Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Zihin Tipleri ile Bilgisayarca Düşünme Becerileri Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 52, 301 - 325, 27.04.2021

Yeliz Özkan Hıdıroğlu Çağlar Naci Hıdıroğlu

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.696511

Cited By: 2

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, matematik öğretmenlerinin geleceği şekillendirecek zihin tipleri ile bilgisayarca düşünme becerileri arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklamaktır. Araştırma nicel-ilişkisel tarama modeli çalışmasıdır. Bu çalışma seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilmiş ve gönüllü 481 matematik öğretmeni ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak “Bilgisayarca Düşünme Becerileri Ölçeği” ve “Zihin Tipleri Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistik, korelasyon ve regresyon analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Matematik öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre sahip oldukları etik zihin ve bilgisayarca düşünme becerileri “çok yüksek”; disiplinli zihin, sentezci zihin, yaratıcı zihin, saygılı zihin ve beşli zihin düzeyleri yüksektir. Matematik öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre sahip oldukları beşli zihinleri ile bilgisayarca düşünme becerileri arasında pozitif yönde yüksek düzeyde anlamlı bir ilişki vardır ve sahip oldukları beşli zihinler (hem boyut hem de bütün yapıda) bilgisayarca düşünmenin anlamlı bir yordayıcısıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bilgisayarca düşünme, geleceği şekillendirecek beş zihin, matematik öğretmeni

The Relationship between Mathematics Teachers' Mind Types and Computational Thinking Skills

Öz

The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between the mind types of mathematics teachers which will shape the future and their computational thinking skills. The study was designed according to quantitative-relational survey model. This study was carried out with 481 volunteer mathematics teachers determined according to the random sampling method. "Computational Thinking Skills Scale" and "Mind Types Scale" were used as data collection tools in the study. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, correlation and regression analyses were benefited. According to the perceptions of the mathematics teachers, the level of their ethical mind and computational thinking skills are “very high” while their disciplined mind, synthesizing mind, creating mind, respectful mind and quinary mind levels are high. Also, according to the perceptions of mathematics teachers, there is a high level significant positive relationship between their quinary minds and computational thinking skills, and their quinary minds (both in sub-dimesnions and as a whole) are a significant predictor of their computational thinking.

Kaynakça

• Akçay, A. (2009). Webquest (Web macerası) öğretim yönteminin Türkçe dersindeki akademik başarı ve tutuma etkisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
• Altındağ, M., & Senemoğlu, S. (2017). An investigation of 7th grade students’ synthesizing mind skills. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4939-4957.
• Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking. Educational Technology ve Society, 19(3), 47-57.
• Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
• Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
• Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2011). Disciplining the mind, A. Ornstein, E. Pajak, & S. Ornstein (Eds), Contemporary issues in the curriculum (ss. 191-197) içinde. USA: Pearson.
• Bowen, M. T. (2013). An examination of ınstitutional advancement vice presidents’ reports at four-year public and private historically black colleges and universities regarding their use of the five minds to promote stewardship. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hartford Üniversitesi, Connecticut. UMI: 3561711.
• Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Programming & storytelling: Opportunities for learning about coding & composition. 19.01.2020 tarihinde http://hoc.elet.polimi.it/idc/2010/assets/doc/Burke_Kafai.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (16. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
• Davis, K., & Gardner, H. (2012). Five minds our children deserve: Why they’re needed, how to nurture them. 12.01.2020 tarihinde http://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol6/iss1/10 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Denner, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Measuring computational thinking in middle school using game programming. 10.12.2019 tarihinde https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f629/baf5301d843c9f1d448edca901d0632dd278.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Erik-Soussi, C. (2008). Leading in the liberal arts and postsecondary institutions: How five cognitive minds aid the good work of college presidents. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hartford Üniversitesi, Connecticut. UMI: 3305570.
• Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. USA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Gotlieb, C.C., & Borodin, A. (1973). Social issues in computing. Academic Press, New York, NY.
• Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33-50.
• Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583-596.
• Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Kazakoff, E. R. (2015). Technology-based literacies for young children: Digital Literacy through learning to code. K. L. Heider, & M. R. Jalongo (Eds), Young children and families in the ınformation age (ss. 43-60) içinde. Springer Netherlands.
• Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.
• Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32–37.
• Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice. Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40, 367-371.
• Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. 21.01.2020 tarihinde http://www.di.unito.it/~barbara/MicRobot/Pubbl16/Wg%20Iticse%202016.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Pava, M. L. (2008). Loving the distance between them: Thinking beyond Howard Gardner’s five minds fort he future. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 285-296.
• Riley, D. D., & Hunt, K. A. (2014). Computational thinking for the modern problem solver. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
• Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 469-495.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Edition). USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• The International Society for Technology [ISTE] (2015). Computational thinking leadership toolkit. 07.11.2019 tarihinde https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Thomas, J. O., Odemwingie, O. C., Saunders, Q., & Watlerd, M. (2015). While enacting computational algorithmic thinking in the context of game design. Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 3(1), 15-33.
• Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M.S., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math. 02.02.2020 tarihinde https://ccl.northwestern.edu/2014/CT-STEM_AERA_2014.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. 21.12.2020 tarihinde https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15110-s13/Wing06-ct.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 371-400.
• Yıldız Durak, H., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191-202.
• Yılmaz, G. (2012). Çokgenler konusunun ilköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerine Vee diyagramları ve zihin haritaları kullanılarak öğretimi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kastamonu.