The analysis of the creativity and decion making abilitiees of University students according to some variables

Bu çalışmada satranç sporcularının yaratıcılık ve karar verme becerilerini cinsiyet, bölüm temel bilim alanı ve UKD (Ulusal Kuvvet Derecesi) puanı değişkenlerine göre incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla araştırmaya 81 erkek, 26 bayan olmak üzere 107 üniversite satranç sporcusu katılmıştır. Araştırmada Yaratıcılık Ölçeği (Kirton, 1976) ve Melbourne Karar Verme Ölçeği I-II(Man ve ark, 1998) kullanılmıştır. Satranç sporcularının yaratıcılık becerileri cinsiyet ve UKD puanı için T testi ile bölüm temel bilim alanı ANOVA test ile analiz edilmiştir. Karar verme ölçeğinde ise üç değişken için tek yönlü MANOVA analizi ile test edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda öğrencilerin yaratıcılık becerileri için cinsiyet (t(105)=1.013, P>0.05), UKD puanı (t(105)=1.060, P>0.05) ve bölüm bilim temel alanı(f(1,235)=0,501, P>0.05) değişkenleri açısından anlamlı farklılık bulunamamıştır. Ancak Karar verme becerilerinde cinsiyet açısından dikkatli, kaçıngan ve panik alt boyutlarında (Wilks Lambda λ=.887; F (4,102)=3.253;P

Üniversite stranç sporcularının yaratıcılık ve karar verme becerilerinin bazı değişkenler göre incelenmesi

In this study it is aimed to analyze the creativity and decision making abilities of chess sportsmen according to gender, department and NPD (National Power Degree) score. For this reason, 107 university chess sportsmen of whom are 81 male 26 female have attended to research and The Creativity Scale (Kirton, 1976) and Melbourne Decision Making scale I- II (Man and Ark, 1998) have been used in this study. The creativity abilities of chess sportsmen have been analyzed via ANOVA test for department, and T Test for gender and NPD score. The decision making abilities have been tested via single optioned MANOVA analysis for the three variables. At the end of this study a meaningful discrepancy couldn’t be found for the variables gender (t(105)=1.013, P>0.05), NPD score t(105)=1.060, P>0.05) and department (f(1,235)=0,501, P>0.05) for creativity abilities of students. However, while it has been reached to meaningful results for the purpose of gender they are attentive, prudent and sub-dimension of panic (Wilks Lambda λ=.887; F (4,102)=3.253;P<0.05), and for the purpose of department they are prudent (F (2,104)=3.235; P<0.05), meaningful results could not be ascertained for NPD score (Wilks Lambda λ=.987;F (4,102)=0.329; P>0.05). As a result it can be said that the creativity abilities of chess sportsmen do not change according to gender, department and NPD score. In terms of decision making, it can be claimed that while males are more attentive, females are quick for solution, and the students from social and human sciences hold over their decisions than the students of technical sciences, and the experience is not an effective tool In terms of decision making.

PDF

___

1. Bagozzi, R. P. & G. R. Foxall (1995). Construct Validity and Generalizability of the Kirton Adaption- Innovation Inventory. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 185-206.
2. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2005). Theory and Application in Teaching and Education. [Eğitim ve Öğretimde Teori ve uygulama] Ankara: Pegem Publishing
3. Calderwood, R., Klein, G. A. ve Crandall, B. W. (1988). Time Pressure, Skill, and Move Quality in Chess. American Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 481- 495.
4. Cengizhan, S. (1997). The Evaluation of Creativity Capacities of University Academic Stuff, M.A Thesis [Üniversite Akademik Personelinin Yaratıcılık Kapasitesinin Evrimi, Y.Lisans Tezi] Marmara University, İstanbul.
5. Chabris, C.F., Glickman, M.E., “Analysis of a Large Cohort of Competitive Chess Players”, Psychological Science, vol.17,(12),pp. 1040-1046, 2006.
6. Charness, N., & Gerchak, Y. (1996). Participation rates and maximal performance: A log-linear explanation for group differences, such as Russian and male dominance in chess. Psychological Science, 7, 46–51.
7. Dalkıran, Sertaç H. (1995). The Method of Chess Education.[Satranç Eğitimi Yöntemi] (1. Ed.) İstanbul: İnkılap Publishing.
8. Daft R. L. (1994). Managerial Decision Making Management. 3. Edition, The Dryden Press, Orlando.
9. Dauvergne, Peter (2000). The Benefits of Chess in Education Examples of Research and Papers on Chess and Education [The Case for Chese as aTool to Develop Our Children’s Minds] Chess Foundation Europe, Kasparov.
10.Deniz, M.E. (2004). “Investigation of the Relation Between Decision Making Self-Esteem, Decision Making Style And Problem Solving Skills of University Students”. [Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Problem Çözme ve Karar Verme Yöntemi, Karar Verme Özsaygisi Arasindaki Ilişkinin Araştirmasi] Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. Vol: 15. 23-35.
11. Fischer, H (2011). A History of the Central Limit Theorem: From Classical to Modern Probability Theory, Springer Science and Business, NY, USA.
12. Frankel RJR Wallen N, E (1990). How to Design And esalvate research in education fifth edition , ny: mc grow hill companies
13.Gobet, Fernand ve Charness, Neil (2006). Expertise inChess. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1475/1/Gobet- CharnessCUPchess 20 expertise.pdf, document retrieval date:30.01.2010.
14.Howard, R.W. (2005). Are gender differences in high achievement disappearing? A test in one intellectual domain. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37, 371–380.
15. Klein, G., Wolf, S., Militello, L. ve Zsambok, C. (1995). Characteristics of Skilled Option Generation in Chess. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 63-69.
16. Kulaç, O. Beginner Level Chess Lesson Book.[Başlangıç Seviyesi Satranç Ders Kitabı] İstanbul: Turkey İs Bank Cultural Publishing
17. Leaper, C. (1998). Decision Making Processes Between Friends: Speaker and Partner Gender Effects. Sex Roles. 39 (1-2), 125-133.
18.Özen Ahmet, sampling ed. Yüzer A.FStatistic Syf.167.194. Anadolu University Publications data analysis No.1448
19. Polya, G. (1978). How to solve It, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 138p.
20. Satman, C. (2005). The Analysis Of Audience Voice On The Decisions Of Football Referees, Publicized M.A. Thesis [ Futbol Hakemlerinin Kararları Üzerinde Seyirci Sesinin Etkisinin Analizi, yayımlanmış Yüksek lisans tezi] Ankara University, The Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
21. Senemoğlu, N. (2007). Development and Teaching, From Theory to Practice, [Gelişim ve Öğrenme, Teoriden Uygulamaya] Gönül Publishing, Ankara, pg.598
22. Sonmaz, S. (2002). The Analysis of Relationship between Problem Solving Ability and Creativity & Intelligence, M.A, Thesis [ Problem Çözme Becerisi ve Yaratıcılık & Zeka Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi ] Marmara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, pg. 128
23. Torrance, P. E. (1962). Guiding Creative Talent, Bureau Educational Research Press, Minnesota, 278p.
24. Yaman, S. (2005), A Research Related to Emphasize The Points Of Views Of Primary School Students To Science Lesson [İlk Öğretim Öğrencilerinin Fen Bilimleri Dersine Bakış Açılarını Belirtmeye İlişkin Bir Araştırma ] Kastamonu Education Journal, c.14, s.1