne, G. (2014). Higher-order thinking. Reading Rockets. http://www.readingrockets.org/article/higher-order-thinking
60. Vale, I. (2024). Exploring the creative potential of mathematical tasks. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(2), 1–15. doi:10.29333/iejme/15075
61. Yazıcı, Ş., and Özgenel, M. (2024). Exploring learning agility in education. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(2), 251–274.