Buradasınız

Beden Eğitimi Öğretmen Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Farkındalık ve Problem Çözme Becerileri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Examination of the Relationship between Metacognitive Awareness and Problem Solving Skills of Physical Education Teacher Candidates

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between metacognitive awareness and problem solving skills of physical education teacher candidates. A sample of hundred and ninety two physical education teacher candidates completed problem solving and metacognitive awareness inventory. In order to examine the relationship between problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness level structural equation modeling and canonical correlation analysis were used. Results of the structural equation modeling showed that suggested model provided a good fit to the data (χ2 / df = 3.91, SRMR = 0.077, CFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.90, Prob = -1.55* Metacog., R2 = 0.20, t = -5.03 (p<0.05)). There was a significant canonical correlation and a significant cross canonical correlation found between the factors of the model (1st Function: U1 - V1/Canonical Correlation Coefficient = 0.515, R2 = 0.26; 2nd Function: U2 - V2/ Canonical Correlation Coefficient = 0.404, R2= 0.16 (p<0.01)). Results indicated that metacognitive awareness levels of the physical education teacher candidates have an effect on their problem solving skills.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı beden eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile problem çözme becerileri arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir. Çalışmaya 192 beden eğitimi öğretmeni adayı katılmıştır. Beden eğitimi öğretmenleri adaylarına problem çözme ve üstbilişsel farkındalık envanterleri uygulanmıştır. Problem çözme beceriler ve üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin test edilmesi için yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve kanonik korelasyon analizlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi sonuçları, önerilen modelin veriye iyi uyum gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur (χ2/df = 3.91, SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.90, Prob =-1.55* Üstbiliş, R2 = 0.20, t = -5.03 (p<0.05)). Modeli oluşturan faktörleri arasındaki kanonik ve çapraz kanonik korelasyonların anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur (1.fonksiyon: U1 - V1/ Kanonik Korelasyon Katsayısı= 0.51, R2= 0.26; 2. fonksiyon: U2 - V2/ Kanonik Korelasyon Katsayısı= 0.40, R2= 0.16 (p<0.01)). Sonuçlar üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin, beden eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerileri üzerinde etkisi olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
92-99

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Akın A, Abacı R, Çetin B. The validity and reliability
study of the Turkish version of the Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory. Educational Science: Theory &
Practice, 2007; 7(2): 655-680.
2. Annevirta T, Vauras M. Developmental Changes of
Metacognitive Skill in Elementary School Children.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 2006; 74(3): 197–
225.
3. Berg CA, Megan SP, Klaczynski P. Age and
Experiential Differences in StrategyGeneration and
Information Requests for Solving Everyday
Problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
1999; 23(3): 615–639.
4. Cao L, Nietfeld JL. College Students’ Metacognitive
Awareness of Difficulties in Learning the Class
Content Does Not Automatically Lead to Adjustment
of Study Strategies. Australian Journal of Educational &
Developmental Psychology, 2007; 7: 31-46.
5. Chanal JP, Sarrazin PG, Guay F, Boiche´ J. Verbal,
mathematics, and physical education self-concepts
and achievements: An extension and test of the
Internal/External Frame of Reference Model.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2009; 10: 61–66.
6. Chau PYK. Reexamining a model for evaluating
information success using a structural equation
modeling approach. Decision Sciences, 1997; 28(2): 309-
334.
7. Chen MH, Gualberto PJ, Tameta CL. The
Development of Metacognitive Reading Awareness
Inventory. TESOL Journal, 2009; 1: 43-57.
8. de Jager B, Jansen M, Reezigt G. The Development
of Metacognition in Primary School Learning
Environments. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
2005; 16(2): 179-196.
9. Fisher R. Thinking About Thinking: Developing
Metacognition in Children. Early Child Development and
Care, 1998; 141(1): 1-15.
10. Güss CD, Wiley B. Metacognition of Problem-Solving
Strategies in Brazil, India, and the United States.
Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2007; 7: 1-25.
11. Heppner PP, Petersen CH. The development
andimplications of a personal problem solving
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1982; 29(1):
66-75.
12. Hoffman B, Spatariu A. The influence of self-efficacy
and metacognitive prompting on math problemsolving
efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
2008; 33: 875–893.
13. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure anaysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
1999; 6(1): 1-55.
14. Jonassen DH. Toward a Design Theory of Problem
Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,
2000; 48(4): 63-85.
15. Joreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL 8:User’s Reference
Guide, Scientific Software International Inc. 2001.
16. Kajamies A, Vauras M, Kinnunen R. Instructing Low-
Achievers in Mathematical Word Problem Solving.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2010; 54(4):
335–355.
17. Lee CB, Teo T, Bergin D. Children's Use of
Metacognition in Solving Everyday Problems: An
Initial Study from an Asian Context. Australian
Educational Researcher, 2009; 36(3): 89-102.
18. Leutwyler B. Metacognitive learning strategies:
differential development patterns in high school.
Metacognition Learning, 2009; 4: 111–123.
19. Lin X, Schwartz DL, Hatano G. Toward Teachers’
Adaptive Metacognition. Educational Psychologist, 2005;
40(4): 245–255.
20. Luke I, Hardy CA. Appreciating the Complexity of
Learning in Physical Education: The Utilization of a
Metacognitive Ability Conceptual Framework. Sport,
Education and Society, 1999; 4(2): 175-191.
21. Maghsudi M, Talebi SH. The Impact of Lingualuity
on the Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading
Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension
Ability. Journal of Social Science, 2009; 18(2): 119-126.
22. Martini R, Shore BM. Pointing to parallels in abilityrelated
differences in the use of metacognition in
academic and psychomotor tasks. Learning and
Individual Differences, 2008; 18: 237–247.
23. Mayer RE. Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational
aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 1998;
26: 49–63.
24. McCann EJ, Garcia T. Maintaining motivation and
regulating emotion: Measuring individual differences in academic volitional strategies. Learning and Individual
Differences, 1999; 11(3): 259-279.
25. Meijer J, Veenman MVJ, van Hout-Wolters BHAM.
Metacognitive Activities in Text-Studying and
Problem-Solving: Development of a taxonomy.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 2006; 12(3): 209-
237.
26. Metallidou P. Pre-service and in-service teachers’
metacognitive knowledge about problem-solving
strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2009; 25:76–
82.
27. Özsoy G, Çakıroğlu A, Kuruyer HG, Özsoy S. Sınıf
Öğretmeni Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Farkındalık
Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Bakımından
İncelenmesi (Examination of Elementary School
Teacher Candidates’ Metacognitive Awareness Level
in Term Several Variables). 9. Sınıf Öğretmenleri Eğitim
Sempozyumu, 2010:489-492.
28. Pifarre´ M, Cobos R. Evaluation of the development
of metacognitive knowledge supported by the
knowcat system. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 2009; 57: 787–799.
29. Pintrich PR. The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge
in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Theory Into
Practice, 2002; 41(4): 219-225.
30. Ponnusamy R. The impact of metacognition and
problem solving strategies among low-achievers in
history. Jurnal Ipba, 2006; 3(3): 133-142.
31. Savaşır İ, Şahin NH. Bilişsel-Davranışçı Terapide
Değerlendirme: Sık Kullanılan Ölçekler. Ankara: Türk
Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları, 1997: 79-85.
32. Schraw G, Dennison R. Assessing metacognitive
awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1994;
19: 460-470.
33. Schultheiss DEP, Stead GB. Childhood Career
Development Scale: Scale Construction and
Psychometric Properties. Journal of Career Assessment,
2004; 12(2): 113–134.
34. Schulz M, Stamov Roßnagel C. Informal workplace
learning: An exploration of age differences in learning
competence. Learning and Instruction, 2010; 20: 383-399.
35. Shewchuck RM, Johnson MO, Elliott TR. Selfappraised
social problem solving abilities, emotional
reactions and actual problem solving performance.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2000; 38: 727-740.
36. Sungur S. Modeling the Relationships among
Students' Motivational Beliefs, Metacognitive Strategy
Use, and Effort Regulation. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 2007; 51(3): 315–326.
37. Sungur S, Senler B. An analysis of Turkish high school
students' metacognition and motivation. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 2009; 15(1): 45-62.
38. Şahin N, Şahin NH, Heppner PP. Psychometric
Properties of the Problem Solving Inventory in a
Group of Turkish University Students. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 1993; 17(4): 379-396.
39. Vandergrift L, Goh CCM, Mareschal CJ, Tafaghodtar
MH. The Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire: Development and Validation. Language
Learning, 2006; 56(3): 431–462.
40. Yavuz D, Memiş A. Investigation of Self-Efficacy
Perception and Metacognitive Awareness of
Prospective Teachers. The International Journal of
Research in Teacher Education, 2010; 1(1):12-27.
41. Yıldırım Z, Özden MY, Aksu M. Comparison of
Hypermedia Learning and Traditional Instruction on
Knowledge Acquisition and Retention. Journal of
Educational Research, 2001; 94(4): 207-214.
42. Zimmerman BJ. Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to
Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2000; 25: 82–

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