Matematik İşlemlerinde Akıcılığın Geliştirilmesi: Dinleyerek İşlem Yapma Uygulamaları

Year 2019, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 629 - 649, 01.09.2019

Serpil Alptekin

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.504333

Abstract

Bir derleme çalışması olan bu makalenin amacı, matematikte işlem
akıcılığının geliştirilmesinde kullanılan tekniklerden biri olan dinleyerek
işlem yapmanın (DİY) temel uygulama basamaklarını açıklamak ve öğrencilere ve
uygulamacılara sağladığı katkıları alanyazında yer alan bilimsel araştırmalar
ışığında tartışmaktır. Çalışmada öncelikle alanyazın araştırmaları ışığında
DİY’in uygulama basamakları, uygulama öncesi hazırlıklar, uygulama ve
değerlendirme başlıkları altında ele alınarak açıklanmıştır. Uygulama öncesi
hazırlıklarda öğrencinin kullanacağı çalışma yaprakları ve ses kayıtlarının
nasıl hazırlanması gerektiği açıklanmıştır. Sonra birebir ya da gruba yönelik
uygulamaların nasıl yapılması gerektiği açıklanarak değerlendirmede yapılması
gereken önemli noktalara değinilmiştir. Daha sonra alanyazında, DİY uygulamalarının
etkilerini belirlemeye yönelik araştırmalar, katılımcı sayısı, cinsiyeti, yaşı
ve sınıf düzeyi, araştırma deseni, hedeflenen beceri (bağımlı değişken),
uygulanan prosedür (bağımsız değişken), uygulama biçimi ve elde edilen sonuçlar
ele alınarak açıklanmıştır. Bu değişkenler ışığında sonuçların öğrenciler ve
uygulamacılar açısından yararları tartışılmış ve ileri araştırmalara yönelik
önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

Dinleyerek işlem yapma, özel eğitim, matematikte akıcılık, temel matematik becerileri

Enhancing Math Facts Fluency: Taped Problems Interventions

Abstract

The aim of this paper, which is a review, is to explain basic intervention steps of taped problems (TP) technique
which is one of the techniques used in enhancing math facts fluency and to discuss the contributions that it provides
to students and implementers in the light of scientific studies in the literature. In the light of the literature, first of
all, the steps of TP interventions were explained respectively by discussing the titles under preparations prior to
the intervention, intervention, and evaluation headings. The worksheets that students will use during the
preparation and how the sound recordings should be prepared were explained before the intervention. Then, by
explaining how one-to-one or group interventions should be done, important points that need to be addressed in
the assessment were referred. Besides, studies aiming to determine the effects of TP interventions, the number of
participants, their gender, age and class level, research design, targeted skill (dependent variable), applied
procedure (independent variable) intervention method and results were explained. In the light of these variables,
the benefits of the results for students and implementers were discussed and recommendations were made for
further research. 

Keywords

Taped problems, math fluency, basic math skills, low performance students in math, students with special need

References

• Alberto, P. A. & Troutman, A. C. (2013). Applied behaviour analysis for teachers (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Aspiranti, K. B., Skinner, C.H., McCleary, D.F. & Cihak, D.F. (2011). Using taped problems and rewards to increase addition-fact fluency in a first-grade general education classroom. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(2), 25-33. doi:10.1007/BF03391781
• Bliss, S.L., Skinner, C.H., McCallum, E., Saecker, L.B., Rowland-Bryant, E. & Brown, K.S. (2010). A comparison of taped problems with and without a brief posttreatment assessment on multiplication fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(2), 156-168. doi: 10.1007/s10864-010-9106-5
• Burns, M. K., Codding, R. S., Boice, C. H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill by treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83.
• Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance: An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 23 – 34. doi:1053-0819/03/0300-0023/0
• Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disablities, 30(2), 130-141.
• Carnine, D., Jitendra, A. & Silbert, J. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematics curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2),66-81.
• Charlesworth, R. & Lind, K.K. (2010). Math and science for young children (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.
• Cressey, J. & Ezbicki, K. (2008). Improving automaticity with basic addition facts: do taped problems work faster than cover, copy, compare?. Paper 12 presented NERA Annunal ConferencE. Connecticut, USA. Retrived from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=nera_2008
• Freeman, T.J. & McLaughlin, T.F. (1984). Effects of a taped-words treatment procedure on learning disabled students' sight-word oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(1), 49-54.
• Gagne, R.M. (1982). Some issues in psychology of mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7 – 18.
• Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1539–1552. doi:10.1037/a0025510
• Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380040301
• Gurganus, S.P. (2017). Math instruction for learning problems (2nd. ed). Newyork: Routledge.
• Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I. & Bradsford, J. D. (1987). Developing automaticity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1, 30-33.
• Hinton, V., Strozier, S.D., & Flores, M.M. (2014). Building mathematical fluency for students with disabilities or students at-risk for mathematics failure. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(4), 257-265.
• Johnson, K.R. & Layng, T.J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 281-288.
• Kame’enui, E.J., Carnine,D.W., Dixon, R.C. Simmons, D.C. & Coyne, M.D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• McCallum, E. (2006). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech time delay intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retriverd from https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3251&context=utk_graddiss
• McCallum, E. & Schmitt, A.J. (2011). The taped problems intervention: Increasing the math fact fluency of a student with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 276-284.
• McCallum, E., Schmitt, A. J., Schneider, D. L, Rezzetano, K., & Skinner, C. H. (2010). Extending research on the taped-problems intervention: Do group rewards enhance math fact fluency development?. School Psychology Forum, 4, 44-61. doi: 10.1080/15377900903175861
• McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Joumal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 129-147. doi: 10.1300/J370v20n02_08
• McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Seacker, L. (2006). The taped-problem intervention: Increasing multiplication fact fluency using low-tech classwide, time delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419-434.
• Mercer, C.D. & Miller, S.P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13(3), 19-35.
• Miller, K. C., Skinner, C. H., Gibby, L., Galyon, C.E., & Meadows-Allen, S. (2011). Evaluating generalization of addition-fact fluency using the taped-problems procedure in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 203-220. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9126-9
• Mong, M. D. & Mong, K. W. (2010). Efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 273-288. doi: 10.1007/s10864-011-9143-8
• Özyürek, M. (2009). Bilişsel ve devimsel davranışları öğretmeyi kazandırma [To teach cognitive and knesthetic behaviors]. İstanbul: Daktylos Yayıncılık.
• Poncy B.C., Jaspers, K.E., Hansmann, P.R., Bui, L. & Matthew. W.B. (2015) A comparison of taped-problem ınterventions to ıncrease math fact fluency: Does the length of time delay affect student learning rates?, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31(1), 63-82. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2014.963273
• Poncy, B.C., Skinner, C.H. & Jaspers, K.E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 27- 37. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9025-7
• Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A comparison of class-wide taped problems and cover, copy, and compare for enhancing mathematics fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 744- 755. doi:10.1002/pits.21631
• Shapiro, E.S. (2011). Academic skills problems, direct assessment and intervention (4th ed). New York: Guilford Press
• Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D., & Davis, K. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389-403. doi: 10.1002/pits.20065.
• Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.
• Snell, M.E. & Brown, F. (2014). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed). Edinburgh: Pearson.
• Stein, M., Kinder, D., Silbert, J. & Carnine, D. (2006). Desining effective mathematics instruction a direct instruction approach, (3th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Tekin-İftar, E. & Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2016). Özel eğitimde yanlışsız öğretim yöntemleri [Responce promting methods in special education] (3. baski) [3rd ed]. Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
• Uysal, H. (2017). Zihin yetersizliği olan öğrencilere temel toplama işlemlerinde akıcılık kazandırmada iki farklı uygulamanın karşılaştırılması [The comparison of two treatments for enhancing basic addition facts fluency of students with intellectuel disabilities]. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir [Anadolu University Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskişehir, Turkey].
• Windingstad, S., Skinner, C. H., Rowland, E., Cardin, E., & Fearrington, J. Y. (2009). Extending research on a math fluency building intervention: Applying taped problems in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 364–381. doi: 10.1080/15377900903175861.
• Wolery, M., Ault, M. J. & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. New York: Longman Publishing Group
• Woodward, J. (2006). Developing Automaticity in Multiplication Facts: Integrating Strategy Instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Diasbility Quarterly, 29(4)- 269-289. doi: org/10.2307/30035554