Lise Öğrencilerinin Problem Çözmede Gösterdikleri Üstbilişsel Davranışlara İlişkin Öz-Değerlendirmeleri

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 19 - 31, 15.09.2018

Sebiha Kartalcı Handan Demircioğlu

Öz

Çalışmanın
amacı, lise öğrencilerinin problem çözme deneyimlerini gözden geçirerek bu
süreçte sergiledikleri üstbilişsel davranışlar açısından kendilerini
değerlendirmelerini sağlamak ve bu süreci incelemektir. Araştırma nitel bir
çalışma olarak tasarlanmış, elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz ile
yorumlanmıştır. Çalışma grubunu 2015-2016 eğitim ve öğretim yılında Yozgat
ilinin bir ilçesindeki bir lisede 9 ve 10. sınıfta öğrenim gören toplam 94
öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplamak için öğrencilere ilk olarak 2 tane
problem verilmiştir. Öğrencilerden bu problemleri açık bir şekilde çözmeleri ve
düşündüklerini yazmaları istenmiştir. Bu problemleri çözen öğrencilere problem
çözme sürecindeki üstbilişsel davranışları değerlendirmeyi sağlayan bir anket
uygulanmıştır. Anketten elde edilen veriler analiz edildiğinde öğrencilerin
çoğunluğunun problem çözmede yüksek düzeyde üstbilişsel davranışlar sergilediği
düşünülebilmektedir. Ancak öğrencilerin problem çözümlerinin bu sonuçlarla çok
uyuşmadığı; öğrencilerin göstermiş olduklarını söyledikleri üstbilişsel
davranışlar ile problem çözümlerinin incelenmesiyle ortaya çıkan üstbilişsel
davranışlar birbiriyle genellikle paralellik göstermediği anlaşılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

üstbiliş, öz-değerlendirme, lise öğrencileri

Self-Evaluations of High School Students Regarding to Own Metacognitive Behaviours In Problem Solving

Öz

The aim of the study is to ensure that high school students evaluate
themselves in terms of metacognitive behaviors that they demonstrate during
their problem solving process through their experiences of problem solving and to examine this process. The study was designed as a qualitative study and
the obtained data were interpreted by descriptive analysis. The working group
consists of a total of 94 students in 9th and 10th grade in a high school in a
district of Yozgat in the academic year of 2015-2016. To collect data, students
were first given 2 problems. Students are asked to clearly solve these problems
and write down what they think. A questionnaire was applied to the students who
solved these problems to evaluate the metacognitive behaviors in the problem
solving process. When the data obtained from the questionnaire are analyzed, it
can be considered that the majority of the students exhibit highly metacognitive
behaviors without problem solving. However, the problem solutions of the
students do not match these results very much; it is understood that the
metacognitive behaviors that the students say they have shown and the
metacognitive behaviors that emerged from examining the problem solutions are
not generally parallel to each other.

Anahtar Kelimeler

metacognition, self-evaluations, high school students

Kaynakça

• Akın, A., & Abacı, R. (2011). Metacognition. Nobel Publishing, Ankara.
• Aksoy, N. (2003). Action Research: A Method to be Used to Improve and Change Educational Practices. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education Management, 9(4), 474-489.
• Biryukov, P.(2004). Metacognitive Aspects of Solving Combinatorics Problems. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning (01.07.2006) www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/biryukov.pdf
• Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing When, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glasser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation, and Other More Mysterious Mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. chapter 3 (pp. 65-116). London: LEA Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
• Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). Metacognition. Turkey Social Research Journal, 11 (2), 21-27.
• Demircioğlu, H. (2008). The Influence of the Educational Situations Designed for the Development of Metacognitive Behaviour of Mathematics Teacher Candidates. Ph. D. Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
• Doğan, A. (2013). Metacognition and Metacognitive Teaching. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, (3), 6-20.
• Flavell, J.H.(1979). Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring. American Psychologist, 34 (10) 906-911, October 1979.
• Fortunato, I, Hecht, D., Title, C. K and Alvarez, L. (1991). Metacognition and Problem Solving. The Arithmetic Teacher. Dec. 39(4) 38
• Garafalo J., Lester, F. (1985) Metacognition, cognitive monitoring and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16,163–175.
• Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf (15.04.2018)
• Ministry of Education (MEB) Commission (2015). Secondary Mathematics Class 9 1st Book, Meb Publications, Ankara. S.108, 198.
• Özsoy, G. (2008). Metacognition. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(4), 713-740.
• Panaoura, A., & Philippou, G. (2005). The measurement of young pupils’ metacognitive ability in mathematics: The case of self-representation and self-evaluation. In Proceedings of CERME (Vol. 4).
• Pugalee, D.K.(2001). Writing, Mathematics and Metacognition: Looking for Connections Through Students’ Work in Mathematical Problem Solving, School Science and Mathematics 101(5), 236–245.
• Şahin, M. (2015). Mathematics 10, Palme Publishing, Ankara. S.10,97