Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 39 Sayı: 173 Sayfa Aralığı: 39 - 54 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler

Öz:
Araştırmanın amacı üstbilişin üç farklı boyutu olan üstbilişsel bilgi, üstbilişsel izleme ve üstbilişsel denetleme ile genel zekâ ve metinden öğrenme performansı arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesidir. Araştırmaya 91 ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencileri katılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda üstbilişsel bilgi ve üstbilişsel denetleme ile genel zekâ arasında anlamlı ilişki olmadığı görülürken üstbilişsel izleme ile genel zekâ arasında istatistiki olarak anlamlı ilişki olduğu görülmüştür. Regresyon analizi sonuçları; üstbilişsel bilginin metinden öğrenme performansındaki değişkenliğe katkı sağlamadığına, üstbilişsel izleme ve üstbilişsel denetlemenin ise genel zekâ ile birlikte metinden öğrenme performansındaki değişkenliğe anlamlı katkı sağladığına işaret etmektedir
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Albano, J., Freygang, T.,& Scott, B. (2006). Relations between intelligence and the development of metaconceptual knowledge. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 51-67.
  • Alexander, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (1994). Strategy regulation: The role of intelligence, metacognitive attributions, and knowledge base. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 709–723.
  • Allon, M., Gutkin, T. & Bruning, B. (1994). The relation between metacognition and intelligence in normal adolescents: Some tentative but surprising findings. Psychology in Schools, 31, 93–97.
  • Baumert, J., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Brunner, M. (2009). Large-scale student assessment studies measure the results of processes of knowledge acquisition: Evidence in support of the distinction between intelligence and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 165-176.
  • Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (E. Kit, Trans.). Baltimore, MD:Williams & Wilkins.
  • Borella, E., Caretti, B. & Mammarella, I. C. (2006). Do working memory and susceptibility to interference predict individual differences in fluid intelligence? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 51-69.
  • Bracken, B. A., Howell, K. K. &Crain, R. M. (1993). Prediction of Caucasian and African-American preschool children’s fluid and crystallized intelligence: Contributions of maternal characteristics and home environment. Journal of Clinical Child psychology, 22(4), 455-464.
  • Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. Bulunduğu eser: F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (eds.). Metacognition, Motivation and, Understanding. (ss. 64–115) New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. E. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
  • Carpenter, C. A., Just, M. A. & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures? A theoretical account of processing in the Raven’s Progressive Matrices task. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431.
  • Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22.
  • Chamarro-Premusic, T., Moutafi, J. & Furnham, A. (2005). The relationship between personality traits, subjectively-assessed and fluid intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1517-1528.
  • Colom, R., Abad, R. J., Rebollo, I. & Shih, P. C. (2005). Memory span and general intelligence: A latent variable approach. Intelligence, 33, 623-642.
  • Cornoldi, C. (2010). Metacognition, intelligence and academic achievement. Bulunduğu eser: H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (eds.). Metacognition, Strategy Use and Instruction. (ss. 257-277). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Coté, N., Goldman, Susan R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of Informational text relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes 25-1, 1-53
  • Coutinho, S. A. (2006). The relationship between the need for cognition, metacognition, and intellectual task performance. Educational Research and Review, 1 (5), 162-164.
  • Demirel, M. (1995). Bilgilendirici metin türünün ve okuduğunu kavrama becerisinin altıncı sınıf oğrencilerinin öğrenme düzeyine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  • Dresel, M. & Haugwitz, M. (2005). The relationship between cognitive abilities and self-regulated learning: Evidence for interactions with academic self-concept and gender. High Ability Studies, 16, 201–218. Duncan, J., Seitz, R. J., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., Newell, F. N., & Emslie, H. (2000). A neural basis for general intelligence. Science, 289: 457-460.
  • Dunlosky, J. & Metcalfe, J.(2009) Metacognition, Sage Publications. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
  • Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15–23.
  • Fortunata, I., Hecht, D., Carol, K. T. & Alvarez, L. (1991). Metacognition and problem solving. The Aritmetic Teacher, 39(4), 38–40.
  • Gray, J. R., Braver, C. F. & Todd, S. (2003). Neural mechanisms of fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6(3), 316-322.
  • Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.
  • Hertzog, C. ve Robinson, A. E. (2005). Metacognition and intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.). Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence. (ss.101-123). London: Sage.
  • Horn, J. L. (1965). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: A factor analytic study of the structure among primary mental abilities. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Illinois Üniversitesi: Urbana, ABD.
  • Jacobs, J. & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22 (3–4), 255–278.
  • Karakaş, S. (2006). Bilnot Bataryası El Kitabı: Nöropsikolojik Testler İçin Araştırma ve Geliştirme Çalışmaları, Ankara: Eryılmaz Ofset Matbaacılık Gazetecilik Ltd.Şti.
  • Karakelle, S. (2012). Üstbilişsel farkındalık, zeka, problem çözme algısı ve düşünme ihtiyacı arasındaki bağlantılar. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164).
  • Karakelle, S. & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A ve B formları: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10 (20), 87–103.
  • Kolic-Vehovec, S. & Bajsanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(2), 439–451.
  • Manning, B. H., Glasner, S. E., & Smith, E. R. (1996). The self-regulated learning aspect of metacognition: A component of gifted education. Roeper Review, 18(3), 217–223.
  • Meijer, J. Veenman, M. V. J. & van Hout Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text studying and problem solving: Development of a taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.
  • Naglieri, J. A. & Das, J. P. (2006). Are intellectual processes important in the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD? The ADHD Report, 14(1), 1-6.
  • Nelson, T. O. & Narens, L. (1996). Why Investigate Metacognition?. Bulunduğu Eser: J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.). Metacognition. (pp. 1-25). USA: MIT Press.
  • Nelson, T. O (1999). Cognition versus metacognition. P. J. Sternberg (Ed). The Nature of Cognition içinde (ss. 625–641). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Pammer, K. & Kevan, A. (2007). The contribution of visual sensitivity, phonological processing and, non verbal IQ to children’s reading. Scientific Studies of Reading. 11(1), 33-53.
  • Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A. & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing Metacognition and Self Regulated Learning, Bulunduğu eser: Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition.(ss. 43-98). USA: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
  • Pressley, M., and Ghatala, E. S. (1989). Metacognitive benefits of taking a test for children and young adolescents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 47, 430–450.Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., Ghatala, E. S., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Test monitoring in young grade schoolchildren. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 96–111.
  • Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., & Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness for examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219–236.
  • Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48.
  • Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W. & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 75-86.
  • Rozencwajg, P. (2003). Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 281–294.
  • Rubin, K. H., Brown, I. D. R. & Priddle, R. L. (1978). The relationships between measures of fluid, crystallized, and “Piagetian” intelligence in elementary school children. The Journal of Genetic psychology, 132, 29-36.
  • Samuelstuen, M. S. & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-117.
  • Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 454–461.
  • Schneider, W. Körkel, J. & Weinert, F. (1987).The Effects of Intelligence, Self-Concept, and Attributional Style on Metamemory and Memory Behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development,10 (3), 281-299.
  • Schneider, W. & Lockl, K. (2002) The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. Bulunduğu eser: T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.) Applied Metacognition. (ss. 224– 257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schraw, G. & Graham, T. (1997). Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness. Roeper Review. 20 (1), 4–8.
  • Schwartz, B. L. & Perfect, T., J. (2002) Introduction: Toward an Applied Metacognition. In T. J. Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.) Applied Metacognition. (pp. 1-11). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Shamosh, N. A. & Gray, J. R. (2007). The relation between fluid intelligence and self-regulatory depletion. Cognition and Emotion, 21(8), 1833–1843.
  • Short, E. J. (1992). Cognitive, Metacognitive, Motivational, and Affective Differences Among Normally Achieving, Learning-Disabled, and Developmentally Handicapped Students: How Much Do They Affect School Achievement? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 229-239.
  • Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C. Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51–79.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence and Creativity Synthesized. Cambrideg: UK. Cambridge University Press.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189-202.
  • Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.
  • Swanson, H. L. (1992). The relation between metacognition and problem solving in gifted children. Roeper Review, 15 (1), 43.
  • Van der Stel, M. & Veenman, M. V. J. (2008). Relation between intellectual ability and metacognitive skillfulness as predictors of learning performance of young students performing tasks in different domains. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 128–134.
  • Van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Schneider, W. E. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading selfconcept and interest: A study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 305-324.
  • Veenman, M. V. J. & Verheij, J. (2003) Technical students’ metacognitive skills: Relating general vs. specific metacognitive skills to study success. Learning and Instruction, 1, 319-336.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Elshout, J. J. & Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs. domain specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7, 197-209.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R. & Blöte, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33, 193-211.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J., & Elshout, J. J. (2002). Initial learning in a complex computer simulated environment: The role of metacognitive skills and intellectual ability. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 327–342.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159−176.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P. & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation etween intellectual skills and metacognitive skills: age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 89–109.
  • Ven, A. H. G. S. van der & Ellis, J.L. (2000). A Rasch analysis of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 45-64.
  • Yalçın, K. & Karakaş, S. (2008). Çocuklarda Bilgi İşlemedeki Üst İşlevlerin Yaşa Bağlı Değişikliği, Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 19(3), 257-265
APA Saraç S, Önder A, KARAKELLE Ş (2014). Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. , 39 - 54.
Chicago Saraç Seda,Önder Alev,KARAKELLE ŞERİFE SEMA Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. (2014): 39 - 54.
MLA Saraç Seda,Önder Alev,KARAKELLE ŞERİFE SEMA Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. , 2014, ss.39 - 54.
AMA Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. . 2014; 39 - 54.
Vancouver Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. . 2014; 39 - 54.
IEEE Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş "Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler." , ss.39 - 54, 2014.
ISNAD Saraç, Seda vd. "Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler". (2014), 39-54.
APA Saraç S, Önder A, KARAKELLE Ş (2014). Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 39 - 54.
Chicago Saraç Seda,Önder Alev,KARAKELLE ŞERİFE SEMA Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim 39, no.173 (2014): 39 - 54.
MLA Saraç Seda,Önder Alev,KARAKELLE ŞERİFE SEMA Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim, vol.39, no.173, 2014, ss.39 - 54.
AMA Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2014; 39(173): 39 - 54.
Vancouver Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2014; 39(173): 39 - 54.
IEEE Saraç S,Önder A,KARAKELLE Ş "Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler." Eğitim ve Bilim, 39, ss.39 - 54, 2014.
ISNAD Saraç, Seda vd. "Üstbiliş, Zeka ve Metinden Öğrenme Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler". Eğitim ve Bilim 39/173 (2014), 39-54.