Öğrenme ve Öğretme Süreci Değişkenleri ile PISA 2012 Matematik Okuryazarlığı Arasındaki İlişkiler

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrenme ve öğretme süreci değişkenleri ile matematik okuryazarlığı arasındaki ilişkileri araştırmaktır. İlişkisel tarama modelindeki araştırmanın örneklemini 4848 kişi oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışamada, matematik öğrenmeye okul dışında ayrılan zaman, matematik öğrenmeye ayrılan zaman araştırmanın öğrenmeyle ilgili değişkenlerini oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmenin öğrenci ile iletişimi, bilişsel etkinleştirme stratejilerini kullanımı ve sınıftaki disiplin ortamı araştırmanın öğretme süreci ile ilgili değişkenleridir. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi analizinden elde edilen sonuçlara göre öğrenmeye okul dışında ayrılan zaman ile matematik okuryazarlığı arasında negatif ilişki bulunurken öğretmenin bilişsel etkinleştirme stratejileri kullanması ile matematik okuryazarlığı arasında pozitif ilişki bulunmuştur. Ek olarak, matematik okuryazarlığı öğrenci-öğretmen ilişkisi ile negatif yönde ilişki gösterirken disiplin ortamı ile pozitif yönde ilişki göstermiştir. Öğenci-öğretmen ilişkisi pozitif bir disiplin ortamı ile desteklendiğinde bu değişkenler arasındaki ilişki gelişmektedir. Bu yüzden, derslerin içeriği öğretmenlerin sınıf yönetimini geliştirecek yönde iyileştirilmelidir.

Öğrenme ve Öğretme Süreci Değişkenleri ile PISA 2012 Matematik Okuryazarlığı Arasındaki İlişkiler

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenme ve Öğretme Süreci,Matematik Okuryazarlığı,Matematik Başarısı,PISA,Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi

Kaynakça

1. Akyüz, G.& Pala, N.M. (2010). PISA 2003 sonuçlarına göre öğrenci ve sınıf özelliklerinin matematik okuryazarlığına ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of student and class characteristics on mathematics literacy and problem solving in PISA 2003]. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 668-678.
2. Baroody, A. E., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Larsen, R. A.,&Curby, T. W. (2014). The link between Responsive Classroom training and student-teacher relationship quality in the fifth grade: A study of fidelity of implementation. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 69-85.
3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss,T., Jordan, A.,...Tsai, Y.M. (2010).Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1),133-180. doi:10.3102/0002831209345157
4. Bayazit, I. (2013). Quality of the tasks in the new Turkish elementary mathematics textbooks: The case of proportional reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 651-682. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9358-8
5. Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A.C., Li, K-K., & Allred, C. (2008) School climate and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: A diffusion of innovations model. Prevention Science, 9(4), 264-275.
6. Birch, S.H & Ladd, G.W. (1997). The teacher–child relationship and children’s early school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00029-5
7. Bloom .B.S. (1968). Learning for master. Evaluation comment, 1 (2),1-5
8. Burge, B., Lenkeit, J.& Sizmur, J. (2015). PISA in practice: Cognitive activation in Maths. Slough: the National Foundation for Educational Research.Retreived from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/PQUK04/PQUK04.pdf

9. Carroll, J.B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.
10. Cheema, J., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Influences of disciplinary classroom climate on high school student self-efficacy and mathematics achievement. A look at gender and racial-ethnic differences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1261-1279. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9454-4
11. Cotton, K. (1988). Instructional reinforcement. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/ webfm_send/542
12. Curwin, R.L. & Mendler, A.N. (1988). Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
13. Davis-Langston,C. (2012). Exploring relationships among teaching styles, teachers’ perceptions of their self efficacy and students’ mathematics achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3495972)
14. Fishman, J.A & Galguera, T. (2003). Introduction to test construction in social and behavioral sciences. Oxford,UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
15. Gökmenoğlu,T. & Clark,C.M. (2015). Teachers’ evaluation of professional development in support of national reforms. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 442-459. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier25/gokmenoglu.html
16. Hendrick, C.M. (2013).The Effects of Cognitively Guided Instruction on Mathematics Achievement of Second Grade Children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3560480)
17. Hoyle, R.H (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
18. In'Nami & Koizumu (2013).Structural equation modelling in educational research. In M.S, Khine (Eds.), Application of structural equation modelling in educational research and practice (pp.23-55). Rotherdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers
19. İş, Ç. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of factors affecting mathematical literacy of students in programme for international student assessment (Unpublished master's thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
20. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [Multivariate statistical techniques with SPSS]. Ankara, Türkiye: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
21. Kaur, B. &Areepattamannil, S. (2013). Relationship of out-of-school-time mathematics lessons to mathematical literacy in Singapore and Australia. In Steinle,V., Ball,L., and Bardini,C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australiasia,Melbourne, VIC (pp. 418-425). Melbourne, Australia: MERGA.
22. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. Koc, Y., Isiksal, M., & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8 (1), 30-39.
24. Lodico, M., Spaulding, & D. Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25. Mikk,J. Krips, H., Säälik,Ü. & Kalk,K.(2015).Relationships between student perception of teacher-student relations and PISA results in Mathematics and Science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Advanced online publication..doi 10.1007/s10763-015-9669-7
26. Ministry of National Education.(2010). PISA 2009 Ulusal Teknik Rapor [PISA 2009 National Report].Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PISA-2009-Ulusal-On-Rapor.pdf
27. Mireles-Rios, R. & Romo, L. F. (2010). Maternal and teacher interaction and student engagement in math and reading among Mexican American girls from a rural community. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 456-469. doi: 10.1177/0739986310374020
28. Montalvo, G. P., Mansfield, E.A., & Miller, R. B. (2007). Liking or disliking the teacher: Student motivation, engagement and achievement. Evaluation and Research in Education, 20 (3), 144-158.doi:10.2167/eri406.0
29. Ocak, G. (2010).Yapılandırmacı öğrenme uygulamalarına yönelik öğretmen tutumları [Teacher Attitudes Towards Constructivist Learning Practices]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 835-857.
30. Ozar, M. (2012). Turkish curriculum: Claimed to be based on constructivism.International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(18), 122–130.
31. Pianta, R. C. & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444-458. Retrieved from http://pages.erau.edu/~andrewsa/Project_2/Christian_John/DuneProject/Teaching.pdf
32. Schleicher, A. (2007). Can competencies assessed by PISA be considered the fundamental school knowledge: 15-year-olds should possess? Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 349-357. doi 10.1007/s10833-007-9042-x
33. Selimoğlu, C. (2009). İlk ve ortaöğretimde istenmeyen öğrenci ve öğretmen davranışlarının çoklu disipliner anlayışla gruplandırılarak çözümlenmesi [In primary and secondary education, grouping and anaylzing undesired stutend-teacher behaviors with efficient multiple disciplinary approach] (Unpublished master's thesis). Yüzünci Yıl Üniversitesi, Van.
34. Shin, J., Lee, H., & Kim. Y. (2009). Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: International comparisons between Korea, Japan and the USA. School Psychology International, 30(5), 520-537. doi: 10.1177/0143034309107070
35. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş, temel ilkeler ve LİSREL uygulamaları [Introduction to structural equation modelling, basic principals and LISREL applications].Ankara,Türkiye: Ekinoks Yayınları.
36. Smith, C.J. & Laslett, R. (1992). Effective Classroom Management.London,UK: Routlage.
37. Sun, R. C. F. & Hui, E. K. P. (2006). Cognitive competence as a positive youth development construct: Conceptual bases and implications for curriculum development. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 18(3), 401–408. doi:10.1100/2012/210953
38. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using mulivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn&Bacon, Inc.
39. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.(2011). Quality time for students: Learning in and out of school. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087057-en
40. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
41. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013a). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
42. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013b). Educational policy outlook: Turkey.Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
43. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
44. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). PISA in focus 50: Do teacher-student relations affect students’ well being at school? Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/PIF-50-(eng)-FINAL.pdf
45. The Bureau of Research and Development of Education (2010). EARGED PISA bülteni 3 [EARGED PISA bulletin 3]. Retrieved from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/earged/dosyalar%5Cpisa%5Cpisa_bulten3.pdf
46. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L.& Buckley, S. (2013). The PISA 2012 assessment of students’ mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
47. Türnüklü, E.B.& Yesildere, S. (2005). A profile from Turkey: Critical thinking dispositions and abilities of pre-service mathematics teachers of 11-13 Year. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 38(2), 167–185. doi:10.1501/Egifak_0000000120
48. Usta, H.G. (2014). PISA 2003 ve PISA 2012 Matematik okuryazarlığı üzerine uluslararası bir karşılaştırma: Türkiye ve Finlandiya. [An international comparison PISA 2003 and 2012 according to mathematical literacy Turkey and Finland] (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
49. Whitley, B.E. & Kite, M. E. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science. New York, NY: Routledge.
50. Yılmaz, E.T. (2006).Uluslararası Öğrenci Başarı Değerlendirme Programı (PISA)’nda Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin matematik başarılarını etkileyen faktörler [The factors that effect the mathematics achievement of the students of Turkey in programme for international student assesment (PISA)] (Unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.