Does Algebra Curriculum Develop Cognitively Advanced Critical Minds? Comparative Analysis of Türkiye and the U.S. Mathematics Textbooks

Abstract

Türkiye and the United States have the largest mathematics score gaps between bottom- and top-performing eighth-grade students compared to other countries in the 2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Yet, the U.S. students, on average, have higher mathematics achievement. To explore this difference, this study aims to assess the alignment of Algebra content, the incorporation of higher cognitive demands and dimensions of algebraic critical thinking (namely, logical thinking, argumentation, deductive reasoning, critique, and critical judgment) in 6th to 8th grade mathematics textbooks in Türkiye and the United States. The analysis was conducted on 219 and 225 solved algebraic examples, respectively. Content analysis method was used to quantify content alignment, cognitive demands; and algebraic critical thinking. The analysis revealed a moderate level of alignment in solved algebraic examples across subtopics in Türkiye and the United States textbooks. Although both sets of textbooks had a high presence of examples with lower-level cognitive demands, the U.S. textbooks had a relatively more balanced distribution of cognitive demands across examples and subtopics. Except for logical thinking and deductive reasoning, critical thinking dimensions are underrepresented in both sets of textbooks. The implications of the surprising findings are discussed.

Keywords

• Algebra
• Critical thinking
• Cognitive demand
• Opportunities to learn
• Textbook Analysis

Ethical Statement

It was deemed ethically appropriate with the letter dated 11.09.2023 and numbered 365035 of Gaziantep University Rectorate Ethics Committee.

Cebir Müfredatı Bilişsel Olarak Gelişmiş Eleştirel Zihinler Geliştiriyor mu? Türkiye ve ABD Matematik Ders Kitaplarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Abstract

Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, 2019 Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Eğilimleri Araştırması'nda (TIMSS) diğer ülkelere kıyasla en düşük ve en yüksek performans gösteren sekizinci sınıf öğrencileri arasında matematik başarı farkının en yüksek olduğu iki ülkedir. Bununla birlikte, ABD'li öğrenciler ortalama olarak daha yüksek matematik başarısına sahiptir. Bu farklılığı araştırmak için bu çalışma, Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'ndeki 6-8. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarında cebir içeriğinin uyumunu, daha yüksek bilişsel gereksinimlerin ve cebirsel eleştirel düşünme boyutlarının (yani mantıksal düşünme, argümantasyon, tümdengelimsel akıl yürütme, eleştiri ve eleştirel yargı) dahil edilmesini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Analiz sırasıyla 219 ve 225 çözülmüş cebir örnekleri üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. İçerik analizi yöntemi, içerik uyumunu, bilişsel gereksinimleri ve cebirsel eleştirel düşünmeyi ölçmek için kullanılmıştır. Analiz, Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ders kitaplarındaki alt öğrenme alanları arasında çözülmüş cebir örneklerinde orta düzeyde bir uyum olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Her iki ders kitabında da düşük seviyeli bilişsel gereksinimlere sahip örneklerin yüksek oranda bulunmasına rağmen, ABD ders kitaplarında bilişsel gereksinimlerin örnekler ve alt öğrenme alanları arasında nispeten daha dengeli bir dağılımı vardır. Mantıksal düşünme ve tümdengelimsel akıl yürütme dışında, eleştirel düşünme boyutları her iki ders kitabı setinde de yeterince temsil edilmemektedir. Şaşırtıcı bulguların sonuçları tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Cebir
• Eleştirel düşünme
• Bilişsel gereksinim
• Öğrenme fırsatları
• Ders kitabı analizi

Ethical Statement

Gaziantep Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Etik Kurulu’nun 11.09.2023 tarih ve 365035 sayılı yazısı ile etik açıdan uygun görülmüştür.

References

1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084
2. Aizikovitsh, E., & Amit, M. (2010). Evaluating an infusion approach to the teaching of critical thinking skills through mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3818–3822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.596
3. Alpindo, O., Istiyono, E., Widihastuti, & Andriyanti, E. (2024). Can critical-thinking skills be measured by analyzing metacognition? Journal of Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v18i2.8813
4. Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2008). Introducing reflexive critique in the business curriculum reflections on the lessons learned. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1306914
5. Aydın Gürler, S. & Kaplan, O. (2023). Attitudes towards STEAM, critical thinking disposition and decision-making skills: Mediation and gender moderation. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(1), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1272051
6. Bell, A. (1996). Problem solving approaches to algebra: Two aspects. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 167-185). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1732-3_1
7. Benson-O'Connor, C. D., McDaniel, C., & Carr, J. (2019). Bringing math to life: Provide students opportunities to connect their lives to math. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 21(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1299
8. Bieda, K. N., Ji, X., Drwencke, J., & Picard, A. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving opportunities in elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.005

9. Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A developmental neuroscience perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x06009034
10. Center for Curriculum Analysis [formerly known as Wisconsin Center for Education Research] (2007). SEC K-12 mathematics taxonomy. Retrieved from https://curriculumanalysis.org/Reference/K12MathTaxonomy2008.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2025
11. Chen, S. (2024). Comparative analysis of contents on the Pythagorean theorem in mathematics textbooks from America and China. The Educational Review, USA, 8(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.26855/er.2024.01.002
12. Cheung, T., Shekoyan, V., Dehipawala, S. & Tremberger, G. (2017). Linking facts with judgment: a critical thinking component in introductory calculus physics for engineering students. 2017 Mid-Atlantic section fall conference proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--29385
13. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Mathematics standards. https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/
14. Davutyan, N., Demir, M., & Polat, S. (2010). Assessing the efficiency of Turkish secondary education: Heterogeneity, centralization, and scale diseconomies. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2009.06.002
15. Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37, 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
16. Erbağcı, N., & Kaf, Ö. (2020). Investigation of primary school textbooks and cognitive structures of students in the context of thinking skills concepts. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 45(204), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2020.8817
17. Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2601_6
18. Facione, P . A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The dispositions towards critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44, 1–25.
19. Firdaus, F., Kailani, I., Bakar, M. N. B., & Bakry, B. (2015). Developing critical thinking skills of students in mathematics learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(3), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v9i3.1830
20. Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2007.0022
21. Glasnovic Gracin, D. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003-1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2018.1431849
22. Gruber, O. (2001). Dissociating Neural Correlates of Cognitive Components in Mental Calculation. Cerebral Cortex, 11(4), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.4.350
23. Hadar, L. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn: Mathematics textbooks and students’ achievements. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 55, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.10.002
24. Hanna, G. (2020). Mathematical proof, argumentation, and reasoning. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education, pp. 561-566. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_35 Harel, G. & Weber, K. (2020). Deductive reasoning in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education, pp. 183-190. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_35
25. İskenderoğlu, T., & Baki, A. (2011). İlköğretim 8. sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki soruların PISA matematik yeterlik düzeylerine göre sınıflandırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 287-301. Jablonka, E. (2020). Critical thinking in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education, pp. 159-163. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_35
26. Jacob, B. (2001). Implementing standards: the California mathematics textbook debacle. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108300317
27. Johansson, S., & Hansen, K. Y. (2019). Are mathematics curricula harmonizing globally over time? Evidence from TIMSS national research coordinator data. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(2), Article em1656. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99516
28. Kang, H.J. (2014). A Cross-National Comparative Study of First- and Fourth-Grade Math Textbooks between Korea and the United States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1), 91-108.
29. Kaput, J. J. (1995). A research base supporting long term algebra reform? In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 71-94). ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
30. Kaur, B., Kiam, L. H., & Hoon, S. L. (2006). Mathematics teaching in two singapore classrooms: the role of the textbook and homework. In D. Clarke, C. Keitel & Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Mathematics Classrooms in Twelve Countries, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901622_008
31. Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it? The Mathematics Educator (Singapore), 8(1), 139–151.
32. Kieran, C. (2018). Algebra teaching and learning. In S. Lerman (Eds), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77487-9_6-5
33. Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6
34. Laisney, P., & M. Chatoney (2018). Instrumented activity and theory of instrument of Pierre Rabardel.” Philosophy of Technology for Technology Education. Sense Brill. https://amu.hal.science/hal-01903109v1
35. Larson, R. & Boswell, L. (2019). Big ideas math: Modeling real life. Big Ideas Learning. https://bim.easyaccessmaterials.com/index.php?location_user=cc19
36. Martin, M. O., von Davier, M., & Mullis, I. V. (2020). Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2019 technical report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
37. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65–86). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1732-3_5
38. MoNE (2018). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Middle school mathematics curriculum (5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. Ministry of National Education. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=329
39. Namlı, S., & Özcakir, B. (2024). Analysing the tasks in middle school mathematics textbooks according to the levels of cognitive demand. TAY Journal, 8(3), 477–502. https://doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2024.1056.04
40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
41. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
42. NCES (2021). TIMSS 2019 U.S. Highlights web report U.S. Department of Education (NCES 2021-021). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results19/index.asp
43. Park, K. & Leung, K. S. F. (2006). A comparative study of the mathematics textbooks of China, England, Japan, Korea, and the United States. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D. Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West, pp. 227-238. Springer.
44. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
45. Polat, S., & Dede, Y. (2023). Trends in cognitive demands levels of mathematical tasks in Turkish middle school mathematics textbooks: Algebra learning domain. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 24(1), 40-61. https://doi.org/10.4256/ijmtl.v24i1.476
46. Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics?. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185-1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
47. Polikoff, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714531851
48. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031007003
49. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11405038
50. Ren, X., Tong, Y., Peng, P., & Wang, T. (2020). Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond general cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence, 82, 101487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487
51. Rezat, S. (2013). The textbook-in-use: students’ utilization schemes of mathematics textbooks related to self-regulated practicing. ZDM, 45(5), 659–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0529-z
52. Rezat, S., Fan, L., & Pepin, B. (2021). Mathematics textbooks and curriculum resources as instruments for change. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53, 1189-1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01309-3
53. Romberg, T. A. (1997). The influence of programs from other countries on the school mathematics reform curricula in the United States. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1086/444178
54. Schmidt, W. H., Burroughs, N. A., Zoido, P., & Houang, R. T. (2015). The role of schooling in perpetuating educational ınequality. Educational Researcher, 44(7), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x15603982
55. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). Splintered vision: An investigation of US mathematics and science education. Norwel, MA: Kluwer.
56. Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR project: The “revolution of the possible” in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30(4), 476-521.
57. Spiller, J., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Johnson, S., Simms, V., & Gilmore, C. (2023). Higher level domain specific skills in mathematics; The relationship between algebra, geometry, executive function skills and mathematics achievement. PloS one, 18(11), e0291796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291796
58. Stacey, K., & Chick, H. (2004). Solving the problem with algebra. K. Stacey, H. Chick & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra the 12th ICMI study, 1-20. Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston
59. Star, J. R., Foegen, A., Larson, M. R., McCallum, W. G., Porath, J., Zbiek, R. M., Caronongan, P., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., & Lyskawa, J. (2015). Teaching strategies for ımproving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students. Educator's practice guide. What Works Clearinghouse.™ NCEE 2015-4010. What Works Clearinghouse.
60. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A. & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instructions: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College.
61. Susac, A., Bubic, A., Vrbanc, A., & Planinic, M. (2014). Development of abstract mathematical reasoning: the case of algebra. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 679. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00679
62. Tyson, H. & Woodward, A. (1989). Why students aren’t learning very much from textbooks. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 14-17.
63. Ubuz, B. & Sarpkaya, G. (2020). The investigation of algebraic tasks in sixth grades in terms of cognitive demands: mathematics texbook and classroom implementations. Elementary Education Online, 13(2), 594-594.
64. Umland, K. & Sriraman, B. (2020). Argumentation in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education, pp. 61-63. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_35
65. Üredi, L. & Kösece, P. (2020). Investigating the relationship between critical thinking skills and mathematical problem solving achievements of secondary education students. European Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v7no2a11
66. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
67. Vincent, J., & Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS video study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03217470
68. von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00869951
69. Wakhata, R., Mutarutinya, V., & Balimuttajjo, S. (2023). Exploring the impact of Stein et al.’s levels of cognitive demand in supporting students’ mathematics heuristic problem-solving abilities. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.949988
70. Wang, J., & Lu, X. (2018). Selection of content in high school mathematics textbooks: An international comparison. ZDM, 50, 813-826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0977-6
71. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
72. Wille, R. (2009). Human being and mathematics logical and mathematical thinking. In S. Rudolph, F. Dau, S.O. Kuznetsov (Eds.), Conceptual structures: leveraging semantic technologies. ICCS 2009, pp. 66–85. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03079-6_6
73. Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.6.347-360
74. Zhang, D. & Qi, C. (2019). Reasoning and proof in eighth-grade mathematics textbooks in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.015