Exploring the Data Learning Domain in Turkish Grade 1–8 Mathematics Textbooks An Analysis of the Data Investigation Cycle (PPDAC) and Levels of Cognitive Demand
Abstract
This study examines tasks in the “data” strand of Turkish Grades 1–8 mathematics textbooks within the frameworks of the “data investigation cycle” (problem formulation, data collection, data analysis, conclusion) and “cognitive demand levels” (memorization, procedures without/with connections, doing mathematics). Eight textbooks approved by the Ministry of National Education were analyzed using a basic content-analytic approach. The findings show that the “data analysis” component is dominant across all grade levels, whereas the “problem formulation”, data collection” and “conclusion-drawing” components are largely limited. In terms of cognitive demand, tasks predominantly fall under “procedures with connections.” The intersectional analysis of data-investigation components × cognitive-demand tasks indicates that higher-order “doing mathematics” tasks are concentrated mainly within “problem formulation” and “data collection,” whereas the “data analysis” and “conclusion-drawing” components remain mostly at the “procedures with connections” level. No concentration at the “memorization” level was observed in any component. The results call for redesigning the data strand across all grade levels to ensure a balanced representation of the PPDAC (Problem, Plan, Data, Analysis, Conclusion) cycle; shifting from passive data reception to student-generated, real-data collection; increasing productive representation tasks and prediction-generalization-based inference; and strengthening higher-order reasoning at the “doing mathematics” level. In addition, it is recommended that this transformation be validated through classroom-based implementations and that comparative analyses across publishers and years test the continuity and generalizability of the observed patterns.
Keywords
Data Literacy, Statistical Investigation Cycle, Cognitive Demand Levels, Textbooks, Elementary–Middle School Mathematics
Supporting Institution
This study was not supported by any funding agency, institution, or organization.
Ethical Statement
Ethics Statement: This study analyzed only publicly available mathematics textbook content published by the Ministry of National Education of Turkey. Since the research did not involve human participants, experimental interventions, personal data collection, or clinical applications, approval from a Research and Publication Ethics Committee was deemed unnecessary. Consequently, no ethics committee application was submitted. All quotations and use of visual materials comply with the respective publishers’ terms of use and academic citation standards.
References
- Altun, A. (2013). Yapılandırmacı yaklaşım, sosyal bilgiler programı ve ders kitapları. B. Akbaba (Ed.), Konu alanı ders kitabı inceleme kılavuzu: Sosyal bilgiler içinde. Pegem Akademi.
- Arık, K. (2024). Teknoloji ve bilgi çağında veri okuryazarlığı: Tanım, özellikler ve Türkiye’deki uygulamalara bakış. Uluslararası Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri ve Bilgisayar Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.33461/uybisbbd.1387343
- Bargagliotti, A., Franklin, C., Arnold, P., Gould, R., Johnson, S., Perez, L., & Spangler, D. A. (2020). Pre-K–12 guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education II (GAISE II): A framework for statistics and data science education. American Statistical Association. https://www.amstat.org/docs/default-source/amstat-documents/gaiseiiprek-12_full.pdf
- Basyal, D., Jones, D. L., & Thapa, M. (2023). Cognitive demand of mathematics tasks in Nepali middle school mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(3), 863–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10269-3
- Bellinger, G., Castro, D., & Mills, A. (2004). Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Systems Thinking. https://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm
- Bozkurt, A., & Yılmaz, Ş. (2020). An examination of the activities in 8th grade mathematics textbooks based on the levels of cognitive demand. Elementary Education Online, 19(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.647122
- Drisco, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
- Horzum, T., & Duran, A. A. (2024). An examination of the cognitive demand levels reflected by mathematics tasks in the middle grades mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 294–321. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1522050
- Incikabi, S., Sadak, M., & Incikabi, L. (2023). Identifying mathematical literacy demands in Turkish, Singaporean and Australian textbooks. Acta Educationis Generalis, 13(1), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2023-0008
- Jones, D. L., & Jacobbe, T. (2014). An analysis of the statistical content in textbooks for prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(3), 1–36. https://jse.amstat.org/v22n3/jones.pdf
