Research Information System
Thesis Type: Doctorate
Institution Of The Thesis: Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Turkey
Approval Date: 2011
Student: MUSTAFA ULU
Supervisor: NEŞE IŞIK TERTEMİZ
Abstract:This study, modeled according to action research design, aims to develop a program to deal with the errors of primary school 5th grade students in nonroutine problems. Clinical interview method was used in order to determine the source of the errors of primary school 5th grade students in nonroutine problems and descriptive survey method was used to determine the ratio (%) of the sources of the errors in general and in each question, while pretest posttest control group experimental design was used to test the efficiency of the program developed upon the error sources. The study group of descriptive survey model was composed of total 467 primary school 5th grade students in 13 classes in 7 different primary schools in the city of Kütahya chosen according to cluster sample method, while the study group of clinical interview method was composed of 70 students chosen among those who had made the error themes determined. The study group of experimental design was composed of total 69 students chosen among the 13 classes: 34 in classes 5D of Kütahya Fatih Primary School as control group and 35 in 5E of Kütahya Fatih Primary School as experiment group. In order for data collection, three nonroutine problem solving success tests (ROPÇBT1, ROPÇBT2, ROPÇBT3) were developed by the researcher, each of which composed of 12 questions and whose validity and reliability studies had been done. Later, ROPÇBT1 was conducted on 467 primary school 5th grade students; question content analysis for each question being carried out, error themes were determined. 70 error themes were determined in 12 questions. Using the clinical interviews with the students, these 70 error themes were classified according to dominant error sources and the ratio (%) of each error source in every question and in general was determined. Afterwards, the program was developed upon the error sources and efficiency of the program was tested. As a result of the research, it was determined that the students made comprehension based errors the most (45.50%); these comprehension based errors resulted from miscomprehension (27.28%) the most, followed by irrelevant operation (10.42%) and incomplete comprehension (7.39%). It was also determined that apart from comprehension based errors, the errors stemmed from the following respectively: performing the strategy (5.72%), reading (3.77%), performing the operation (2.62%) and choosing the right strategy (2.36%). The error sources were merged in two categories namely reading comprehension (49.26%) and problem solving strategy (%10.70). In this context, training for reading comprehension strategies (22 hours) and training for problem solving strategies (18 hours) were provided for the experiment group, while the control group was given MEB-based training of reading comprehension and problem solving. The nonrutine problem solving success of experiment and control group students were tested before the training (pretest), after reading comprehension training (middle test) problem solving training (posttest). The data were analyzed with covariance analysis (ANCOVA). As a result of the experimental study, it was found that; 1. There was a significant difference between the experiment group who had had reading comprehension strategies training and the control group, in favour of the experiment group in terms of nonroutine problem solving success, 2. Reading comprehension strategies training explained 7.86% of the total variance in nonroutine problem solving success, while the readiness factor explained 87.80% of the total variance, 3. There was a significant difference between the experiment group who had had problem solving strategies training and the control group, in favour of the experiment group in terms of nonroutine problem solving success, 4. Problem solving strategies training explained 11.74% of the total variance in nonroutine problem solving success, while the readiness factor explained 52.28% of the total variance, 5. There was a significant difference between the experiment group who had had strategy training program (reading comprehension + problem solving strategies) and the control group, in favour of the experiment group in terms of nonroutine problem solving success, 6. Strategy training program (reading comprehension + problem solving strategies) explained 32.27% of the change in nonroutine problem solving success, while the readiness factor explained 49.27% of the total variance, 7. Instead of applying only reading comprehension strategies training or only problem solving strategies training, providing these two trainings together increased the students' success, 8. Readiness factor was more effective than strategy training program in the development of nonroutine problem solving.