You are here

Home » Content

İlköğretim Okulu Öğrencileri Kötü Yapılandırılmış Problemleri Nasıl Çözüyor?

How do Elementary School Students Solve Ill- Structured Problems?

Journal Name:

  • Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This paper is based on research that evaluated strategies used by elementary school students (K-5) for solutions to “diagnosis-solution” problems and “design” problems, mainly categorized as ill-structured problems. The differences in the applications of these strategies by students in different grades were analyzed. The research was based on face-to-face interviews. The analysis of the responses of K-3 students showed that most of them did not apply the general steps of problem-solving such as identification of the problem, data collection, generating possible solutions and evaluation steps. Instead, they immediately skipped to the step of selecting the best solution after the problems were posed to them. Some of the students in the 4 th and 5 th grades mentioned that it was important to define the problem first and then solve the problem. This group was also able to identify multiple resources for data collection, whereas the younger students were more limited in their choices for data collection. Some of the older students thought that in case the solution failed, it is important to evaluate the results and seek another solution to the problem. The general conclusion of this research paper is that students, for the most part, are not aware of the fact that a major portion of a problem-solving undertaking involves identification of the problem. Most students jump to the step of selecting the best solution without a clear identification of the problem.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışma, anaokulundan altıncısınıfa kadar olan öğrencilerin, kötü yapılandırılmış olarak kategorize edilen tasarım ve teşhis et- çöz problemlerini çözerken, kullandıkları stratejilerin belirlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesine dayalıdır. İlkokullarda, farklısınıf düzeylerindeki öğrenciler tarafından kullanılan bu stratejilerin uygulanmasındaki farklılıklar analiz edildi. Bu araştırmada veriler yüz yüze yapılan görüşmelerden elde edildi. Veri analizleri, anaokulu, birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin çoğunluğunun, genel problem çözmenin adımlarıolan, problemi tanımlama, veri toplama, çözümler üretme ve değerlendirme basmağını uygulamadıklarınıgösterdi. Onun yerine, öğrenciler, onlara sorulan problemlerden sonra hiç düşünmeksizin en iyi çözümü seçme basamağına atladılar. Dördüncü ve beşinci sınıflardaki bazıöğrenciler ise, problemin çözümünde, ilk olarak problemi tanımlamanın önemli olduğunu açıkladılar. Ayrıca bu grup, küçük sınıflardaki öğrencileri sınırlıveri toplama kaynağıbelirtmelerinin aksine, daha farklıveri toplama kaynaklarıbelittiler. Bazıdördüncü ve beşinci sınıf öğrencileri çözüm başarısız olduğunda, çözümün değerlendirilmesinin ve yeni bir çözümün bulunmasının önemli olduğunu açıkladılar. Bu çalışmanın genel sonucu, öğrencilerin büyük çoğunluğu verilen problemleri tanımlama sürecinden haberdar görünmüyorlar. Öğrencilerin önemli bir bölümü, problemi net bir şekilde anlamadan, tanımadan en iyi çözüm basamağına geçiyorlar.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-ilkogretim-okulu-ogrencileri-kotu-yapilandirilmis-problemleri-nasil-cozuyor.pdf
  • 1
123-147
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, Comprehension Monitoring, and the Adult Reader.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.
Biehler, R.F., & Snowmen, J. (1993). Psychology Applied to Teaching. Houghton
Mifflin Com., Boston.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The Ideal Problem Solver. New York: Freeman. USA.
Brunnig, R., Schraw, G., & Ronning, R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and Instruction.
Upper Saddle River, NJ; Prentice Hall. USA.
Cohen, M.R. (1981). The Journal Of Environmental Education, 13, 1.
Cooper, G., & Sweller,J.,(1987) Effect Of The Schema Acquisition and Rule
Automation on Mathematical Problem Solving Transfer. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79,347-362.
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: Heath. USA.
Dixon,D.N.(1987). A History of Counseling Psychology. In J. A Glover &
R.R.Ronning(Eds.), Historical Foundations of Educational Psychology. 62-63. NewYork : Tudor.
Dunkle, G., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L. (1995) Cognitive Processes in Well–Defined
And Ill Defined Problem-Solving. Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of
The American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco.
Eggen, P., Kauchak, D. (1999). Educational Psychology. Windows on Classroom.
Prentice Hall, Inc. USA.
Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. (1990). Cognitive Psychology:A Student’s Handbook.
Hillsdale, NJ:Elrlbaum. USA.
Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implication of Cognitive Theory for Instruction in Problem-Solving, Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 363-408.
Fuson, K.C. (1992). Research on Whole Number Addition and Subtraction. In
Handbook Of Research On Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 243-75.NewYork: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
Gagne, R.M. (1980). The Condition of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gustafson, B.J., Rowell, & P.M. (1998). Elementary Children’s Technological Problem-Solving: Selection an Initial Course of Action.Research in Science
&Technological Education.16(2), 151-164.
Harty, H, Kloosterman, P.& Matkin, J. (1991). Science Problem-Solving Approaches in
Elemantary School Classrooms, School Science and Mathematics,91,10-14.
Hayes, J. (1988). The Complete Problem Solver. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. USA.
GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 25, Sayı1 (2005) 123-147 146
Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem-Solving. E.T.R&D Vol:
48, No. 4. pp.63-65. Technology: Research & Development, 48 (4), 63-85.
Kalayci, N., & Cohen, M. (2003). Integrating Problem-Solving with Theme-Based
Learning in the Key Learning Community, Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association for Education of Teacher in Science. St.Louis, Missouri.
Lee, L., Goh, N., Chia, L., Chin, C., & Tan, L. (2000). Science Teachers and Problem-Solving in Elementary Schools in Singapore. Research In Science
&Technological Education,18(1), 113.
Martines, M.E. (1998). What Is Problem-Solving? Phi Delta Kappan, 79(8).
Mayer, R. (1992). Thinking, Problem-Solving, Cognition,2
nd
ed., NY: Freeman
Company.
Mayer, R., & Wittrock, M. (1996). Problem-Solving Transfer. in Berliner, D.C., Calfee,
R.C. (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp.47-62). New York:
Macmillan, Nov., Vol.16, issue2, p.151.
Namsoo Shin Hong. (1998). The Relationship Between Well- Structured and Ill-
Structured Problem Solving in Multimedia Simulation.Doctoral Dissertation.
The Pennsylvania State University. College of Education. U.S.A.
O’Neil, J. (1991). Building Lings Between School nd The Workplace. ASCD
Curriculum Update, 1-8.
Peery, M., Vanderstoep, S, & Yu, S. (1993). Asking Question in First-Grade
Mathematics Classes: Potential Influences on Mathematical Though. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 31-40.
Robitalle, D., & Kenneth, J. (1992). International Studies Of Achievement In
Mathematics. In Handbook of Research On Mathematics Teaching And
Learning, New York: MacmillanPublishing Co.
Rothstein ,P.R. (1990). Educational Psychology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. USA.
Schoenfeld, A.H. (1989). Teaching Mathematical Thinking And Problem-Solving. In L.
Resnick & L. Klopfer, Toward the Thinking Curriculum; Current Cognitive
Research.83-103. Alexandria, V.A. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schunk, D. (1994). Goal Self-Evaluative Influences During Children’s Mathematical
Skill Acquisition.Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of The American
Research Association, New Orleans.
Simon, H. (1988). Information-Processing Theory of Human Problem-Solving. In W.
Estes (Ed.), Handbook of Learning And Cognitive Processes: (5). Human
Information Processing.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 25, Sayı1 (2005) 123-147 147
Sinnot, J, D (1975). A Model For Solution of Ill Structured Problems: Implication For
Everyday and Abstract Problem Solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday
Problem Solving: Theory and Application.72-99. Newyork:Praeger.
Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). The Learning Gap.N.York: Summit Books.
Spiro ,R.J.,Vispoel,W., Schmitz,J.,Samarapungavan,A.,& Boerger,A.(1987).Knowledge
Acquisition for Application: Cognition Flexibility and Transfer in Complex
Content Domains. In BC.Brintton(Ed.), Executive Control Process.Hillsdale,
NJ:Lawrence
Spiro.R.J., Coulson,RL.,Feltovich,P.J.(1990). Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Advance
Knowledge Acquisition in Ill Structured Domains. Cognitive Science,
12,257-285.
Voss,J.F.,&Post,T.A(1988). On The Solving of Ill Structured Problems. In MTA.Chi,
Glaser&M.J.Farr(Eds)The Nature of Expertise.Hilldale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wood, P.K.(1993).Inquiry Systems and Problem Structured: Implication for Cognitive
Development. Human Development,26,249-265.
Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self- Regulated Academic Learning and Achievement: The
Emergence of A Social Cognitive Perspective. Educational Psychology,71,
503-513.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com