Öğretmenlerin Yeni Matematik Programı Hakkındaki Görüşleri ve Program Değişim Sürecinde Karşılaşılan Zorluklar

Abstract

Bu çalışma, ilköğretimde görev yapan matematik ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin yeni matematik programıhakkındaki görüşlerini incelemek ve programın uygulanmasında karşılaşılan zorlukları araştırmak için Adıyaman’dayapılmıştır. Çalışmaya 35’i matematik öğretmeni olmak üzere toplam 265 öğretmen katılmıştır. Veriler, araştırmacılartarafından geliştirilen 43 maddeden oluşan 5’li Likert-tipi ölçme aracından, öğretmenlerin program hakkındaki görüşleriniyazdığı bir adet açık uçlu sorudan ve öğretmenlerin doldurduğu program değerlendirme formlarından elde edilmiştir.Toplanan nicel verilerin analizinde yüzde, aritmetik ortalama, t testi, ANOVA testi, nitel verilerde betimsel analiz yöntemikullanılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, öğretmenlerin program hakkındaki görüşlerinin genel olarak olumlu olduğu, bazıdeğişkenlere göre görüşlerde farklılık olduğu ve programın öğretmenlere yeterince tanıtılmadığı, uygulamada araç-gereçeksikliği, etkinlik hazırlama, sınıfların kalabalık olması, gibi zorluklarla karşılaştıkları görülmüştür

Keywords

• program reformu, matematik eğitimi, ilköğretim

References

1. Anderson, D. S., & Piazza, J. A. (1996). Teaching and learning mathematics in constructivist preservice classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 51-62.
2. Baki, A &Gökçek T. (2005). Comparison of the development of elementary mathematics curriculum studies in Turkey and the U.S.A. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5 (2), 579-588
3. Bayrak, B.&Erden, A. M., (2007). The Evaluation of Science Curriculum. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15 (1 ), 137-154.
4. Bulut, S. (2004), İlköğretim programlarında yeni yaklaşımlar-matematik. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim Dergisi, 54-55.
5. Burkhardt, H, Fraser, R., & Ridgway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds. ), Development in school mathematics education around the world, (Vol. 2, pp. 3-29). Reston, VA: NCTM.
6. Clarke, D. M. (1997). The changing role of the mathematics teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 278-308.
7. Cuban, L. (1993). The lure of curricular reform and its pitiful history. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 182-185.
8. Ersoy, Y. (2006), İlköğretim matematik öğretim programındaki yenilikler-I: Amaç, içerik ve kazanımlar. İlköğretim Online, 5(1), 30-44.

9. Frykholm, J. A. (1995). The impact of the NCTM Standards on preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383669)
10. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
11. Gooya Z. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs about a new reform in high school geometry in Iran. Educational Studies Mathematics, 65, 331–347.
12. Halat, E. (2007). The views of elementary school teachers on the new elementary school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Social Sciences of the Afyon Kocatepe University, 63-88
13. Handal, B. & Herrington A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59-69
14. Hanna, G. (1996). Proof and Proving. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877–908). Kluwer.
15. Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatric, J. (1981). Curriculum development in Mathematics. Cambridge: Sabred University Press.
16. Howson, A. G., & Wilson, B. (1986). School mathematics in the 1990s. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Knapp, N. F., & Peterson, P. L. (1995). Teachers implementation of “CGI” after four years: Meanings and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 40-65.
18. Knuth, E. J. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 61–88.
19. Koç, Y., Işıksal, M. & Bulut, S. (2007). Elementary school curriculum reform in Turkey. International Education Journal, 8(1), 30-39.
20. Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. A. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 115- 126). New York: Macmillan.
21. Konting, M. M. (1998). In search of good practice: A case study of Malaysian effective mathematics teachers classroom teaching. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia, 20(2), 8-20.
22. Martin, P. (1993). An evaluation of the effects of the Victorian Certificate of Education on mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group (MERGA), Brisbane.
23. McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-basedinquiry, (Sixth Edition), (21-26), Pearson Education, Boston.
24. Memon, M. (1997). Curriculum change in Pakistan: An alternative model of change. Curriculum and Teaching, 12(1), 55-63.
25. MEB, (2005a). İlköğretim okulu matematik dersi (1-5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB-Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Yay.
26. MEB, (2005b). İlköğretim okulu matematik dersi (6-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB-Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Yay
27. Mumme, J., & Weissglass, J. (1991). Improving mathematics education through school-based change. Issues in Mathematics Education Offprint (pp. 3-23). American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.
28. PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). (2003). Learning for Tomorrow’s World First Results from PISA 2003 [Online]. Available: http://www.pisa.oecd.org.
29. Prawat, R. (1990). Changing schools by changing teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning (Elementary Subjects Center Series, No. 19). Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects Institute for Research on Teaching.
30. Remillard, J. T., & Geist, P. K. (2002). Supporting teachers’ professional learning by navigating openings in the curriculum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 7–34.
31. Shunk, D. H. (1996). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
32. Sosniak, L. A., Ethington, C. A., & Varelas, M. (1991). Teaching mathematics without a coherent point of view: Findings from the IEA Second International Mathematics Study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 119-131.
33. Sowell, E., & Zambo, R. (1997). Alignment between standards and practices in mathematics education: Experiences in Arizona. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 344- 355.
34. Sztajn, P. (2003). Adapting reform ideas in different mathematics classrooms: Beliefs beyond mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(1). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
35. Tekin, H. (1996). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme . Ankara: Yargı Yayınları
36. TIMSS. (1999). “International mathematics report, findings from IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eight grade.” [Online] Retrieved on 10 August -2008, at URL: http://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_1.pdf
37. Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 309- 326.
38. Yapıcı, M. and Demirdelen C., (2007). Teachers’ views with regard to the primary 4th grade social sciences curriculum. Elementary Education Online, 6(2), 204-212.