Analysis of Students' Levels in Respect To The Steps of The Cognitive Domains and The Relation of These Levels With The Sense of Success

December / 2015
www.cogedur.com
Journal of Cognitive and Education Research

ISSN: 2149-9837
Journal of Cognitive and Education Research, 1(1), 50-70; 2015
Analysis of students levels in respect to the steps of the cognitive

domains and the relation of these levels with the sense of success
Burin GKKURT a, Neslihan USTA a, zge DEMR b
a
Assist. Prof. Elementary Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Bartn University, Bartn, Turkey
Master Student Elementary Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Bartn University, Bartn, Turkey
Abstract
Many acquisitions towards mathematics are related to cognitive learning domain and most of
these acquisitions contain a mental activity. Within this frame, students need to have the levels related
to the cognitive domain steps so as to be able to learn mathematics meaningfully and to conduct these
mental activities. Accordingly, the object of the study is to determine the knowledge level of the middleschool students related to the steps of the cognitive domains and is to determine the relation between
these levels and their sense of success in mathematics. In this direction, the participants of the study are
consisted of a total of 38 students, who are studying at different middle-schools and grades (5th, 6th, 7th
and 8th grades). While choosing the students, the method of purposive samplings was used. In order to
determine the levels of the students in relation to the cognitive domain steps, tests, which were prepared
by two researches and consisted of 20 open-ended questions, were used as the data collection tools. In
order to determine the levels of the students in relation to the cognitive domain steps, the scale of Sense
of Success in Mathematics, which was adapted by Hac and Tabuk, was used as the data collection tools.
In the analysis of the data, qualitative and quantitative research techniques were used. In the conclusion
of the study, it was seen that the students levels related to the steps of knowledge, comprehension,
synthesis and evaluation were in a better level in comparison to the steps of application and analysis,
whereas it was revealed that the relation between their levels in respect to the steps of the cognitive
domain and their sense of success in mathematics.
Keywords: Cognitive domain steps, sense of success in mathematics, student
Introduction
At the present day, societies which can adapt accessed information into their structure and add
new information to this one and distribute this information are accepted to be strong (Yldzlar, 2012).
Education has an important role in the development of these societies, as well. It is because the
purpose of education is to raise persons who reach to information on their own. In other words, it is
raising individuals who learn with comprehending; can solve the problems in new circumstances that
encountered; have high-level mental process skills. One of the lessons, in which these skills are
acquired, is mathematics (Dindar & Demir, 2006). It is because most of the acquisitions about the
mathematics lesson is related to the domain of cognitive learning (Altun, 2005). Henceforth, many
skills in the mathematics lesson include mental activities.
In the cognitive domain towards the mathematics education, the remembrance of symbol,
concept, principle and theories, making sense of mathematical formulas and using them, application
of algorithms in problem solving, analysis, creation and evaluation information require mental
50
B.Gkkurt, N.Usta & .Demir / Journal of Cognitive and Education Research, 1(1) (2015) 5070
activities at various levels (Bekdemir & Selim, 2008). In this aspect, students have to possess skills
of various cognitive processes in relation to the cognitive domain, so as to be able to conduct these
mental activities and to reach to the learning objectives towards the mathematics lesson.
Being of the pioneers of the cognitive domain, Bloom (1956), by describing a taxonomy related
to the skills of cognitive process, stated this taxonomy contained different skills of cognitive process.
Named in the literature as Blooms Taxonomy, this taxonomy is made up of six levels as they are
knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Between these levels,
there is a gradually hierarchic order and this order is from simple to complex. The bottom step of this
order is created by knowledge and the top step is evaluation.
Having the manner on a step acquired requires the acquisition of the manners in the previous
steps (Bloom, 1956; Huitt, 2009). While the steps of knowledge, comprehension, application, which
take place in these steps, are the ones at the lower level, analysis, synthesis and evaluation steps are
considered the top level cognitive steps (Bloom, 1956; Krathwol, 2002, 2009; Oliva, 1988; Wulf &
Schave, 1984).
Being one of the factors effective in developing a program, Blooms Taxonomy constituted the
infrastructure in the education programs prepared by the Ministry of Education (Bmen, 2006). In
addition, this taxonomy was used in the development of the means of assessment-evaluation and the
arrangement of test status by teachers and educators (zelik, 1989; Senemolu, 1997).
Blooms taxonomy has been criticized due to various reasons in time and revised again by the
colleagues of Bloom (Anderson et al., 2001 cited in Krathwohl, 2002). However, despite all
criticisms, this taxonomy became a standard (Bacanl, 1999). Due to the common usage of Blooms
Taxonomy in the education programs and the means of assessment-evaluation, many researchers in
Turkey have analyzed examination questions that teachers prepared (Ayvac & Trkdoan, 2010;
Dindar & Demir, 2006; Gler, zdemir, & Dikici, 2012; Kce & Baki, 2009; zcan & Oluk, 2007),
manners aimed in the middle school mathematics curriculum (6-8) of teaching mathematics (Kablan,
Baran, & Hazer, 2013) and the questions of SBS (Gler, zdemir, & Dikici, 2012) and SS (Kce
& Baki, 2009), which are made around Turkey, by taking into consideration Blooms Taxonomy or
Revised Blooms Taxonomy (Ar, 2011). Alongside with this, they analyzed the acceptance status of
New Revised Blooms Taxonomy in Turkey and international domain. However, the studies, in which
the skills of the students related to the steps of the cognitive domain were analyzed, was not generally
found. In fact, it is important to determine whether students have the skills related to these steps. It is
important to analyze students skills in the mathematics lesson, requiring many cognitive domain
skills (Bekdemir & Selim, 2008) and considered to be a lesson in which most of the students are
troubled (Dursun & Dede, 2004), in particular. It is because many students experience difficulties in
comprehending and learning the mathematics lesson (Yetkin, 2003).
As well as the skills of the cognitive domain, factors, related to the emotional domain, may
also affect the success of students in the mathematics lesson. The status of fear and anxiety of
especially middle school students can cause them to develop a negative attitude against mathematics
(zdoan & Uyar, 2012). Bloom (1979), also, emphasized the importance of the emotional factors
in persons learning. Accordingly, in the study, both the skills of the cognitive process of the middle
school students in relation to Blooms Taxonomy were analyzed and it was determined whether the
emotional factors affected the students skills in the cognitive domain by examining the relation
between the students levels related to these steps and their sense of success towards the mathematics
lesson. Therefore, by determining the students deficiencies related to the steps of the cognitive
51
domain, the data gathered from this study are going to contribute to taking necessary measures in
order to eliminate these deficiencies. Besides, the relation between their sense of success in the
mathematics lesson and their levels related to the steps of the cognitive domain are going to be
propounded.
The Problem of the Research
The objective of this study is to determine the levels of the middle-school students in respect to
the steps of the cognitive domain and to analyze the relation between these levels and their sense of
success in mathematics. In accordance with this objective, the research questions shedding light on
the study are:
1. What are the levels of the middle-school students related to the steps of the cognitive domain?
2. Is there a statistically meaningful relation between the middle-school students levels related
to the steps of the cognitive domain and the sense of success in the mathematics?
METHOD
The Design of the Research
In this study, qualitative and quantitative research techniques are used together. In this research,
which is essentially a qualitative study, the study was supported with quantitative findings by looking
at the relation between the students cognitive domain steps and the level of the sense of success. In
order to determine the level of the students related to the steps of the cognitive domain, the case study
method, which is based on a qualitative approach, was preferred. The case study is a method which
provides the discovery of a specific system in depth (McMillian & Schumacher, 2010). In this study,
it was considered to be convenient to prefer this method as the steps of the cognitive domain of the
students were analyzed in depth. On the other hand, in the analysis of the relation between the levels
of the students related to the steps of the cognitive domain and the sense of success, the correlation
method was used. Correlational researches are made to describe the relations between two or more
varieties (Bykztrk et al., 2010; Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012). In this study, this method was
preferred as the relation between the students levels related to the steps of the cognitive domain and
their sense of success in mathematics was aimed to be propounded.
Participants
The study group of the research is constituted by a total of 38 students (22 female, 16 male) who
studied at different middle-schools in the school year of 2014-2015 at the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades.
Respecting to the ethics of the research, instead of the student names, code names were given as S 1,
S2 S38. Codes S1.S10 were used for the fifth grade, codes S11.S20 for the sixth grade, S21.S29
for the seventh grade and S30.S38 for the eighth grade. In the selection of the study group, the
purposive sampling method was taken as the basis and the students were chosen from the 5th, 6th, 7th
and 8th grades and it was regarded carefully that they were at good level. Accordingly, 10 students
from the fifth, 10 students from the sixth, 9 students from the seventh and 9 students from the eighth
grades, whose scores for the mathematics lesson were five, were chosen. As the reason why the
students were chosen from the good level, propounding the students knowledge level related to the
steps of the cognitive domain and particularly asking them to answer the questions related to the high
level steps of the cognitive domain can be presented. Additionally, as it was intended to yield rich
52
data in the study, it was taken into consideration that the students were studying at different grades
and different middle-schools, in terms of data diversity.
Data Collection Tool
In this study, in order to be able to reveal the levels of the students in relation to the steps of the
cognitive domain, a question pool, in convenience with the level of the students of the 5th, 6th, 7th
and 8th grades, was created by two researchers. In the preparation of these questions, middle-school
mathematics textbooks, guidebooks and source books at the middle school level were utilized. By
considering the acquisitions in the middle school mathematics curriculum (2013), 80 questions, 20
of which were open-ended, were created for every level of grades, in total. Hence, the content
validity was tried to be provided. As the students levels related to the steps of the cognitive domain
were aimed to be analyzed, it was regarded carefully that there are inclusive questions at each step.
In the preparation of these questions, the definitions of the cognitive domain steps and literature
(Coar, 2011) were considered. In order to ascertain the reliability of the study and the usefulness of
the questions, a pilot study was made to 139 middle-class students. Additionally, upon the subject
of whether the questions were understandable in terms of language and context, and were prepared
in accordance with the cognitive domain steps, the opinions of an expert and a mathematics teacher
were taken. In the direction of the expert opinions and the pilot study, it was seen that some question
items had not been prepared in convenience with the objective, and were not understood by some
students. Therefore, the questions, not proper for the purpose, were extracted and question items
were rearranged by rearranging the data collection tool. For instance, it was seen in accordance with
the expert opinion that the question in the evaluation step, Which one of the prisms above can take
the most amount of water? was not convenient for the purpose and it was a question related to the
application step. With this purpose, the question statement was rearranged as The third of the
prisms above can take the most amount of water. Make a decision on whether it is true or not. In
the arrangement of the question items, key verbs, given in Table 1 and related to cognitive domain
steps, were utilized.
Table 1. Some Verbs Related to the Cognitive Domain Steps
Knowledge
Writing, saying, defining, conveying
Comprehending
Interpreting, explaining, different explanation
Application
Using, presenting, trying
Analyze
Decomposition, analyze, experimenting
Synthesis
Designing, creating, assembling
Evaluation
Deciding, supporting, rejecting...
Bahar (2008, pp.55)

By giving the last shape of the data collection tool by the researchers, two questions at the level
of knowledge and comprehension, and four questions related to the steps of application, analysis,
synthesis and evaluation were prepared. As the reason of higher number of questions related to the
high level steps, it can be presented that it is more difficult to ascertain the high level steps compared
to the steps of knowledge and comprehension. Question samples are given in relation to each of these
steps in Table 2.
53
Table 2. Question Samples Related to the Steps of the Cognitive Domain

1. Define the events which are separated and unseparated.
2. Define the difference between circle and round by
describing them with your own sentences.
3. The current age of Kerems mother is 55. When
Kerems mother was at his current age, Kerems age
was
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
of his current age. Accordingly, find the current
age of Kerem.
4. How many numbers are used to give numbers to the
pages of a book of 30 pages?
Analysis
5. By designing the pattern, of which rule is 2n+1, go up to

the 4th step.
Synthesis
6.
Evaluation
At least how many edges does a polygon need to have

to have a diagonal? Explain the reason and make an
evaluation.
In order to ascertain the students sense of success in mathematics, the scale of Sense of
Success in Mathematics, adapted by Hacmerolu, Bilgen, and Tabuk (2013)un, were used as the
data collection tool. This scale was developed by Lichtenfeld et al. (2012) and made up of three
factors. The scales internal consistency reliability was 0.79, and the internal consistency reliability
was calculated to be 0.89, 0.89 and 0.72 for the sub-sectors. The adapted scale is consisted of 28
items, and in type of five point Likert. This scale, prepared to evaluate the middle school students
sense of success related to the mathematics lesson, is adapted for the middle-school students of 5th,
6th, 7th and 8th grades. The items in the scale are agreed upon its applicability to middle-school students
by means of being analyzed by two experts. For the reliability of the study, Cronbachs Alpha
Coefficient was recalculated and found to be 0.86.
After the preparation of the data collection tools related to two sub-problems of the study, both
tests related to the steps of the cognitive domain and the scale of the sense of success in mathematics
are applied by giving sufficient time (2 hours) to the students.
Analysis of Data
In the analysis of data related to the first sub-problem of the study, the descriptive analysis
technique one of the qualitative data analysis techniques was used. While the descriptive analysis
is being conducted, the data gathered are described in a systematic and explicit way before, then these
descriptions are interpreted and some results are reached by scrutinizing their cause and effect
relations (Yldrm & imek, 2013). In this study, it was preferred to use this technique as the frame
of ahin et al. (2014) was taken into consideration. Accordingly, first of, the questions given by the
teachers were coded by two researchers as totally correct, partly correct (a), partly correct (b), wrong
and empty. By giving the frequency values of the student answers related to these codes, it was
determined how the students answered in relation to each of the cognitive steps. Since there are two
questions at the level of knowledge and comprehension, the number of the answers given by the
students was 76 (38x2), and the total of 152 (38x4) student answer occurred as four questions were
asked at the rest of the steps. In order to provide the detailed picture of the study, direct quotations
form the students answers were given place.
54
In order to understand whether there was a relation between the levels of the students related
to the steps of the cognitive domain and their sense of success in mathematics, which was the second
sub-problem of the study, qualitative data analysis techniques were utilized. Primarily, the codes
related to the steps of the cognitive domain were given points by two researchers. The credibility of
the study was scored by two researchers and the percentage of the reliability point was found to be
96 %. For the left difference of 4 %, a consensus was achieved as the result of the discussions of two
researchers. While this scoring was being done, the evaluation criteria of ahin et al. (2014) are
accepted as the criterion and given in Table 3.
Table 3. Codes Related to the Answers of the Students and the Scores Corresponding to these
Codes
Category of
Answer
Score
totally
correct
4
partly
correct (a)
3
partly
correct (b)
2
wrong
1
empty
0
As it is seen in Table 3, four-point grading key is used in the analysis of the answers of the
students. These are;
Totally Correct: The answers which contain the scientific ideas accepted to be in coherence
with the question.
Partly Correct (a): These are the answers, close to the correct answer, which are close to the
scientific ideas accepted to be in coherence with the question, but contain small mistakes.
Partly Correct (b): These are the answers, close to the wrong answer, which contain a little
scientific ideas accepted to be in coherence with the question.
Wrong: These are the answers, which are lack of the scientific ideas, accepted to be in
coherence with the question, and are not related to the answer.
Empty: These are the situations when the question is not answered by being left empty.
For the reason of the scoring of the wrong code compared to the empty code, it can be shown
that the students think over the question even if they give a wrong answer. After the scoring period,
SPSS program was used to determine whether there was a meaningful relation between the points
that the students took related to the steps of the cognitive domain and the points that they took from
the Scale of Sense of Success in Mathematics.
FINDINGS
In this part of the study, the findings - collected from the qualitative and quantitative data in
the research - and interpretations were given a place. Firstly, the analysis of the qualitative data related
to the steps of the cognitive domain was made. Afterwards, the analysis of the qualitative data related
to the relation between the students levels related to the steps of the cognitive domain and the levels
of their sense of success.
1. Findings Related to the Cognitive Domain Steps
Table 4. Related to the Answers which the Students Gave to the Questions
at the Level of Knowledge
Grade
fifth grade
sixth grade
seventh grade
eighth grade
55
Ouestions
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct (a)
Partly
Correct (b)
Wrong
Empty
S1
S4
S4
S5
S7
S10
S4
S9
f(%)
32(42.10)
30(39.47)
8(10.52)
1
-
3(3.94)
3(3.94)
2
3
f: Number of the Total Student Answers

-: Not any student answers under the related code
According to Table 4, it is seen that 32 (42.10 %) of 76 student answers were in the code of
Totally Correct, 38 (50 %) under partly correct (a) and partly correct (b) and 6 (7.89 %) under wrong
or empty. When Table 4 is analyzed, it is seen that the students at the eighth grade are more successful
in their answers at the knowledge level and all of the students gave correct answers to these questions.
Furthermore, it is seen that the students of the fifth and the seventh grade had problems with
answering the questions at the knowledge level and they could not give totally correct answers. Most
of these students gave answers under the partly correct (a) code. In relation to this, S10s answer is
totally given below.
Figure 1. Answer of S10 to the First Question
When Figure 1 is analyzed, it is seen that the student can describe the rectangle and write its
features one by one. However, when it is considered that the description of the rectangle was it is a
rectangle of which opposite edges are parallel and at least one of its angles is 900, (ztoprak &
akrolu, 2013, pp.265) it is seen that the student neglected the parallel condition of the opposite
edges. Therefore, as the description of the student is deficient, it is evaluated in the code of partly
correct (a). One of the examples for the answers of the seventh grade students to the questions at the
knowledge level is S22s answer related to Q7.
Figure 2. Wrong Answer of S22 related to Q7

56
When the Figure 2 is analyzed, it is seen that the student cannot describe the indiscrete and
discrete events. The student confused the definitions of discrete event for an independent event and
the indiscrete event for a dependent event. When it is considered that the definition of the discrete
event is the situation of sets being discrete, namely not having any common units, it is seen that the
student is trying to make the definition of the independent event by saying the discrete events cannot
affect one another. However, the expected answer from the student was that he should have used the
statement of discrete events not having an intersection set, instead of not being affected by one
another. It is because in the dependent events actualization of one of two events decreases or
increases the potential actualization of the other event. In another saying, dependent events affect
each other. Therefore, the answer of the student was evaluated in the code of wrong.
Table 5. Codes Related to the Answers which the Students Gave to the Questions at
the Level of Comprehension
Grade
Ouestions
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct (a)
Partly
Correct (b)
Wrong
Empty
S2
fifth grade
S5
sixth grade
S7
S8
seventh grade
S5
S9
S3
eighth grade
S6
f (%)
33(43.42)
11(14.47)
14(18.42)
1
-
7
3
1
-
1
-
5
-
15(19.73)
3(3.94)
According to Table 5, 33 of 76 answers of the students (43.42 %) were under the totally correct
code, 25 (32.89 %) of them were under partly correct (a) and partly correct (b) codes and 18 (23.68
%) of them were under wrong or empty codes. According to Table 5, the number of the student
answers related to the comprehension level under totally correct code was higher in the sixth and
seventh grade levels. On the contrary of this situation, when it was evaluated on the basis of questions,
it was seen that the student answers related to Q7 and Q3 in the codes of wrong or empty is higher at
the level of the sixth and the eighth grades. In relation to this, the answer of S30 who gave a wrong
answer related to Question Q3 is given below as it is.
Figure 3. S30s Wrong Answer to the Third Question

When the answer of S30 to the third question is analyzed, it is seen that the student wrote the
first palindrome number after 10001 as 110011. Although S30 can understand the concept of
palindrome number, he made a mistake by writing a six digits number without paying attention to the
palindrome number 10001, which is the five digits number given in the question. In addition, he made
a mistake by taking the number at the tens and then thousands digits, of which base value is higher,
57
as number one instead of taking zero. In conclusion, he could not find the palindrome number of
10101 which is the correct answer of the question. Due to this reason, the answer of the question was
evaluated to be in the code wrong.
Table 6. Codes Related to the Answers which the Students Gave to the Questions at the Level of
Application
Grade
Ouestions S11
S12
fifth grade
S17
S19
S11
sixth grade
S12
S13
S14
S11
seventh grade
S12
S14
S16
S11
S12
eighth grade
S15
S19
f(%)
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct
(a)
Partly
Correct
(b)
Wrong
Empty
77(50.65)
9(5.92)
10(6.57)
1
-
1
-
7
-
1
-
8
1
6
-
2
-
1
-
6
1
7
1
1
-
1
-
9
-
53(34.86)
3(1.97)
According to Table 6, 77 of 152 student answers (50.65 %) were under the totally correct
code, 56 of them (36.84 %) were under wrong and empty codes. As it is seen at Table 6, the number
of student answers, at the level of the fifth grade and in the code of totally correct, were 30 (38.96
%), is higher compared to the levels of the sixth, seventh and eighth grades. Thus, it can be said that
the fifth grade students are better compared to the other grades at the level of application. In respect
to this, the answer of S9 who gave an answer under the totally correct code is given below as it is.
Figure 4. Totally Correct Answer of S9 related to Q17

When Figure 4 is analyzed, it is seen that the question answered the question of Q17 as totally
correct at the level of application. It is seen that S9 associated a
percentage statement with a
rational number representing the same size by writing 20 % as
and
, and found the amount
corresponding to a percentage of the stated multitude with the operations of
and
. Here, it is understood that S9s knowledge related to the application level is sufficient.
Because of this reason, S9s answer was evaluated in the code of totally correct. On the other hand,
the number of the answers under wrong and empty codes that the students at the sixth grade level
gave to the questions at the application level is much higher. It was revealed that especially the sixth
grade students had difficulties with answering the questions of Q11 and Q13. S18s answer given
below represents this situation in the best way.
58
Figure 5. S18s Wrong Answer related to Q11

When Figure 5 is analyzed, it is seen that S18 found the difference between Ali and Ahmets
steps is found by making the operation of 48 36 = 12. Therefore, S18 took the first step to solve the
problem. However, it is seen that the student could not follow up to the rest of the solution. It is seen
that the student could not make the operations of
to find the length of a step of Ali and
to find the length of a step of Ahmet, so he could not find the correct answer of 20 cm.
Therefore, the answer of the student is under the wrong code.
Table 7. Codes Related to the Answers which the Students Gave to the Questions at the Level of Analysis
Grade
Ouestions
S6
fifth grade
S13 S14
S20
S2
sixth grade
S16 S18
S19
seventh grade
S1
S13 S15
S20
S7
eighth grade
S13 S18 S20
f(%)
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct
(a)
Partly
Correct
(b)
Wrong
Empty
65(42.76)
4(2.63)
2
1
2
-
5
-
4
3
4
3
1
-
3
-
5
-
2
2
7
1
4
-
2
-
5
4
1
-
3
-
10(6.57)
4
5
54(35.52)
19(12.50)
According to Table 7, 65 of 152 student answers (42.76 %) were in the code of totally correct,
73 of them (48.02 %) were in the codes of wrong or empty. Almost half of the students gave answers
to the questions at the analysis level in the codes of wrong or empty. Table 7 presents that most of
the students at the seventh and the eighth grade either gave wrong answers or could not gave an
answer under the empty code to the questions. In relation to this, the answer of S25 under the wrong
code was given below as it is.

59
When Figure 6 is analyzed, it is seen that S25 could not disassemble the structure of equal
cubes given in relation to the acquisition of drawing two dimensional appearances of objects from
different perspectives. S25 had difficulties with visualizing the appearances of the structure, consisted
of equal cubes, on his mind and could not draw their appearances from above, left and right.
Therefore, the answer of the student was evaluated to be in the code of wrong.
When Table 7 is analyzed again, it is seen that the number of answers in the code of totally
correct is higher compared to other grade levels at the level of the sixth and fifth grades. Being a fifth
grade student giving an answer in the code of totally correct, S10 determined the number of tickets,
which is the missing information in the question item that Ali Bey commutes by municipality bus.
Provided that he paid 26,4 TL for his tickets that he bought altogether, find the price of a bus ticket.
(Q6). In respect to this, he gave the answer that The number of the tickets he bought has to be
stated; we have to divide total money he paid to the number of the tickets he bought in order to find
the price of a ticket.
Grade
Ouestions
fifth grade
S15
S18
S9
sixth grade
S10
S15
S7
S9
1
-
2
-
seventh grade
S6
S17
S20
S3
3
1
5
-
5
-
3
-
eighth grade
S14
S16
S18
S1
S2
f(%)
59(38.81)
38(25.00)
26(17.10)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
1
1
-
3
-
27(17.76)
2(1.31)
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct (a)
Partly
Correct (b)
Wrong
Empty
Synthesis
When Table 8 is analyzed, 59 of 152 student answers (38.81 %) is in the code of totally correct, but 64
of them (42.10 %) were under partly correct (a) and partly correct (b) codes and 29 of them (19.07 %)
were under wrong and empty codes.
It is understood that the proportion of the answers under the totally correct code to all of the answers
does not make even the half of it. When the total number of the student answers is taken into
consideration, it is seen that the majority was not sufficient to give answers in the code of totally correct
at the level of synthesis. Moving from this point, it is explicitly seen in Table 8 that the great majority of
the students at the level of sixth grade either gave wrong answers or did not answer the questions at the
level of synthesis. In relation to this, the answer of S18 to the question Q15 is given below.
Figure 7. S18s Partly Correct (b) Answer related to Q15

60
When the definition of pattern that it is a systematic combination of numbers, figures, sounds
and other symbols (Souviney, 1989 cited in Altun, 2014, pp. 259) and an orderly situation (Altun,
2014, pp. 259), it is seen that S18 reached to the forth step by giving numerical values to n in the
statement of (2n+1), but could not design an orderly and systematic pattern related to (2n+1) of which
rule was given. Additionally, the student made the multiplication and addition operations by writing
as 2x1=2+1. Nevertheless, he made a mistake by writing a statement, 2x1=2+1 of which results are
not equal. Henceforth; S18s answer was evaluated in the code of partly correct (b).

When Figure 8 is analyzed, it is seen that S20 could not design a pattern related to (2n+1) of
which rules were given and could not draw its steps. S20 could proceed up to the fourth step only by
giving numerical values to n in the statement of (2+1), instead of creating a pattern. Due to this reason,
the answer of S20 was evaluated in the code of wrong. In contrast to this, S13 designed a pattern up to
the fourth step by using a circle model related to the pattern of (2n+1) of which rules were given. The
answer of the student was evaluated in the code of totally correct. S13s answer is given in Figure 9
as it is.
Figure 9. S13s Totally Correct Answer related to Q15

That the students at the fifth grade gave more answers in the code of partly correct (a) to the
questions at the level of synthesis can be seen at Table 5. To provide an example for this situation,
the answer of S10 to the question Q9 is given below in Figure 8 as it is.
Figure 10. S10s Partly Correct (a) Answer related to Q9

61
When Figure 10 is analyzed, it is seen that S10 was not sufficient in using the concepts of length
and area while designing the problem. S10 designed a problem with the provided data, but asked the
question wrongly. At the first step of his answer, the student found 1/3 of the long edge, which was
12 cm, of the carton, and at the third and fourth steps, he found the length of the edges to be painted
with 25 % of the short edge, which was 8 cm.
In the second and the sixth steps, he determined the length of the edge not to be paid in cm by
extracting the length of the edge to be paid from the cartons peripheral length. However, it would
have been better, if the statements like How much of the peripheral of the carton was painted? or
How many centimeters is the length of the edges not painted in the carton? instead of the statement
How much area is left empty? that was mentioned in the problem since the student gave information
about the concept of length, but asked a question about the concept of area. Therefore, the answer of
S10 was evaluated in the code of partly correct (a). Table 8 presents that the number of the answers,
in the code of totally correct, of the students, at the level of eighth grade, was more than the number
of the answers, in the code of totally correct, of the students, at the level of fifth, sixth and seventh
grades. In relation to this, to the question of Q1 in Figure 11, the totally correct answer of S36 and the
partly correct (a) answer of S33 are given as they are.
Figure 11. Answers of S36 and S33 related to Q1

When Figure 11 is analyzed, it is seen in relation to the first question that S 36 and S33 posed
correct problems and solved the problems that they posed correctly. In contract to this, S 33 used the
mathematical language wrongly by using the concept of edge instead of section in the problem he
posed. It is because section is the intersection of two surfaces (Gler & Ycelolu, 2011) while edge
is a half-line or a line segment which determine limits of an edge figure (Hacsaliholu, 2002; Uysal,
1997). According to these definitions, the answer of S33 was evaluated in the code of partly correct
(a).
When the answers that the students at the level of seventh grade gave in the step of synthesis
are analyzed, it was revealed that most of them were successful and gave answers in the codes of
totally collect and partly collect (a). In respect to the third question which is related to this level, the
problem that S29 created and the solution of this problem are given in Figure 10 as they are. It is seen
that S29 disassembled the statement of
by defining Semras some money as and rems
money as
. Afterwards, by adding the money of these two, he equalized to 27 and found
Semras money, which was asked in the problem, correctly. Thus, the answer of S29 was evaluated in
the code of totally correct.
62

Evaluation
Grade
Ouestions
fifth grade
S10 S16
sixth grade
S3
S6
S3
S8
4
-
1
-
2
-
S1
seventh grade
S4
S8
S19
S17
S2
2
-
2
-
2
-
eighth grade
S10 S17
S5
S8
f(%)
80(52.63)
33(21.71)
10(6.57)
2
-
6
-
1
-
6
-
28(18.42)
1(0.65)
Codes
Totally
Correct
Partly
Correct (a)
Partly
Correct (b)
Wrong
Empty
When Table 9 is analyzed, it is seen that more than half of the student answers (52.63 %) was
in the code of totally correct, a little part of them (19.07 %) was in the code of wrong or empty. When
it is considered on the basis of grade level, it is understood that the fifth and the eighth grades are
better in comparison to the sixth and seventh grades, in giving totally correct answers. In relation to
this, the quotations of two students related to the third question which was as Can a student building
polygons by using 10 units of equal pipes build a square? Explain its reason in written.
S3: No, he cannot because he cannot divide 10 pipes equally; he can build only if he does
not use 2 of them or he can create a square by bending the bendable parts of a pipe.
4: He cannot because all edges of the square are equal; it has 4 edges and 10 cannot be
divided by 4.
When the answers of S3 and S4 related to Q3 are analyzed, it is seen that they gave answers in
the code of totally correct. When the answers of the other students related to this question are
analyzed, it is seen that S1 solved this question with a different perspective by logically reasoning. In
relation to this, the answer of S1 is given in Figure 13 as it is.
63

As it is seen in Figure 13, S1 claimed, by making a different evaluation than other students,
that two different squares can be built by ten pipes and explained its reason. The asked student answer
in the question was how many squares can or cannot be build, instead of building a single square.
Therefore, although S1 gave an answer in contrast to the answers of other students, his answer was
evaluated to be totally correct since his related reasoning was correct.
When the answers of the eighth grade students related to the evaluation level are analyzed, it
was seen that most of them answered in the totally correct code, and they were successful particularly
in the question Q8. In Figure 14, the answer, related to the question, of S35, who gave an answer in
the code of totally correct, is given as it is.

When Figure 14 is analyzed, it is seen that S35 made a sufficient explanation by using
information that the reason why a rectangle, of which edge lengths were given, cannot be drawn is
that the length of an edge of a rectangle must be smaller than the total of the other two edges lengths
and bigger than the absolute value of the difference. Hence, the students answer was evaluated with
the code of totally correct.
Similarly, it was seen that the fifth grade students also were successful in the level of
evaluation and gave answers in the codes of totally correct and partly correct (a). S8s answer related
to Q10 exemplifies the code of partly correct (a) in the best way.
64
Figure 15. S8s Partly Correct (a) Answer related to Q10

When Figure 15 is analyzed, he could not explain the reason of his claim in the evaluation,
while he was answering the question of at least how many edges polygon must have to have a
diagonal. Provided that the description of In a polygon, the line segments connecting the not
neighboring corners are named diagonals of a polygon (Baykul, 2014, pp.392) is taken into
consideration, it is seen that S8 neglected diagonals feature of being a line segment that combines
the not neighboring corners by making the explanation of It is because the polygons, having less
edges than four, do not have any diagonals. The student presented that a diagonal cannot be drawn
in a triangle by means of evaluating whether a diagonal cannot be drawn in triangle and rectangle.
However, he did not make enough explanation about why it cannot be drawn. In this direction, the
answer of the student was evaluated in the code of partly correct (a).
2.
Findings Belonged to the Scores Taken in Relation to the Cognitive Domain Steps and the Scores
Taken from the Scale of the Sense of Success in Mathematics
A correlation analysis was made so as to determine whether there was a statistically meaningful
relation between the points that the students took in relation to the cognitive domain steps and the
points that they took in the Scale of the Sense of Success in Mathematics. Firstly, a normality test was
made to ascertain whether the data were continuous; Kolmogorov-Smirnow Test was used because
the number of samplings was little. Because p>.05 as the result of this test, and it was seen that the
data had a normal distribution, Pearson Correlation Coefficient was calculated. In Table 10, findings
collected from the correlation analysis result take place.
Table 10. Correlation Analysis Results of the Points Taken from the Scale of the Sense of Success in
Mathematics and the Points Taken from the Cognitive Domain Steps
Variables
Sense of Success in
Mathematics
Sense of Success
Level of Cognitive
in Mathematics
Domain Steps
.026
.875
38
38
.026
65
Level of Cognitive
.875
Domain Steps
38
38
r: Pearson Correlation Coefficient
When Table 10 is analyzed, r was found (38) as the result of the conducted analysis. Regarding
to this result, it was seen that there was a weak relation between the students sense of success in
mathematics and the level of cognitive domain steps. Namely, the relation between the points that the
students took from the scale of sense of success towards mathematics and the points that they took
from knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation which are the
cognitive domain steps was ascertained to be low. Therefore, that the knowledge level about the
cognitive domain steps of the students, of which success is high in mathematics, can be said to be
neither very high nor very low. The dispersion graph given in Figure 16 explicitly shows this weak
relation.
Figure 16. Dispersion Graph Belonged to the Relation between the Level of Cognitive Domain
Steps and the Sense of Success in Mathematics
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
In this study the students levels related to the cognitive domain steps and the relation between
these levels and sense of success in the mathematics lesson were analyzed. In the direction of the first
purpose, the most basic result obtained from the research is that most of the students levels related
to the steps of the cognitive process were not sufficient. More than half of the students could give
answers in the codes of totally correct and partly correct (a) in relation to most of these steps. When
these steps were analyzed in detail, it was seen that their levels particularly related to the steps of
knowledge, comprehension, synthesis and evaluation were better in comparison to the steps of
application and analysis. When the answers related to the steps of application and analysis were
analyzed in detail, although the number of the students giving answers in the code of totally correct
is quite high, the number of the students giving answers in the code of wrong is also very high. In the
step of application, 53 wrong answer of students and in the step of analysis 54 wrong answer occurred.
Furthermore, it was ascertained that there were 19 empty answers in the level of analysis. As the
reason of the students having a difficulty at the level of analysis, it can be shown that the acquisitions
related to the advanced level of cognitive steps in the education program is emphasized so much.
Similarly, Kablan, Baran, and Hazer (2013) revealed that the behaviors in the step of analysis are few
66
in the middle school mathematics (6-8) curriculum Whereas the questions related to the application
level are mainly given place in the program (Kablan, Baran, & Hazer, 2013), as the reason why there
are many wrong answers of the students in the code of wrong answer, it can be shown that the
questions are the ones which do not require using a formula directly and in which operational
knowledge is heavily focused on as well as cognitive information. It is because their operational skills
were seen to be good when their written explanations were analyzed. For example, students had
difficulties with solving the question at the level of the sixth grade, which was asked as Ali walks a
road, which Ahmet walks in 36 steps, in 48 steps. As one step of Ahmet is 5 cm longer than Alis
step, how long is a step of Ahmet? because they could not understand the question conceptually,
although most of the students operational knowledge was sufficient.
When the levels of the students related to the cognitive domain steps were referred in
accordance with their grade levels and learning domains, it revealed that there is a difference between
the students of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grades. For instance, in the steps of knowledge,
analysis and synthesis, the students of the sixth grade displayed a lower performance in comparison
to the students of the fifth, seventh and eighth grades. Similarly, while the fifth grade students
displayed the highest performance in the step of application, the students of sixth and seventh grades
displayed the best performance in the step of comprehension. For the reason of this difference, it can
be referred that the questions are in different learning domains and the students knowledge related
to different learning domains was at different levels. For instance, it was seen that the students had
deficient information in the basic concepts related to the learning domain of statistic and possibility
and the learning domain of geometry and they used some concepts wrongly. Most of the students
confused discrete event-indiscrete events for dependent-independent events, which are among the
basic concepts of possibility, with one another. In the learning domain of geometry, some students
had troubles with making the descriptions, and some of them used the term of edge instead of section
in the problems they posed. This result displays a parallel with Gkkurt (2014)s result that Some
teachers used the term of edge instead of section.
Being the second sub-problem of the study, the relation between the points that the students
collected from the scale of sense of success towards mathematics and the points that they collected
from knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, which are the steps
of the cognitive domain, was ascertained to be weak. Similarly, Peker and Mirasyediolu (2003),
presented that there is not a relation between the success in mathematics and the attitude related to
the mathematics lesson; most of the students has a positive attitude towards the mathematics lesson,
although they are unsuccessful in the lesson of mathematics. Supporting this result, Ekizolu and
Tezer (2007), determined that there is not a relation between attitude and the variable of success.
Nevertheless, there are also studies displaying the reverse of this situation; they revealed that there is
a positive relation between success and attitude (Johnson, 2000; Yenilmez & zabac, 2003; Ycel
& Ko, 2011).
In summary; regardless of how much skills they have in relation to the cognitive domain steps,
most students were seen to have deficient information in describing especially the mathematical
concepts. The works, to eliminate these deficiencies and towards the mathematics lesson of the
students, can be concentrated. As this study is limited with the written explanations of the students,
the levels of the students related to their cognitive domain steps can be analyzed by the researchers
to study on this field by means of using the observation and interview techniques. In this study,
Blooms original taxonomy was taken into consideration. In other researches to be done, the cognitive
67
process skills of the students related to New Revised Blooms Taxonomy can be analyzed in detail.
By conducting similar studies with different study groups (high school students, prospective teachers
and teachers), their levels in relation to the cognitive domain steps can be studied.
REFERENCES
Altun, M. (2005). lkretim ikinci kademede (6, 7 ve 8. snflarda) matematik retimi (4. Bask). Bursa:
Aktuel.
Altun, M. (2014). Ortaokullarda (5, 6, 7 ve 8. snflarda) matematik retimi (10. Bask). Bursa: Aktuel.
Ar, A. (2011). Bloomun gzden geirilmi bilisel alan taksonomisinin Trkiyede ve uluslararas
alanda kabul grme durumu. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eitim Bilimleri, 11(2), 749-772.
Ayvac, H. . & Trkdoan, A. (2010). Yeniden yaplandrlan bloom taksonomisine gre fen ve teknoloji
dersi yazl sorularnn incelenmesi. Trk Fen Eitimi Dergisi, 7(1), 13-25.
Bacanl, H. (1999). Sosyal beceri eitimi. Ankara: Nobel Yaynlar.
Bahar, H. H. (2008). Eitimde kullanlan lme aralar ve zellikleri. G. Baol (Ed.), Eitimde lme
ve deerlendirme (1. Bask). stanbul: Lisans Yaynclk.
Baykul, Y. (2014). Ortaokulda matematik retimi (5-8 snflar) (2. Bask). Ankara: Pegem Yaynclk.
Bekdemir, M. & Selim, Y. (2008). Revize edilmi bloom taksonomisi ve cebir renme alan rneinde
uygulamas. Erzincan Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 10(2), 185-196.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals,
handbook I: cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Bloom, S. (1979). nsan nitelikleri ve okulda renme (ev: D. A. zelik). Ankara: MEB Basmevi.
Bmen, N. T. (2006). Program gelitirmede bir dnm noktas: yenilenmi bloom taksonomisi. Eitim ve
Bilim, 31(142), 3-14.
Bykztrk, ., akmak, E., K., Akgn, ., E., Karadeniz, ., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel
aratrma yntemleri (6. bask). Ankara: Pegem Yaynlar.
Coar, Y. (2011). lkretim altnc snf matematik dersi alma kitabndaki sorularn kapsam geerlik
ve yenilenmi bloom taksonomisinin bilisel sre boyutuna gre analizi. Yaymlanmam yksek
lisans tezi, Atatrk niversitesi Eitim Bilimleri Enstits, Erzurum.
Dindar, H. & Demir, M. (2006). Beinci snf retmenlerinin fen bilgisi dersi snav sorularnn bloom
taksonomisine gre deerlendirilmesi. G Gazi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 26(3), 87-96.
Dursun, . & Dede, Y. (2004). rencilerin matematikte baarsn etkileyen faktrler. Matematik
retmenlerinin grleri bakmndan. G, Gazi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 24(2), 217-230.
Ekizolu, N. & Tezer, M. (2007). The relationship between the attitudes towards mathematics
and the success marks of primary school students. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2),
43-57.
Franenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in
education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gkkurt, B. (2014). Ortaokul matematik retmenlerinin geometrik cisimler konusuna ilikin pedagojik
alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi. Yaymlanmam doktora tezi, Atatrk niversitesi Eitim Bilimleri
Enstits, Erzurum.
Gler, G., zdemir, E., & Dikici, R. (2012). lkretim matematik retmenlerinin snav sorular ile sbs
matematik sorularnn bloom taksonomisine gre karlatrmal analizi. Erzincan niversitesi
Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 14(1), 41-60.
Gler, S. & Ycelyiit, S. (2011). lkretim retmen kitab matematik 8 . stanbul: Hayalgc
Yaynclk.
68
Hacmerolu, G., Bilgen, S., & Tabuk, M. (2013). Baar duygusu-ilkokul'un trke'ye uyarlama
almas. Marmara niversitesi Eitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 38, 85-96.
Hacsaliholu, H. H. (2002). Lise geometri 3. stanbul: Serhat Yaynlar.
Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive. GA: Valdosta
State. University.http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html. [13.11.2015
tarihinde indirilmitir].
Johnson, R. M. (2000, April). Gender Differences in Mathematics Performance: Walberg's Educational
Productivity Model and the NELS:88 Database. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. New Orleans: LA, USA.
Kaplan, Z., Baran, T., & Hazer, . (2013). lkretim matematik 6-8 retim programnda hedeflenen
davranlarn bilisel sreler asndan incelenmesi. Ahi Evran niversitesi Krehir Eitim
Fakltesi Dergisi, 14(1), 347-366.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of blooms taxonomy: an overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4),
212-264.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2009). Bloom taksonomisinin revizyonu: genel bir bak (ev. D. Kce, M. Aydn,
& C. Yldz). lkretim Online, 8(3), 1-7.
Kce, D. & Baki, A. (2009). Matematik retmenlerinin yazl snav sorular ile SS snavlarnda
sorulan matematik sorularnn bloom taksonomisine gre karlatrlmas. Pamukkale niversitesi
Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi 26, 70-80.
Lichtenfeld, S., Pekrun, R., Stupnisky, R. H., Reissi K., & Murayama, K. (2012). Measuring students
emotions in the early years: the achiement emoutions questionnaire-elementary scool (aeq-es).
Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 190-201.
Mcmillian, H. J. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education. Boston, USA: Pearson Education.
Oliva, P. F. (1988). Developing the Curriculum (7th Ed.). Boston: Scott, Foresman and Company.
zcan, S. & Oluk, S. (2007). lkretim fen bilgisi derslerinde kullanlan sorularn piaget ve bloom
taksonomisine gre analizi. Dicle niversitesi Ziya Gkalp Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 8, 61-68.
zelik, D. A. (1989). Eitim programlar ve retim. Ankara: SYM.
zdoan, E. & Uyar, M. (2012). Tubitak projesi: Aranzda matematii sevmeyen var m? Eitim ve
retim aratrmalar dergisi, 1(3), 64-69.
ztoprak, S. & akrolu, E. (2013). Drtgenler. . . Zembat, M. F. zmantar, E. Binglbali, H.
andr, & A. Delice (Eds.), Tanmlar ve tarihsel geliimleriyle matematiksel kavramlar (1. Bask).
Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Peker, M. & Mirasyediolu, . (2003). Lise 2. snf rencilerinin matematik dersine ynelik tutumlar
ve baarlar arasndaki iliki. Pamukkale niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 14(2), 157166.
Senemolu, N. (1997). Geliim renme ve retim. Kuramdan uygulamaya. Ankara: Spot Matbaaclk.
ahin, ., Erdem, E., Babyk, K., Gkkurt, B., & Soylu, Y. (2014). Ortaokul matematik
retmenlerinin saylarla ilgili pedagojik alan bilgilerinin geliiminin incelenmesi. Trk Bilgisayar
ve Matematik Eitimi Dergisi, 5(3), 207-230.
Uysal, S. (1997). Ders geme ve kredili sisteme gre geometri 3. stanbul: nde Yaynclk.
Wulf, K. M. & Schave, B. (1984). Curriculum design, a handbook for educators. USA: Foresman and
Company.
Yenilmez, K. & zabac, N. . (2003). Yatl retmen okulu rencilerinin matematik ile ilgili tutumlar
ve matematik kayg dzeyleri arasndaki iliki zerine bir aratrma. Pamukkale niversitesi Eitim
Fakltesi Dergisi, 14(2), 132-146.
Yetkin, E. (2003). Student difficulties in learning elementary mathematics. In Eric Digest,
69
Clearing house for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, Ohio.
Yldrm, A. & imek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel aratrma yntemleri (9. Bask). Ankara: Sekin
Yaynclk.
Yldzlar, M. (2012). retmen adaylarnn renme stratejileri zerine bir alma. Hacettepe
niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 42, 430-440.
Ycel, Z. & Ko, M. (2011). lkretim rencilerinin matematik dersine kar tutumlarnn baar
dzeylerini yordama gc ile cinsiyet arasndaki iliki. lkretim Online, 10(1), 133-143.
70

Analysis of Students' Levels in Respect To The Steps of The Cognitive Domains and The Relation of These Levels With The Sense of Success

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Analysis of Students' Levels in Respect To The Steps of The Cognitive Domains and The Relation of These Levels With The Sense of Success

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

December / 2015

Journal of Cognitive and Education Research

Analysis of students levels in respect to the steps of the cognitive

Writing, saying, defining, conveying

Interpreting, explaining, different explanation

Using, presenting, trying

Decomposition, analyze, experimenting

Designing, creating, assembling

Deciding, supporting, rejecting...

Bahar (2008, pp.55)

Table 2. Question Samples Related to the Steps of the Cognitive Domain

of his current age. Accordingly, find the current

5. By designing the pattern, of which rule is 2n+1, go up to

At least how many edges does a polygon need to have

f: Number of the Total Student Answers

Figure 1. Answer of S10 to the First Question

Figure 2. Wrong Answer of S22 related to Q7

Figure 3. S30s Wrong Answer to the Third Question

Figure 4. Totally Correct Answer of S9 related to Q17

, and found the amount

corresponding to a percentage of the stated multitude with the operations of

Figure 5. S18s Wrong Answer related to Q11

to find the length of a step of Ali and

Figure 6. S25s Wrong Answer related to Q20

Figure 7. S18s Partly Correct (b) Answer related to Q15

Figure 8. S20s Wrong Answer related to Q15

Figure 9. S13s Totally Correct Answer related to Q15

Figure 10. S10s Partly Correct (a) Answer related to Q9

Figure 11. Answers of S36 and S33 related to Q1

Figure 12. S29s Totally Correct Answer related to Q3

Figure 13. S1s Totally Correct Answer related to Q3

Figure 14. S35s Totally Correct Answer related to Q8

Figure 15. S8s Partly Correct (a) Answer related to Q10

r: Pearson Correlation Coefficient

Anda mungkin juga menyukai