BİLMENİN İLLÜZYONU: MATEMATİKSEL PROBLEM ÇÖZME VE TEST KALİBRASYONU

Öz

Prediction and evaluation which are metacognitive skills called calibration. Test calibration is a measure of difference of current test score and predicted score. With this respect, the purpose of this study is to investigate primary school fifth grade students’ problem solving achievement and their test calibration, and the relationship between problem solving skills and calibration skills including prediction and evaluation. One hundered twenty five students enrolling to fifth grade are participated in the study. Students’ problem solving skills and their test calibration status were measured by administering the Problem Solving Achievement Test (PCAT) which is developed by the authors. The results of the study revealed that there is no significant releationship between problem solving achievement and test calibration (r = 0.091, p > .05); additionally results also showed that there is a significant negative relationship (r = - 0.816, p < .01) between problem solving achievement and confirmed test calibration

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Problem solving, test calibration, calibration, metacognition

BİLMENİN İLLÜZYONU: MATEMATİKSEL PROBLEM ÇÖZME VE TEST KALİBRASYONU

Öz

Üstbilişsel beceriler arasında yer alan tahmin ve değerlendirme, kalibrasyon becerisi olarak kabul edilmektedir. Test kalibrasyonu ise, tahmin edilen test puanı ile gerçekleşen test puanı arasındaki farkın incelenmesi yoluyla elde edilmektedir. Bu bilgiler ışığında bu araştırmanın amacı, matematiksel problem çözme başarısının ölçülmesi yoluyla öğrencilerin test kalibrasyonu becerilerini belirlemek ve problem çözme başarı puanları ile karşılaştırma yoluyla kalibrasyon becerileri ile problem çözme becerileri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Araştırma, 2011 yılında Aksaray ilinde 125 ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. Araştırma sonunda problem çözme başarısı ile test kalibrasyonu puanları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunamazken (r = 0.091, p > .05); problem çözme başarısı ile doğrulanmış test kalibrasyon puanları arasında negatif yönde ve yüksek düzeyde anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur (r = - 0.816, p < .01). Diğer yandan öğrencilerin problem çözme başarı düzeylerine göre kalibrasyon puanlarının anlamlı biçimde farklılık gösterdiği [t(123)= 19.36, p < .01, η2= .75] görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• problem çözme başarısı, kalibrasyon, test kalibrasyonu, üstbiliş

Kaynakça

1. Altun, M. (1995). İlkokul 3., 4. ve 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Problem Çözme Davranışları Üzerine Bir Çalışma. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
2. Bembenutty, H. (2009). Three essential components of college teaching: Achievement calibration. College Student Journal, 43(2), 562-575.
3. Chiu, M. M. ve Klassen, M. R. (2010). Relations of mathematics self-concept and its calibration with mathematics achievement: Cultural differences among fifteen-year-olds in 34 countries. Learning and Instruciton, 20, 2- 17.
4. Cleary, T. J., ve Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41,537– 550.
5. Davidson, J. E., ve Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, ve A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice, (pp. 47-68). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Dermitzaki, I., Leondari, A., ve Goudas, M. (2009). Relations between young students’ strategic behaviours, domain-specific self-concept, and performance in a problem-solving situation. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 144 - 157.
7. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., ve Huylebroeck, A. (2006). Metacognitive skills in Belgian third grade children (age 8 to 9) with and without mathematical learning disabilities. Metacognition Learning , 1, 119–135.
8. Ewers, C. A., ve Wood, N. L. (1993). Sex and ability differences in children’s math self- efficacy and prediction accuracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 5, 259–267.

9. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development inquiry. In T. O. Nelson (Ed.), Metacognition-core readings, (pp. 3-8). Library of Congress.
10. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognitive and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologyst, 34, 906-911.
11. Glenberg, A. M., ve Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702–718.
12. Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., ve Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 116(2), 119–136. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.116.2.119.
13. Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., ve Bahbahani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: the effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 101-121.
14. Horgan, D. (1990). Students’ predictions of test grades: Calibration and metacognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, April 16-20, 1990. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED319812).
15. Huff, J. D. ve Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to Improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 161–176.
16. Irak, M. (2005). Üst biliş mi? Yönetici işlevler mi?: Bilme hissinin nöropsikolojik testlerle ölçülen dikkat süreçlerinden yordanması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 56, 97-116.
17. Karataş, İ, ve Güven, B. (2003). Problem çözme davranışlarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan yöntemler: Klinik mülakatın potansiyeli. İlköğretim Online, 2(2), 2-9.
18. Kitsantas, A., ve Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Enhancing self-regulation of practice: The influence of graphing and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 202–212.
19. Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings About Mathematical Problem Solving Research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (6), 660-675.
20. Lin, L., ve Zabrucky, K. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345-391.
21. Lichtenstein, S., Fischoff, B., ve Phillips, L. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D Kahneman, P. Slovic, ve A. Tversky, (Eds). Judgement under uncertainity: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: Freeman.
23. McCormick, B. C. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In W. M. Reynolds, ve G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, (pp. 79-102). New York: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc.
24. McLoughlin, C. ve Hollingworth, R. (2001). The weakest link: Is web-based learning capable of supporting problem-solving and metacognition? 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, 9-12 December 2001, Melbourne, Australia.
25. Metcalfe, J., ve Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Moncur, M. (2007). Henry Ford (1863-1947). In Quotations by author. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from http://www.quotationspage. com/?quotes/?Henry_Ford.
27. Nelson, T. O., Narens, L. (1994). Why Investigate Metacognition?. In Metcalfe, Shimamura (Eds.). Metacognition. (207-226). Cambridge: MIT Press.
28. Nietfeld, J. L., Enders, C. K., ve Schraw, G. (2006). A Monte Carlo comparison of measures of relative and absolute monitoring accuracy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 258–271. doi:10.1177/0013164404273945.
29. Olkun, S., ve Toluk, Z. (2003). Matematik Öğretimi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
30. Ozsoy, G. (2011). An investigation of relationship between metacognition and mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12, 227-235.
31. Ozsoy, G., ve Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67–82.
32. Pieschl, S. (2009). Metacognitive calibration—an extended conceptualization and potential applications. Metacognition Learning 4, 3-31.
33. Polya, G. (1988). How To Solve It. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Pres.
34. Schraw, G. (2009). Measuring metacognitive judgments. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, ve A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 415-429). New York: Routledge.
35. Schraw, G., ve Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.
36. Stone, J. N. (2000). Exploring the Relationship between Calibration and Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (4), 437-475.
37. Tertemiz, N., ve Çakmak, M. (2003). Problem Çözme: İlköğretim I. Kademe Matematik Dersi Örnekleriyle. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
38. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., ve Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.
39. Winnie, P. H. ve Muis, K. R. (2011). Statistical estimates of learners’ judgments about knowledge in calibration of achievement. Metacognition Learning, 6, 179–193.