Üstbilişsel Davranışlar Problem Çözmede Faydalı mıdır?

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı; üstbilişsel davranışları olarak görülen soruyu anlamak için tekrar tekrar okumanın, soruyla ilgili şekiller (resim, tablo vb.) çizmenin, sonucun mantıksal ve matematiksel kontrolünü yapmanın (Wheatley, 1984; Garofalo ve Lester, 1985; Artzt ve Armour-Thomas, 1992; Georghiades, 2004; Schoenfeld, 2006) problem çözmeye etkisi olup olmadığını belirlemektir. Bu çalışma bir vaka incelemesidir ve araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Gaziantep’te bir ilköğretim okulunda okuyan 25 tane 7. sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışma grubu amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle (Patton, 2002, s.230) belirlenmiştir. Veriler, sesli düşünme (think aloud)  (Ericsson & Simon, 1980) yöntemi kullanılarak bir ses kayıt cihazı ile toplanmıştır. Ses kayıtları yazıya çevrilmiş daha sonra içerik (tümevarım) analizi yapılarak kategori ve kodlar tespit edilmiştir . Araştırmanın sonucunda soruyu tekrar tekrar okuma, soruyla ilgili şekil çizme, sonucun mantıksal ve matematiksel kontrolünü yapma yöntemlerinin alıştırma sorularının çözümünde etkili olduğu, problem çözümünde herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığı belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üstbiliş, üstbilişsel davranışlar ve problem çözme.

Is Metacognitive Strategies Effective In Problem Solving?

Öz

This study aimed at exploring the impacts of such metacognitive strategies (Wheatley, 1984; Garofalo ve Lester, 1985; Artzt ve Armour-Thomas, 1992; Georghiades, 2004; Schoenfeld, 2006) as re-reading the question, drawing related figures (pictures, tables, etc.), and procedural and conceptual assessment of the result on problem solving. This is a qualitative case study. The sample included a total of 25 seventh graders and they were selected purposefully (Patton, 2002, s.230). The interviews were audiotaped and the interviewees were asked to think aloud throughout the interviews (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). The interviews were later transcribed and inductively analyzed in order to explore codes and categories in the data (Patton, 2002, ss. 453-54). The results indicated that such strategies as re-reading the question, drawing pictures related to it, and procedural and conceptual assessment of the solution were effective in solving exercises, but they were ineffective in solving problems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metacognition, metacognitive strategies, and problem solving.

Kaynakça

1. Artzt, A & Armour-Thomas, E (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9, s. 137-1
2. Bodner, G. M., & Domin, D. S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30.
3. Bodner (2003). Problem solving: the difference between what we do and what we tell students to do. This paper is based on the Royal Society of Chemistrys 2003 Nyholm Lecture given by the author. Cartrette, D. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2010). Non-mathematical problem solving in organic chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 643-660.
4. Carlson, M. P. (2000). A Study of the Mathematical Behaviour of Mathematicians: The Role of Metacognition and Mathematical Intimacy in Solving Problems. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 137–144), T. Nakahara ve M. Koyama (Ed.). Hiroshima, Japan: PME.
5. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H. & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435-449.
6. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215-251. Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic teaching: developing thinking and metacognition through philosophical discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6,7), 615-631.
7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906– 9
8. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Thenature of intelligence (ss. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

9. Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16, 163-176.
10. Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer. Educational Research, 42(2), 119–139.
11. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383.
12. Hayes, J. (1980). The complete problem solver. Philadelphia: The Franklin Institute.
13. Kapa, E. (1998). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 317-336.
14. Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings About Mathematical Problem-Solving Research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6): 660-675.
15. Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. (1989). Self-confidence, interest, beliefs, and metacognition: Key influences on problem solving behavior. In D. McLeod, & V. Adams (Eds.), Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective, (ss. 324-355). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction, (ss. 87-102). Dordrecht, The Natherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (p. 64). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Nakhleh, M., Samarapungavan, A., & Saglam, Y. (2005). Middle school students' beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (5), 581-612.
19. Özsoy ve Ataman (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, Vol.1, Issue 2.
20. Özsoy, G. (2011). An investegation of the relationship between metacognition and mathematical achievement. Asia Pasific Educ. Rev, 12:227-235
21. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in qualitative inquiry: theoretical orientations. In C. D. Laughton, V. Novak, D. E. Axelsen, K. Journey, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousands Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
22. Pilten, P.(2008). Üstbiliş Stratejilerinin İlköğretim Beşinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Matematiksel Muhakeme Becerilerine Etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Academic Press Inc, Florida.
24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (ss. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.
25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Problem solving from cradle to grave. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 11, 41–73.
26. Schraw, G.(1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26: 113–125, Takahashi, Y. & Murata, A. (2001). Role of metacognition to promote strategy transfer in problem solving.IEEE, 5:2787-2792.
27. Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46-55.
28. Veenman, M.V.J., Elshout, J.J. & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs. domain-specificity 713 of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction 7: 714 187–209.
29. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multimethod designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen fu ¨ r Forschung und Praxis (ss. 75–97). Berlin: Waxmann.
30. Veenman, M., Kok, R., & Blöte, A. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33, 193–211.
31. Wheatley, G. H. (1984). Problem solving in school mathematics. MEPS Technical Report 84.01, School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette,IN.