CUFEJ VOL: 44 NO: 1 ALL ARTICLES

Kaynakça (175)

1. Allan, Q. (1999). Enhancing the language awareness of Hong Kong teachers through corpus data: The Telenex experience. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 57–74.
2. Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc (Version 3.0.1) [Software]. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html.
3. Aston, G. (ed.) (2001). Learning with corpora, Houston, TX: Athelstan.
4. Aston, G. (2000). Corpora and language teaching. In L. Burnard and T. McEnery (Eds), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp. 7-17). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
5. Best, J. & Kahn, J. (1998). Research in Education (8th edition). USA: A Viacom Company.
6. Bernardini, S. (2000). Systematising serendipity: Proposals for concordancing large corpora with language learners. In L. Burnard and T. McEnery (eds), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp. 225-234). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
7. Bennet, G. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
8. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1996). Corpus-based investigations of language use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 115-136.
9. Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 35 (1), 81–106.
10. Blaxter, L. Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1996). How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
11. Braun, S. (2005). From pedagogically relevant corpora to authentic language learning contents. ReCALL, 17(1), 47–64.
12. Burnard, L., & T. McEnery (eds) (2000), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
13. Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301– 315.
14. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1995). Research Methods in Education. London: Routlage.
15. Farr, F. (2008). Evaluating the use of corpus-based instruction in a language teacher education context: Perspectives from the users. Language Awareness, 17(1), 25–43.
16. Flowerdew, L. (2001), The exploitation of small learner corpora in EAP materials design. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, and R.L. Roseberry (eds), Small corpus studies and ELT: Theory and practice, pp. 363- 379.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Flowerdew, J. (1996). Concordancing in language learning. M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL. pp. 97-113. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
18. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2010). “Encouraging EFL teachers to use corpora in the classroom”. BAAL and Cambridge University Press Seminar Using corpus evidence in the classroom: Working with teachers and learners. University of Birmingham, 24–25 June 2010.
19. Gavioli, L. (2001), The learner as researcher: Introducing corpus concordancing in the classroom. In G. Aston (ed.), Learning with corpora, pp. 108-137. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
20. Gilquin, G., & S. Granger (2010). How can DDL be used in language teaching? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, pp. 359–370. London: Routledge.
21. Granger, S., &. Tribble C. (1998), Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form focused instruction and data-driven learning, in S. Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer, pp. 199-209. London: Longman.
22. Granger, S. (ed.) (1998), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman.
23. Hunston, S. (1995). Grammar in teacher education: The role of a corpus. Language Awareness, 4(1), 15– 31.
24. Johns, T. (1991), Should you be persuaded?: Two examples of data-driven learning materials, English Language Research Journal, 4, 1-16.
25. Johns, T., & King, P., (Eds.). (1991). Classroom concordancing. Birmingham: University of Birmingham
26. Johns, T. (1988). Whence and whither classroom concordancing? In T. Bongaerts, P. de Haan, Lobbe S., & H. Wekker (Eds.), Computer applications in language learning (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Foris. Kaltenbo¨ ck, G., & Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005). Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential and limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL, 17(1), 65–84.
27. Kayaoğlu, M. N. (1997). An investigation of the learning strategies of Turkish EFL and ESL adult learners and the relationship between their beliefs about different aspects of language learning and their strategy use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bristol, Bristol.
28. Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 77–90
29. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30. Mukherjee, J. (2002). Korpuslinguistik und Englischunterricht. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
31. Muller-Hartmann, A., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2004). Introduction to English language teaching. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
32. Mukherjee, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between applied corpus linguistics and the reality of English language teaching in Germany. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective, (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam, NewYork: Rodopi.
33. O’Keefe, A., & Farr, F. (2003). Using language corpora in initial teacher education: Pedagogic issues and practical applications. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 389–418.
34. Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter Publishers
35. Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Römer, Ute (2005). Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy. A Corpus-driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
37. Hasselgård, H., & Johansson, S. (2001). Learner corpora and contrastive interlanguage analysis. In A Taste for Corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger: Fanny Meunier & Sylvie De Cock & Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Magali Paquot(eds), 32-61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
38. Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning-driven data. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
39. Sinclair, J.M. (ed.) (1987), Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing, London: Collins.
40. Sinclair J. (ed.) (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
41. Tsui, A.B.M., (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know and how corpora can help. In J.M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 39–61). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
42. Tribble, C. (2000). Practical uses for language corpora in ELT. In P. Brett & G. Motteram (Eds.), A special interest in computers: Learning and teaching with information and communications technologies (pp. 31-41). Whistable, Kent: IATFEL.
43. Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the classroom: A resource guide for teachers. Houston, TX: Athelstan
44. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. GB: Cambridge University Press. Mathematical Behavior, 18, 85-107.
45. Baker, W. & Czarnocha, B. (2002). Written meta-cognition and procedural knowledge. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. University of Crete, Hersonissos Crete, Greece, 1-6 July 2002.
46. Baki, A. (1998). Matematik öğretiminde işlemsel ve kavramsal bilginin dengelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi 40. Kuruluş Yıldönümü Matematik Sempozyumu, Erzurum.
47. Batanero, C. & Serrano, L. (1999). The meaning of randomness for secondary school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 558-567.
48. Camacho, J. E. D. (2002). Comparing declarative and procedural learning strategies under a problem based learning approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego.
49. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
50. Curtis, J. (2004). A comparative analysis of walled lake consolidated schools’ mathematics assessment program and the state of Michigan’s educational assessment program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wayne State University.
51. Çalıkoğlu-Bali, G. (2003). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik öğretiminde dile ilişkin görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 19-25.
52. Çimen, E. E. (2008). Matematik öğretiminde, bireye “Matematiksel Güç” kazandırmaya yönelik ortam tasarımı ve buna uygun öğretmen etkinlikleri geliştirilmesi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
53. Diezmann, C. & English, L. D. (2001). Developing young children’s mathematical power. Roeper Review, 24(1), 11-13.
54. English, L. D. (1998). Reasoning by analogy in solving comparison problems, Mathematical Cognition, 4(2), 125-146.
55. Fischbein, E., Nello, M. S., & Marino, M. S. (1991). Factors affecting probabilistic judgments in children and adolescents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 523-549.
56. Fischbein, E. & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 96-105.
57. Francisco, J. M. & Maher, C. A. (2005). Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: Insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 361–372.
58. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54, 363-407.
59. Gibbs, W. & Orton, J. (1994). Language and mathematics. In A. Orton & G. Wain (Eds.), Issues in teaching mathematics (pp. 95-116). London: Cassell.
60. Gürbüz, R. (2010). The effect of activity based instruction on conceptual development of seventh grade students in probability. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(6), 743-767.
61. Gürbüz, R. & Birgin, O. (2012). The effect of computer-assisted teaching on remedying misconceptions: The case of the subject “probability”. Computers and Education, 58(3), 931-941.
62. Gürbüz, R. & Erdem, E. (2014). Matematiksel ve olasılıksal muhakeme arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: 7. sınıf örneği. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(16), 205-230.
63. Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: classroom based factors that support and ınhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549.
64. İşleyen, T. & Işık, A. (2003). Conceptual and procedural learning inmathematics. Journal of The Korea Society of Mathematical Education SeriesD: Research in Mathematical Education, 7(2), 91–99.
65. Kramarski, B. A., Mevarech, Z. R., & Lieberman A. (2001). Effects of multilevel versus unilevel metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 292-300.
66. Lansdell, J. M. (1999). Introducing young children to mathematical concepts: Problems with new terminology. Educational Studies, 25(3), 327-333.
67. Lithner, J. (2000). Mathematical reasoning in task solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 165- 190.
68. Lecoutre, M. P. (1992). Cognitive models and problem spaces in “purely random” situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 557-568.
69. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255-276.
70. Mandacı-Şahin, S. (2007). 8. Sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik gücünün belirlenmesi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
71. MEB (2009). İlköğretim matematik dersi 1-5. sınıflar öğretim programı. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
72. MEB (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
73. Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249- 266.
74. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Virginia.
75. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.
76. Nilsson, P. (2007). Different ways in which students handle chance encounters in the explorative setting of a dice game. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 293-315.
77. Nilsson. P. (2009). Conceptual variation and coordination in probability reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 247-261.
78. Orton, A. & Frobisher, L. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London: Cassell.
79. Pilten, P. (2008). Üstbiliş stratejileri öğretiminin ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematiksel muhakeme becerilerine etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
80. Pratt, D. (1998). The construction of meanings in and for a stochastic domain of abstraction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institue of Education, University of London.
81. Raiker, A. (2002). Spoken language and mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(1),45- 60.
82. Russell, S. J. (1999). Mathematical reasoning in the middle grades. In L. V. Stiff and F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12 (pp. 1–12). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
83. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando: Academic Press.
84. Schroeder, T. L. (1993). Mathematical connections: two cases from an evaluation of students’ mathematical problem solving, Annual Meeting of NCTM, Seattle, Mart.
85. Soylu, Y. & Soylu, C. (2006). Matematik derslerinde başarıya giden yolda problem çözmenin rolü. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(11), 97-111.
86. Sparkes, J. J. (1999). NCTM’s vision of mathematics assessment in the secondary school: Issues and challenges. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland.
87. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (Second Edition). Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York.
88. Umay, A. (2003). Matematiksel muhakeme yeteneği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 234-243.
89. Umay, A. & Kaf, Y. (2005). Matematikte kusurlu akıl yürütme üzerine bir çalışma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 188-195.
90. White, C. S., Alexander, P. A., & Daugherty, M. (1998). The relationship between young children’s analogical reasoning and mathematical learning. Mathematical Cognition, 4(2), 103-123.
91. Appendix. Some Questions in Mathematical Reasoning Test (MRT) Q3 Q 4
92. In a school with 1100 students, 5 students lessen each
93. year. In an other school with 700 students, 15 students
94. increase each year. How many years later will the
95. number of the students in both schools become equal? Please write. a) 12 b) 15 c) 18 d) 20
96. Erdem calculates that in a bread queue, he is
97. the 17th from the beginning and the 12th
98. from the end. According to this how many
99. persons are there in the queue totally? Please write.
100. a) 26 b) 27 c) 28 d) 29 Q 5 Q 7
101. Imagine that there is a rope that tightly envelops the
102. earth on the equator. If the radius of the earth were 1
103. meter longer, how many meters would we need to
104. extend the rope to wrap the earth tightly? Please write.
105. a) π b)2π c) 3π d) can not be known
106. Book of 25 pages are numbered from
107. number 1. How many numbers have been
108. used in this numbering? Please write.
109. a) 40 b) 41 c) 42 d) 43 Q 8 Q 9
110. A dolphin jumped up 8 meters while swimming 3
111. meters of dept under water. How many meters did this
112. dolphin jumped above the water level? Please write.
113. a) 11 m b) 5 m c) 24 m d) 10 m
114. 6 of the eggs within a basket has been
115. broken. 2/5 out of the rest of them is sold. As
116. 30 eggs left within the basket, how many
117. eggs have been sold? Please write.
118. a) 10 b) 20 c) 30 d) 40 Q 10 Q 11
119. Which interval is the length of an edge located of a
120. garden which is square shaped whose area is 39 m2? Why?
121. a) between 4 m and 5 m b) between 5 m and 6 m
122. c) between 6 m and 7 m d) between 7 m and 8 m
123. Ahmet paid 235 TRYs for all the books that
124. he bought for 5 and 10 TRYs each. According
125. to this, how many books did Ahmet buy al
126. least? Please write.
127. a) 23 b) 24 c) 45 d) 46 Q 12 Q 19
128. In a farm where there are sheep and hens, the number
129. of feet is 34 and the number of head is 100. According
130. to this information, what is the number of the sheep in
131. this farm? Please write. a) 57 b) 60 c) 63 d) 66 1/2, 1, 1/2, -1/2, -1, ?
132. a) 1 b) -1/2 c) 1/2 d) -1 Q
133. The shape above which is created through combinig
134. three sticks 1/4 in size, how many sticks 1/12 in size is
135. necessary to create it? Please explain.
136. a) 3 b) 6 c) 9 d) 12
137. The ticket price in various stores of a clock
138. whose all features are all the same is given
139. below. In which store is this clock bought
140. cheapest after the discounts made? Please explain.
141. a) Store A/100 TL - 25 % discount
142. b) Store B /90 TL - 10 % discount
143. c) Store C /90 TL - 20 % discount
144. d) Store D/100 TL - 30% discount Q 25 Q 26 Row Numbers Total 1. row
145. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2. row
146. 10,12,14,16,18,20 3. row
147. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 4. row 3,6,9,12,15,18,21
148. Develop a strategy which indicates that the total
149. sequential numbers within each row above is 90.
150. As it is seen above, to the edge of a garden
151. whose bottom is quadrate (10m×10m), a
152. sheep is tied with a rope of 20 meters. When
153. the rope is tight, what is the maximum
154. square meter area that the sheep can graze? Please explain.
155. Evaluate the solutions of the 31th and the 32th questions and write your own comment on each step. Q 31 Q 32
156. As 5 masters finish building a house of 100 m2 in 10
157. days; in how many days 10 masters with the same
158. qualifications finish building a house of 150 m2? Solution Way
159. 1st step: If 5 masters finish a house of 100 m2 in 10
160. days; 10 masters finish it in 5 days.
161. 2nd step: If 10 masters finish a house of 100 m2 in 20
162. days; they finish a house 150 m2 in (150x20)/100=30 days.
163. Two reciprocal vehicles from two cities
164. whose distance is 240 km set off at the same
165. time. As the speed of on per hour is 50 km an
166. the other one’s 70 km; how many hours later
167. these vehicles meet after their depurture? Solution Way:
168. 1st step: The distance between two vehicles is 240 kms.
169. 2nd step: It is essential to calculate the speed
170. difference of both in order to find how many
171. hours later they will meet. 70-50=20
172. 3rd step: 240/20=12 hours later they will meet. 10 m 10 m 10 m
173. Mukherjee, J. (2004). Bridging the gap between applied corpus linguistics and the reality of English language teaching in Germany. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective, (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam, NewYork: Rodopi.
174. Tribble, C. (2000). Practical uses for language corpora in ELT. In P. Brett & G. Motteram (Eds.), A special interest in computers: Learning and teaching with information and communications technologies (pp. 31-41). Whistable, Kent: IATFEL.
175. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2. row