Eğilimler ve Üstbilişsel Deneyimlerin Matematik Problemi Çözme Sürecindeki Rolü *

Öz

Bu araştırmada, 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin senaryo temelli matematik problemi çözerken ortaya çıkan eğilimlerinin ve sahip oldukları üstbilişsel deneyimlerin neler olduğu ve bunların öğrenim gördükleri okulların akademik düzeylerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı araştırılmıştır. Nitel araştırma desenlerinden fenomenoloji kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada katılımcılar, amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesi tekniği kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. 2022-2023 eğitim öğretim yılında İstanbul ilinde bulunan 10 farklı akademik düzeydeki ortaöğretim kurumundan seçilen birer 10. sınıf öğrencisiyle nitel görüşmeler geçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacı tarafından oluşturulan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu, gözlem formu ve iki adet senaryo temelli matematik problemi kullanılmış, elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre belirli eğilimleri birlikte sergileyen katılımcıların, bu eğilimleri ayrı ayrı sergileyen katılımcılara göre problem çözme becerilerinin daha yüksek olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Ayrıca sergilenen eğilimlerin dikkatli olma eğilimiyle desteklenmediği takdirde problem çözme becerisi karşısında etkisiz kalabildiği ve öz güven eğiliminin bazı durumlarda problem çözme becerisini olumsuz etkilediği ulaşılan sonuçlar arasındadır. Aynı zamanda bulgular, üstbilişsel deneyimlerde yer alan matematik ön yargısının problem çözme becerisini olumsuz etkileyebildiğini, problemi sevmenin problem çözme becerisini sergilemede bir motivasyon kaynağı oluşturduğunu, problemi sevmemenin ise problem çözme becerisini olumsuz etkilediğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğilimler
• Üstbilişsel Deneyimler
• Problem Çözme Becerisi
• Senaryo Temelli Matematik Problemleri

The Role of Dispositions and Metacognitive Experiences in the Process of Solving Mathematical Problems

Öz

This study investigated the dispositions exhibited by 10th grade students while solving scenario-based mathematics problems, the metacognitive experiences they possess, and whether these differed according to the academic level of the schools they attended. Conducted using the phenomenology design, one of the qualitative research approaches, the participants were determined using the maximum diversity sampling technique, one of the purposive sampling methods. Qualitative interviews were conducted with one 10th-grade student selected from each of ten different secondary education institutions with varying academic levels in Istanbul during the 2022-2023 academic years. The data collection tools included a semi-structured interview form, an observation form, and two scenario-based mathematics problems developed by the researcher. The obtained data was analyzed using content analysis. The findings of the study revealed that the participants who exhibited certain dispositions simultaneously had higher problem-solving skills compared to those who displayed these dispositions individually. Additionally, it was found that if the exhibited dispositions were not supported by the disposition of being careful, they could be ineffective in problem-solving skills, and the self-confidence disposition negatively impacted problem-solving abilities in some cases. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated that mathematical prejudice as part of metacognitive experience could hinder problem-solving ability, while enjoying mathematics functioned as a motivational factor in displaying problem-solving skills, whereas disliking mathematics negatively influenced these skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dispositions
• Metacognitive Experiences
• Problem-Solving Skills
• Scenario Based Mathematic Problems

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, H., Tertemiz, N., Pilten, G., & Pilten, P. (2016). İlkokulda üstbiliş stratejileri öğretimi kavramsal yapı ve örnek uygulamalar. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
2. Aşık, G. & Erktin, E. (2019). Üstbilişsel deneyimlerin üstbiliş bilgisi ile problem çözme ilişkisindeki aracılık etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim. 44(197), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7199
3. Aşkar, P., Altun, A., & Çağlar Özhan, Ş. (2023). Kavramsal beceriler. P. Aşkar, H. İ. Topçu, A. Altun, İ. Cırık, & M. Kandırmaz (Ed.), K12 beceriler çerçevesi Türkiye bütüncül modeli (ss. 23–36). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
4. Berry, D. C. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 35(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748308402115
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2022). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
6. Carr, M., & Claxton, G. (2002). Tracking the development of learning dispositions. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(1), 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940220119148
7. Cartwright, N. (2002). What makes a capacity a disposition? (Technical Report 10/03). London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method.
8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
10. Cırık, İ. (2023). Eğilimler. P. Aşkar, H. İ. Topçu, A. Altun, İ. Cırık, & M. Kandırmaz (Eds.), K12 beceriler çerçevesi Türkiye bütüncül modeli içinde (ss. 59–70). Mili Eğitim Bakanlığı.
11. Dağdelen, S., & Ünal, M. (2017). Matematik öğrenim ve öğretim sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 483–510.
12. Dede, C., & Etemadi, A. (2021). Why dispositions matter for the workforce in turbulent, uncertain times. The Next Level Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
13. Dindar, M., Järvelä, S., & Haataja, E. (2020). What does physiological synchrony reveal about metacognitive experiences and group performance? British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1577–1596. https://doi:10.1111/bjet.12981
14. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166
15. Efklides, A. (2001). Metacognitive experiences in problem solving. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 297–323). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. Efklides, A. (2002a). The systemic nature of metacognitive experiences: Feelings, judgments, and their interrelations. In M. Izaute, P. Chambres, & P. J. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function, and use (pp. 19–34). Kluwer.
17. Efklides, A. (2002b). Feelings and judgments as subjective evaluations of cognitive processing: How reliable are they? Psychology: The Journal of The Hellenic Psychological Society, 9(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.24059
18. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2005.11.001
19. Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277 Efklides, A. (2009). The role of metacognitive experiences in the learning process. Psicothema, 21, 76–82.
20. Efklides, A., Papadaki, M., Papantoniou, G., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1998). Individual differences in feelings of difficulty: The case of school mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(2), 207–226.
21. Efklides, A., & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students’ metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15, 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.010
22. Efklides, A., Samara, A., & Petropoulou, M. (1999). Feeling of difficulty: An aspect of monitoring that influences control. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 461–476.
23. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.2239/il.v18i2.2378
24. Erol, O. (2019). Mesleki ve teknik eğitimde bilişim teknolojileri alanı ile ilgili problemlere ilişkin öğrenci-öğretmen ve idareci görüşleri. 7. Uluslararası Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Sempozyumu.
25. Errington, E. (2011). As close as it gets: Developing professional identity through the potential of scenario-based learning. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Learning to be professional through a higher education (pp. 1–15). Surrey Centre for Excellence in Professional Training and Education.
26. Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345–350.
27. Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1–25.
28. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
29. Guswinda, Yuanita, P., & Hutapea, N. M. (2019). Improvement of mathematical problem solving and disposition ability of mts students through strategies think talk write in cooperative learning in kuantan singingi regency. Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(3), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.31258/jes.3.3.p.377-389.
30. Hutajulu, M., Wijaya, T. T., & Hidayat, W. (2019). The effect of mathematical disposition and learning motivation on problem solving: An analysis. Infinity Journal, 8(2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v8i2.p229-238
31. Karabey, B., Erdoğan, A., & Özkale, A. (2023). Matematik alan becerileri. P. Aşkar, H. İ. Topçu, A. Altun, İ. Cırık, & M. Kandırmaz (Eds.), K12 beceriler çerçevesi Türkiye bütüncül modeli içinde (ss. 100–123). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
32. Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practices. Perspectives from ERIC/EECE: A Monograph Series, No. 4. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
33. Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1985). Dispositions as goals for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(85)90018-6
34. Kelly, R. M. (2023). Towards a dispositionalist (and unifying) account ofaddiction. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 44(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09596-x
35. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
36. Kozikoğlu, I. (2019). Investigating critical thinking in prospective teachers: metacognitive skills, problem solving skills and academic self-efficacy. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(2), 111–130.
37. Leader, L. F. & Middleton, J. A. (2004). Promoting critical-thinking dispositions by using problem solving in middle school mathematics. RMLE Online, 28(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2004.11658174
38. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modelling. F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Information Age Publishing.
39. Ma, X., & Xu, J. (2004). The causal ordering of mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement: A longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 165–179.
40. Maharani, S., Nusantara, T., As’ari, A. R., & Qohar, A. (2019). Analyticity and systematicity students of mathematics education on solving non-routine problems. Mathematics and Statistics, 7(2), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.13189/ms.2019.070204
41. McDonough, S., & McGraw, A. (2021). Thinking dispositions for teaching: Enabling and supporting resilience in context. In C. F. Mansfield (Ed.), Cultivating teacher resilience: International approaches, applications, and impact (pp. 69–83). Springer.
42. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (t.y.). 2022 yılı merkezi sınav puanı ile öğrenci alan liselerin taban/tavan puanları ve yüzdelik dilimleri.
43. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_07/25103752_2022_ilk_yerlestirme_taban_tavan_yerlesme_bilgileri.pdf
44. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli ortak metni. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Standards for school mathematics prekindergarten through grade 12. In J. Carpenter, & S. Gorg (Eds.), Principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 29–71). NCTM.
46. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
47. Norwood, K. S. (1994). The effect of instructional approach on mathematics anxiety and achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 94(5), 248–254.
48. Özyurt, H. & Özyurt, Ö. (2015). Problem solving skills and critical thinking disposıtions of electric/electronic engineering students: Case of Karadeniz Technical University. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 11(4), 1124–1142.
49. Perkins, D. N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993a). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1–21.
50. Perkins, D.N., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993b). New conceptions of thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2801_6
51. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.
52. Phonapichat, P., Wongwanich, S., & Sujiva, S. (2014). An analysis of elementary school students’ difficulties in mathematical problem solving. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3169–3174.
53. Polya, G. (2017). Nasıl çözmeli matematiksel yönteme yeni bir bakış (B. S. Soyer, Çev.). TÜBİTAK Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
54. Qiang, R., Han, Q., Guo, Y., Bai, J., & Karwowski, M. (2020). Critical thinking disposition and scientific creativity: The mediating role of creative self-efficacy. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 90–99.
55. Resnick, L. B. (1988). Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline. Pittsburgh University Development Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED299133
56. Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2009). Helping children learn mathematics. Wiley.
57. Ritchhart, R. (2001). From IQ to IC: A dispositional view of intelligence. Roeper Review, 23(3), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554086
58. Riveros, A., Norris, S. P., Hayward, D. V., & Phillips, L. M. (2012). Dispositions and the quality of learning. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning (pp. 32–50). Cambridge University Press.
59. Sadler, D. R. (2002). Learning dispositions: Can we really assess them? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940220119166
60. Sanna, L. J., & Schwarz, N. (2006). Metacognitive experiences and human judgment: The case of hindsight bias and its debiasing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8721.2006.00430.x
61. Saurino, D. R. (2008). Concept journaling to increase critical thinking dispositions and problem-solving skills in adult education. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 4(1), 170–178.
62. Schwarz, N. (2010). Meaning in context metacognitive experiences. B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett & E. R. Smith (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 105–125). The Guilford Press.
63. Shu, Z., Bergner, Y., Zhu, M., Hao, J., & Yon Davier, A. A. (2017). An item response theory analysis of problem-solving processes in scenario-based tasks. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 59(1), 109.
64. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli: Matematik dersi öğretim programı (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
65. Tay, L. Y., Chan, M., Chong, S. K., Tan, J. Y., & Aiyoob, T. B. (2024). Learning of mathematics: A metacognitive experiences perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22, 561–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10385-8
66. Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. S. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–196). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0008
67. Thornton, H. (2006). Dispositions in action: Do dispositions make a difference in practice? Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(2), 53–68.
68. Tümkaya S., Aybek, B., & Aldağ, H. (2009). An investigation of university students’ critical thinking disposition and perceived problem solving skills. Eğitim Araştırmaları-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 57–74.
69. Walsh, C. M., & Hardy, R. C. (1997). Factor structure stability of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory across sex and various students' majors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1211–1228.
70. Wilson, B. A. (1998). Business administration students’ disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 47(4), 304–326.
71. Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N., Marshall, R. R., Wood, P. E., Crowe, C. M., Hoffman, T. W., Wright, J. D., Taylor, P. A., Woodhuse, K. A., & Bouchard, C. K. (1997). Developing problem solving skills: The McMaster problem solving program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75–91.
72. Yenice, N. (2011). Investigating pre-service science teacher’s critical thinking dispositions and problem solving skills in terms of different variables. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(6), 497–508.
73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
74. Yustiana, Y., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2021). The effect mathematics disposition of vocational high school students on mathematical problem- solving ability. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1808, No. 1, p. 012049). IOP Publishing.
75. Yüksel Şahin, F. (2004). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin ve üniversite öğrencilerinin matematik korku düzeyleri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 3(5), 57–74.
76. Zumbach, J., & Reimann, P. (2002). Enhancing learning from hypertext by inducing a goal orientation: Comparing different approaches. Instructional Science, 30(4), 243–267.