Zeynep GÜREL, Hayrettin ERGÜN, Mehmet Ali ÇORLU

Problem tasarlama performansının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabilecek bir rubriğin geliştirilmesine ilişkin bir araştırma

Bu araştırmada, öğrenciler tarafından tasarlanan problemlerin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir analitik rubrik geliştirilmiştir. Rubrik, 2008–2009 eğitim- öğretim yılında, üniversite birinci sınıf temel fizik dersinde geliştirilmiştir. Problem tasarlama rubriğinin boyutlarını ve bu boyutlara ait ölçütleri belirlemek amacıyla, öğrenci çalışma kağıtları, sınıf içi tartışma sonuçları ve ilgili alan yazın taramasından elde edilen bulgular kullanılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda altı boyut elde edilmiştir. Bu boyutlar; problemin anlaşılırlığı, problemin fizik ilkeleriyle uyumu, problemin yapısı, sorulan soru sayısı, problemin türü ve problemin çözülebilirliğidir. Güvenilirlik çalışması kapsamında, iki farklı puanlayıcı Pearson Korelasyon Katsayısı r =0,86; aynı puanlayıcı Pearson Korelasyon Katsayısı r =0,92 olarak bulunmuştur.

A research designed to develop a rubric whih assesses the performance of students' problem posing

In this study, an analytic rubric was designed to assess the problems posed by students in the 2008–2009 academic year. It was developed in the university first year basic physics course. The data of the research was collected, by using students’ work sheets, classroom discussions and the literature about the assessment of problem posing, to find out the and assessment criteria of the rubric. Six dimensions were determined which are fluency of a problem, scientific accuracy of the problem (Compliance with the Principles of Physics), structure of the problem, number of questions produced from the problem, complexity of the problem and the solvability of the problem. It was found that; Interrater Reliability Coefficent r = 0.86 and Intrarater Reliability Coefficientr = 0.92.

PDF

___

CAI, J. & HWANG, S. (2002). “Generalized and generative thinking in U.S. and Chinese students’mathematical problem solving and problem posing”, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21,ss.401–421.
CHANG, N. (2007). “Responsibilities of a Teacher in a Harmonic Cycle of Problem Solving and Problem Posing”, Early Childhood Education Journal, 34 (4), ss.265–271.
ENGLISH, L., D. (1997a). “The Development of Fifth-Grade Children’s Porblem-Posing Abilities”,Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34 (3), ss.183–217.
ENGLISH, L.,D. (1997b). “Promoting a problem posing classroom”, Teaching Childreen Mathematics, 3, ss.172- 179.
ENGLİSH, L D., CUDMORE,D, AND TİLLEY, D. (1998) “Problem Posing and Critiquing: How It Can Happen in Your Classroom”, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4 (2),ss.124–29.
GONZALES, N. A. (1994). “Problem Posing: A Neglected Component in Mathematics Courses for Prospective Elementary and Middle School Teachers”, School Science And Mathematics, 94 (2), ss.78–84.
GONZALES, N. A. (1998). “A Blueprint for Problem Posing”, School Science & Mathematics, 9 (8), ss. 448–456.
GOODRICH, A. H. (2000). “Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning”, Educational Leadership, 57 (5), ss.13–18.
GOODRICH, A. H. (2005). “Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad and the ugly”, College Teaching 53(1), ss. 27–30.
GRUNMEIER, T.A.(2002). “University Students’ Problem Posing Abilities and Attitudes Towards Mathematics”, Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies (PRIMUS), 12(2), ss.122–134.
GRUNDMEIER, T.A. (2003). The Effects of Providing Mathematical Problem Posing Experiences for K-8 Pre-Service Teachers: Investigating Teachers’ Beliefs and Characteristics of Posed Problems. University of New Hampshire. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Durham, USA.
KORKMAZ, E., GÜR, H., (1996). “Öğretmen Adaylarının Problem Kurma Becerilerinin Belirlenmesi”,Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8 (1), ss.64–74.
KUTLU, Ö., DOĞAN, C.D. VE KARAKAYA, İ. (2009). Öğrenci Başarısının Belirlenmesi: Performansa ve Portfolyaya Dayalı Durum Belirleme,(2. Baskı), Pegem A Yayıncılık,Ankara.
MABRY, L. (1999). “Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment”, Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), ss.673–679.
MESTRE, J. P. (2002). “Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, ss.9-50.
MOSKAL, B. M. & LEYDENS, J. A. (2000). “Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10). [Available online: ].
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.
ÖZÇELİK, D.A., (1989). Test Hazırlama Kılavuzu, ÖSYM Eğitim Yayınları 5, Ankara.
POLYA, G (1957). How to Solve It, , Princeton University Press, (2nd ed), New Jersey, USA.
POPHAM, J. W. (1997). “What’s wrong and what’s right with rubric”, Educational Leadership, 55 (2), ss.72–75.
SILVER, E. A. (1994). “On mathematical problem posing”, For the Learning of Mathematics, 14 (1),ss.19–28.
SILVER, E. AND CAI, J. (1996). “An Analaysis of Arithmetic Problem Posing by Middle School Students”, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (5), ss.521–539.
SILVER, E.A., (1997). “Fostering Creativity Through Instruction Rich in Mathematical Problem solving and Problem Posing”, International Rewievs on Matematical Education (ZDM), 29 (3), ss.75–80.
SILVER, E. AND CAI, J. (2005). “Assessing students’ mathematical problem posing”, Teaching Children Mathematics, 12 (3), ss.129–135.
SILVER, E., DOWNS, J.,M., LEUNG, S. VE KENNEY, P.,A. (1996). “Posing Mathematical Problems: An Exploratory Study”, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 27 (3),ss.293–309.
STOYANOVA, E. (2005). “Problem Posing Strategies used by years 8 and 9 students”, Australian Mathematics Teacher, 61 (3), ss.6–11.