Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 2010 - Sayı: 38

Effect of a problem posing based problem solving instruction on understanding problem

Problem kurma temelli problem çözme öğretiminin problemi anlama başarısına etkisi

Pages
11–24
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that the experimental group students were better than the control group students in terms of UP scores in all dimensions (rephrasing, visualizing and qualitative reasoning).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to explore mathematical problem understanding performances of students. 53 third–grade students from an urban elementary school in Nicosia in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were the participants.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After conducting the pre-Understanding Problem (UP) Test, the experimental group (n = 28) has followed a problem posing based problem solving instruction for 10 weeks, whereas the control group (n = 25) has followed a traditional problem solving instruction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that the experimental group students were better than the control group students in terms of UP scores in all dimensions (rephrasing, visualizing and qualitative reasoning).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore mathematical problem understanding performances of students. 53 third–grade students from an urban elementary school in Nicosia in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus were the participants. After conducting the pre-Understanding Problem (UP) Test, the experimental group (n = 28) has followed a problem posing based problem solving instruction for 10 weeks, whereas the control group (n = 25) has followed a traditional problem solving instruction. A 10 week period was followed by a 3 month recess. Then post- and delayed- post UP tests were conducted respectively to both of the groups. The results indicate that the experimental group students were better than the control group students in terms of UP scores in all dimensions (rephrasing, visualizing and qualitative reasoning). The difference between the two groups was the greatest in sub-dimension in which qualitative reasoning was emphasized.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, problem kurma temelli problem çözme öğretimi ve geleneksel problem çözme öğretimi alan öğrencilerin matematik problemini anlama başarısı açısından karşılaştırılmasıdır. Seçkisiz yöntemle deney (n = 28) ve kontrol (n = 25) gruplarına ayrılan çalışma grubunu, KKTC’deki Lefkoşa İlçesi, merkezi bir ilkokulun 3. sınıfında okuyan 53 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Araştırma deneysel olup, araştırmanın verileri, deney ve kontrol gruplarına uygulanan ön testler sonrasında deney grubuna uygulanan 10 haftalık problem kurma temelli problem çözme öğretimi sonucunda, deney ve kontrol gruplarına uygulanan son testler ve 3 ay sonrasında deney ve kontrol gruplarına uygulanan gecikmeli son testler sonucunda elde edilmiştir. Deney grubu uygulanan problemi anlama testinin tüm boyutlarında (problemi yeniden ifadelendirme, görselleştirme, niteliksel akıl yürütme) kontrol grubundan çok daha üst düzeyde başarı sergilemesi yanında deney grubu özellikle niteliksel akıl yürütmenin gerekli olduğu sorularda kontrol grubundan çok daha üst düzeyde beceri sergilemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DARBAZ, S., CANKOY, O. (2022). Effect of a problem posing based problem solving instruction on understanding problem. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 2010 - Sayı: 38, 11–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/532317

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akay, H. (2006). Problem kurma yaklaşımı ile yapılan matematik öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarısı, problem çözme becerisi ve yaratıcılığı üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi, Yayınlanmış Doktora Tesi, Gazi Üniversitesi,
  2. Ankara.
  3. Altun, M. (2001). Matematik Öğretimi. Bursa: Erkam Matbaası Barlow, A. T., & Cates, J. M. (2006). The impact of problem posing on elemantaqry teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 106(2), 64-73.
  4. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1990). The art of problem posing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1993). Proplem posing: reflection and aplications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cankoy, O. (2003). Kuzey kıbrıs türk cumhuriyeti’ndeki ilkokul öğretmen adaylarının matematik problemleri zorluk dereceleri ile ilgili algıları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 26-30.
  5. Cankoy, O., & Tut, M. A. (2005). High-stakes testing and mathematics performance of fourth graders in north cyprus. Journal of Educational Research, 98 (4), 234-243.
  6. Cai, J. (2003). Singaporean students’ mathematical thinking in problem solving and problem posing: an exploratory study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(5), 719-737.
  7. Chang, N. (2007). Responsibilities of a teacher in a harmonic cycle of problem solving and problem posing. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(4), 265-271.
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. English, L. (1997a)
  9. Promoting a Problem-posing Classroom, Teaching Children Mathematics, 3, 172-179.
  10. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83-106.
  11. English, L. D. (2003). Problem posing in the elementary curriculum. In F. Lester, & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Garderen, D. V., & Montague, M. (2003). Visuaspatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 246-254
  12. Hinton, P.R., 1996.
  13. Statistics Explained. New York, Routledge. Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Buchman, A. D., & Sczesniak, E. (2007). Mathematical problem solving in third-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 282-302.
  14. Karataş, İ., & Güven, B. (2004). 8. sınıf