Decoding mathematics values in a Turkish high-stakes exam: A qualitative content analysis

Öz

This study investigated the mathematical values conveyed in questions in a Turkish high-stakes exam, the High School Transition System, which marks the transition from middle school to high school. For this purpose, 100 mathematics questions from the High School Transition System exams over the past five years were obtained from open sources. Adopting a qualitative research design based on document analysis, the study employed content analysis methods focused on sentence-based meaning. The findings indicated that the questions were grouped into two mathematics value categories: transformational and structurational. Here, structurational values include structures and processes such as being disconnected, dehumanized, theoretical, abstract, objective, and controlling the environment. In contrast, transformational values are related to the applicability of mathematics in daily life, its connection to dynamic processes, humanization, and its openness to development. Some suggestions for education stakeholders and further research were also made, based on the study findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• High-stakes exams
• Mathematics values
• Mathematical questions
• Transformational values
• Structurational values

References

1. Aktaş, F.N., & Argün Z. (2018). Examination of mathematical values in classroom practices: A case study of secondary mathematics teachers. Education and Science, 43(193), 121 141. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7177
2. Aktaş, F.N., & Dede, Y. (2022). Gifted students’ mathematics educational and socio-cultural values in the decision-making process through STEM tasks. In T. Barkatsas (Eds.), Educating gifted, talented, creative and dissimilar learners (pp. 36-63). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004532571_003
3. Aktaş, F.N., & Dede, Y. (2024). Re-imagining mathematics teacher education for 21st century skills: Harmful mathematics educational values. In T. Barkatsas, T. McLaughlin, & W. Goff (Eds.), Global education in the 21st century series. Brill Sense Publications.
4. Aktaş, F.N., & Dede, Y. (2025). Evidence from mathematical language for mathematics educational values through the lens of cultural neuroscience. In T. Barkatsas, & W. Goff (Eds.), Advances in mathematics and stem education: Incorporating developments in neuroscience, brain, science and neurodiversity (pp. 116-136). Brill Sense Publications.
5. Aşıcı, F., & Dede, Y. (2019). The transmission of educational values through mathematical problems: A theoretical study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 260-283. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.518832
6. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
7. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287 302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
8. Bishop, A.J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Kluwer Press.

9. Bishop, A.J. (1998, January 1). Culture, values, and assessment in mathematics [Paper presentation]. 1st Int. Comm Mathematics Instruction EAsia Conf Mathematics Education, Cheongju, Korea.
10. Bishop, A.J., Clarkson, P., Fitzsimons, G., & Seah, W.T. (2000). Why study values in mathematics teaching: Contextualising the VAMP project? In W.S. Horng & F.-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the HPM 2000 conference on history in mathematics education (Vol. 2. pp. 147-154). National Taiwan Normal University.
11. Bishop, A.J., Clarkson, P., FitzSimons, G., & Seah, W.T. (2001). Studying values in mathematics education: Aspects of the VAMP Project. In J. Novotná (Ed.), Proceedings of the second conference of the European society for research in mathematics education. (pp. 368-376). HAL open science.
12. Bishop, A.J., Seah, W.T., & Chin, C. (2003). Values in mathematics teaching‐the hidden persuaders? In A.J. Bishop,F. Leung, J.Kilpatrick, K.Clements (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 717‐766). Kluwer Academic Publications.
13. Bishop, A.J. (2004, July 4-11). Critical issues in researching cultural aspects of mathematics education [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Mathematical Education Copenhagen, Denmark.
14. Bishop, A.J. (2008). Teachers’ mathematical values for developing mathematical thinking in classrooms: Theory, research, and policy. The Mathematics Educator, 11(1/2), 79-88.
15. Bishop, A.J. (2016). Can values awareness help teachers and parents transition preschool learners into mathematics learning? In T. Meaney, T. Lange, A. Wernberg, O. Helenius, & M.L. Johansson (Eds.), Mathematics education in the early years (pp. 43-56). Springer International Publications.
16. Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2018). Assessing mathematical competencies: An analysis of Swedish national mathematics tests. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1212256
17. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
18. Burke, C.A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: a preliminary review of current research in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 133 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9282-x
19. Cai, J., & Howson, A.G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M.A. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & K.S.F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education research (pp. 949–978). Springer Publications.
20. Chin, C., Leu, Y.C., & Lin, F.L. (2001). Pedagogical values, mathematics teaching, and teacher education: Case studies of two experienced teachers. In F.-L. Lin & T.J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 247-269). Kluwer Academic Publications.
21. Chin, C., & Lin, F.L. (2000). A case study of a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical values: Use of a methodological framework of interpretation and reflection. Proceedings of the National Science Council, 10(2), 90-101.
22. Chiu, M.S., & Seah, W.T. (2024). Values and valuing pedagogies in affect-focused mathematics teaching. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, Article 101050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101050
23. Chung, Y., & Kim, S. (2022). Expectancies, task values, and perceived costs: Reciprocal effects on math-related career intention and achievement among middle school girls. Learning and Individual Differences, 96, Article 102145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102145
24. Clarkson, P.C. (2007). The development of research into values in mathematics education. In G. Leder & H. Forgasz (Eds.), Stepping stones for the 21st century (p. 223). Sense.
25. Clarkson, P., Seah, W.T., & Pang, J. (2019). Scanning and scoping of values and valuing in mathematics education. In P. Clarkson, W.T. Seah, & J. Pang (Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education (pp. 1–10). Springer.
26. Clement, N. (2010). Student wellbeing at school: The actualization of values in education. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 37-62). Springer.
27. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge Publications.
28. Corrigan, D.J., Gunstone, R.F., Bishop, A.J., & Clarke, B. (2003, July 19-23). Values in science and Mathematics education: Mapping the relationships between pedagogical practices and student outcomes [Paper presentation]. European Science Educational Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
29. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
30. Dede, Y. (2006). Values in Turkish middle school mathematics textbooks. Quality & Quantity, 40(3), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-6133-8
31. Dede, Y. (2012). Why is mathematics valuable? A comparison of Turkish and German mathematics teachers. Bolema: Boletim De Educação Matemática, 26(44), 1171-1206.
32. Dede, Y. (2015). Comparing primary and secondary mathematics teachers’preferences regarding values about mathematics teachıng in Turkey and Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 227-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9483-z
33. Dede, Y. (2019). Why mathematics is valuable for Turkish, Turkish immigrant and German students: A cross-cultural study. In P. Clarkson, W.T. Seah, & J. Pang (Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Scanning and scoping the territory (pp. 143-156). Springer Publications.
34. Dede, Y., & Barkatsas, T. (2019). Developing a questionnaire to evaluate Turkish students’ mathematics values and preferences. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(4), 1142 1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.529092
35. Dede, Y., Marschall, G., & Clarkson, P. (2024). An overview of values in mathematics education. In Y. Dede, G. Marschall, & P. Clarkson (Eds.), Values and valuing in mathematics education: Moving forward into practice (pp. 3-12). Springer Publications.
36. Dossey, J.A., McCrone, S.S., & O'Sullivan, C. (2006). Problem solving in the PISA and TIMSS 2003 assessments. (Report No. NCES-2007-049). National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
37. Fitz Simons, G., Seah, W.T., Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P.C. (2001). Beyond numeracy: Values in the mathematics classroom. In J. Bobis, B. Perry, & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond. (pp. 202-209). Merga Publications.
38. Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U. & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathematiklehrern [Attitudes towards mathematics among mathematics teachers]. Journal für Mathematik Didaktik, 19(1), 3 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03338859
39. Grootenboer, P., & Marshman, M. (2016). The affective domain, mathematics, and mathematics education. Springer Publishing.
40. Güven, İ. (2010). Türk Eğitim Tarihi [History of Turkish Education]. Naturel Yayıncılık.
41. Halstead, M. (1996). Values in education and education in values: Values and values education in schools. The Falmer Press.
42. Hill, B.V. (1991). Values education in Australian schools. Australian Council for Educational Research Publishing.
43. Hill, J.L., Kern, M.L., Seah, W.T., & Van Driel, J. (2021). Feeling good and functioning well in mathematics education: Exploring students’ conceptions of mathematical well-being and values. ECNU Review of Education, 4(2), 349-375.https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120928
44. Hill, J.L., & Hunter, J. (2023). Examining the mathematics education values of diverse groups of students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 54(8), 1614-1633. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2184280
45. Jerrim, J. (2023). Test anxiety: Is it associated with performance in high-stakes examinations?. Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2079616
46. Kang, H., & Cogan, L. (2022). The differential role of socioeconomic status in the relationship between curriculum-based mathematics and mathematics literacy: The link between TIMSS and PISA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 133 148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10133-2
47. Keng, S.L., Smoski, M.J., & Robins, C.J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1041 1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006
48. Leder, G.C., & Forgasz, H.J. (2002). Measuring mathematical beliefs and their impact on the learning of mathematics: A new approach. In Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? Springer Publications.
49. Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 50 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009
50. Lee-Poon, G., & Simpkins, S.D. (2024). Trajectories of math expectancies for success and values in Latinx and Asian students. Developmental Psychology, 60(4), 711. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001687
51. Lim, S.C., & Ernest, P. (1997, May 15). Values in mathematics education: What is planned and what is espoused? [Paper presentation]. Conference of British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
52. Liou, P.Y., & Bulut, O. (2020). The effects of item format and cognitive domain on students’ science performance in TIMSS 2011. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 99 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9682-7
53. MacNealy, M.S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. Addison Wesley Longman Publications.
54. MEB. (2018). Matematik müfredatı ilkokul ve ortaokul 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar [Mathematics curriculum primary and middle school 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201813017165445 MATEMAT%C4%B0K%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI%202018v.pdf
55. MEB. (2024a). Matematik müfredatı ortaokul 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar [Mathematics curriculum Middle school 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=1978
56. MEB. (2024b, February 10). Lise Giriş Sınavı (LGS) için ebeveyn rehberi tercih süreci [Parents' guide to the high school entrance exam (LGS) preference process]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/mebden-lgs-tercih-sureci-icin-ebeveynlere-yonelik-kilavuz/haber/34176/tr
57. MEB. (2024c, February 18). Liseye Geçiş Sistemi (LGS) [High School Transition System (LGS)]. https://meb.gov.tr/lgs kapsamindaki merkez sinava yonelik ornek sorular yayimlandi/haber/32661/tr
58. MEB. (2024d, February 18). LGS Yol Haritası [LGS Roadmap]. https://ofram.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/61/08/964488/dosyalar/2025_02/06140951_lgs2025bulten.pdf
59. MEB. (2024e, September 9). Millî eğitim bakanlığı Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli'ne genel bakış [Ministry of national education overview of the Turkey century education model]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/genel-bakis
60. MEB.(2025, September 18). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli erdem-değer-eylem çerçevesi [Turkey Century Education Model virtue value action framework]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/beceriler/erdem-deger-eylem-cercevesi?utm_source=chatgpt.com
61. Monrad, S.U., Wolff, M., Kurtz, J., Deiorio, N.M., Sabo, R., Stringer, J.K., & Santen, S.A. (2021). What is the association between student well‐being and high‐stakes examination scores?. Medical Education, 55(7), 872-877. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14460
62. OECD(2013, October 31). Turkey Assessment Report 2013. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/turkey-assessment-report-2013_5jz2rql69rxs-en.html
63. OECD (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: What is the learning compass? https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/future-of-education-and-skills-2030.html
64. OECD (2020, July 7). Education Policy. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/education policy outlook.html
65. Pang, J., & Seah, W.T. (2021). Affective factors, values and achievement in mathematics learning: Korean students’ perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106(3), 395 414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10012-4
66. Peleg-Popko, O. (2004). Differentiation and test anxiety in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 645-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.002
67. OECD (2022). Mathematics framework. https://pisa2022-maths.oecd.org/index.html#Mathematical-Reasoning
68. Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal Of Education Policy, 29(5), 640 657. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.865082
69. Powe, K.W. (1993). Values education and the local school board. Updating School Board Policies, 24(6), 1-4.
70. Punch, K.F. (2016). Developing effective research proposals. National Academic Digital Library of Ethiopia. https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5019379
71. Radford, L. (2018). A plea for a critical transformative philosophy of mathematics education. In Ernest, P. (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematics education today.(pp. 1-10). Springer Publications.
72. Raths, L.E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S.B. (1987). Selections from values and teaching. In J. Carbone (Ed.), Value theory and education (pp. 198-214). Robert E. Krieger.
73. Reback, R., Rockoff, J.E., and Schwartz, H.L. (2014). Under pressure: job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under no child left behind. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 207-241. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.3.207
74. Rhodes, B., & Roux, C. (2004). Identifying values and beliefs in an outcomes-based curriculum. South African Journal of Education, 24(1), 25-30.
75. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press Publications.
76. Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal Of Career Assessment, 10(2), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727020100020
77. Schaefer, M.P. (2012). Determining methods for teaching character education in elementary schools [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Northcentral.
78. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Are there üniversal aspects in the structure and content of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
79. Seah, W.T., & Bishop, A.J. (1999). Realizing a mathematics education for nation-building in Southeast Asia in the new millennium. Malaysian Educational Research Association and Educational Research Association Singapore,3, 1241-1249.
80. Seah, W.T. & Bishop, A.J. (2000, April 24-28). Values in mathematics textbooks: A view throught the Australasian Regions [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Los Angeles.
81. Seah, W.T., Bishop, A.J., FitzSimons, G.E., & Clarkson, P.C. (2001, December 2-6). Exploring Issues of Control Over Values Teaching in the Mathematics Classroom [Paper presentation]. The 2001 Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Australia.
82. Seah, W.T., Andersson, A., Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P. (2016). What would the mathematics curriculum look like if values were the focus. For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(1), 14-20.
83. She, H.C., Stacey, K., & Schmidt, W.H. (2018). Science and mathematics literacy: PISA for better school education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9911-1
84. Siregar, E., Sutiarso, S., & Yusuf, Z. (2021). Analysis of students' mathematical literacy ability in algebraic concepts based on trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) problems. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 21, 381-392.
85. Swadener, M. & Soedjadi, R. (1988). Values, mathematics education and the task of developing pupils’ personalities: An indonesian perspective. Educational Studies In Mathematics, 19(2), 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00751232
86. Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Olsen, R.V. (2022). A systematic review of studies investigating science teaching and learning: over two decades of TIMSS and PISA. International Journal of Science Education, 44(12), 2035-2058. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2109075
87. Törner, G. (1997, March 3-7). Views of German mathematics teachers on mathematics [Paper presentation]. The Annual Conference on Didactics of Mathematics, Regensburg, Germany.
88. Van de Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.W. (2014). Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally. Nobel Publications.
89. Wang, C.Y., Lin, F.C., Chin, C., & Chang, G.Y. (2006, April 7-11). Re-examining the category framework for describing mathematics teachers' values [Paper presentation]. The Annual Conference of Educational Research, Hwa-Lien, Taiwan.
90. Yıldırım, A., & Şimsek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Seçkin.
91. Zuo, H., & Wang, L. (2023). The influences of mindfulness on high-stakes mathematics test achievement of middle school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1061027