Development of a Mathematical Language Scale in Fraction Teaching (MLSFT)

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 71 - 87, 01.03.2022

Belgin Bal İncebacak Esen Ersoy

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.29.9.2

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable measuring instrument that can measure the level of mathematical language used by students and their teachers during the teaching of fractions to fourth-grade primary school students. This study is a methodological validity and reliability study. In total, 999 students from fourteen different secondary schools were separated into two other sampling groups, where they participated in the sample of the survey for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). These stages are identified as the item pool stage, the testing validity of scope stage (expert opinion stage), the factor analysis stage (construct validity), and the reliability stage. Mathematical language scale in the teaching of fractions consists of the student approach, the use of fraction language and the use of symbols, and the written expressions of sub-dimensions. The exploratory factor analysis method (EFA) shows that the instrument can be built on three factors. It is also confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). It can be accepted according to NFI indexes. As a result, the mathematical language scale is found to be valid and reliable in fraction teaching. To this end, it can be stated that the MLSFT scale can be used in fraction teaching for elementary school students to reveal their abilities and the skills of teachers in terms of mathematical language used.

Keywords

fractions teaching, mathematical language, reliability, scale development, validity

Project Number

1919B021601240

References

• Aydın, Funda, and Özmen, Zeynep Medine. (2012). Sözel problemlerde 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin verilenler ile istenilenler arasındaki ilişkiyi belirleyebilme becerileri, “In verbal problems, 8th grade students' ability to determine the relationship between given and desired” X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde, https://www.pegem.net/Akademi/kongrebildiri_detay.aspx?id=135846
• Aydın, S., and Yeşilyurt, M. (2007). Student’s view about the language used in mathematics teaching”: Electronıc journal of social siıences, 6 (22), 90-100.
• Başol, G., Çakan, M., Kan, A., Özbek, Ö.Y., Özdmir, D., and Yaşar, M. (2008). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. “Measurement and Evaluation in Education” Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Brown, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. edited by K. A. Bollen, J. S. Long, Testing structural equation models, 136–162. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Veri Analizi El kitabı: İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni, SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. “Data Analysis Handbook: Statistics, Research Design, SPSS Applications and Interpretation” Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Coakes, S. J. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without Anguish: Version 12.0 for Windows. Melbourne: John Wiley and Sons.
• Çalıkoğlu Bali, G. (2002). Language in mathematics teaching scale, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 57-61.
• Çalıkoğlu Bali, G. (2003). The opinions of pre-service mathematics teachers on language in teaching mathematics. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 19-25.
• Çapık, C. (2014). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(3), 196-205.
• Çimen, E. E. (2012). The planning of education and instruction process which fosters development of mathemaical power. Education Sciences, 7(2), 823-839.
• Doğan, M., and Güner, P. (2012). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik dilini anlama ve kullanma becerilerinin incelenmesi. “Examination of pre-service primary school mathematics teachers' skills of understanding and using mathematics language” X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde, 29.06.2012.
• Ellerton.N.F., and Clarkson, P.C. (1996). Language factors in mathematics teaching and learning. In International handbook of mathematics education, 987-1033. Springer, Dordrecht.
• Gable, R. K. (1986). Instrument Development in The Affective Domain. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
• Gawned, S. (1990). An emerging model of the language of mathematics’ in J. Bickmore branded. Language in mtahematics. Australian Reading Ass. Carltion. Vic.27-42.
• Göktürk, B., Soylu, Y., and Göktürk, Ö. (2012). Öğrencilerin matematik öğretiminde kullanılan dile yönelik görüşlerinin karşılaştırılması. “Comparison of students' views on the language used in mathematics teaching” X. Ulusal Fen ilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, Niğde,
• Güneş, G., and Gökçek, T. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarinin matematik okuryazarlik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. “Determining the mathematical literacy levels of prospective teachers” Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 70-79.
• Hutcheson, G. D.,and Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage.
• Işık, C., and Kar, T. (2012). Analyzing Problems Posed by 7th Grade Students for Addition Operation with Fractions. Elementary Education Online, 11(4), 1021-1035.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. “Scientific research methods” Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık
• Kaya, D., and Keşan, C. (2012). Conceptual and operational implementations for numeric section students who are a candidate for university. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(3), 347-351.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
• Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology, New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
• Lansdell, J. M. (1999). Introducing young children to mathematical concepts: Problems with new terminology. Educational Studies, 25(3), 327-333
• Marsh, H.W., and Hocevar, D. (1988). A new more powerful approach to multitrait multimethod analyses: Application of second order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 107-117.
• Misquitta, R. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (2), 109-119.
• Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research (Vol. 1). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Murphy, K. R., and Davidshofer, C. O. (1998). Pschological Testing Principles and Applications. Fourth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Myers, W. H. (2000). A structural equation model of family factors associated with adolescent depression PhD diss., University of Memphis.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and evaiuation standards for school mathematics, NCTM, Reston, WA.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematic http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=16909s
• Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10 (4), 622-647.
• Orton, A., and Frobisher, L. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London: Cassell.
• Otterburn, M.K., and Nicholson, A.R. (1976). The Language of CSE mathematics, Mathematics in School (5), 18-20.
• Pesen, C. (2007). Students' Misconceptions about Fractions. Education and Science, 32 (143), 79-88.
• Raiker, A. (2002). Spoken Language and Mahtematics. Cambridge Journaul of Education, 32(1), 45-60.
• Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ. Sinanoğlu, O. (2000). Bye-bye Türkçe. Otopsi yayınları. İstanbul
• Singh, Y. K. (2006). Fundamental of Research Methodology and Statistics. New Delhi, New Age International (P). Ltd., Publishers.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., and Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS'le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta.
• Soylu, Y., and Aydın, S. (2006). A study on importance of the conceptual and operational knowledge are balanced in mathematics lessons. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 83-95.
• Sulak, H., Ardahan, H. Avcıoğlu, A., and Sulak, H. (1999). Diagnosing the Misconceptions of Primary and Secondary School Students in Solving Verbal Problems, Selçuk Üniversitesi Araştırma Vakfı Projesi, 1996-1997, Proje No: 96/122, Konya.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation models. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Şeker, H., and Gençdoğan, B. (2006). Developing measurement tools in psychology and education. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş, “Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları.
• Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. California State University Northridge: Harper Collins College Publishers.
• Tekindal, S. (2009). Creating a tool for measuring affective characteristics. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert type scale development guide. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayını
• Toptaş, V. 2015. An overview of the mathematical language, International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports &ScienceEducation, 4(1), 18-22
• Walkey, F., and Welch, G. (2010). Demystifying factor analysis: How it works and how to use it. Bloomington: Xlibris, Corp.
• Walsh, W. B., and Betz, N. E. (1995). Tests and Assessment. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Wang, J., and Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Yavuz, S. (2005). Developing a technology attitude scale for pre-service chemistry teachers, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 17-25.
• Yavuz-Mumcu, H. (2015). Grade 6, 7 and 8 Students’ Misconceptions about Decimal
• Fractions and their Reasons, Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 294-338.
• Yeşildere, S. (2015). The Competencies of Prospective Primary School Mathematics Teachers in Using Mathematical Language. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 61-70. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/buje/issue/3824/51415
• Yılmaz, V., and Çelik, H. E. (2009). Structural equation modeling-I. Ankara: Pegem A.
• Yiğit, N., and Kurnaz, M. A. 2010. Physics attitude scale: Its development, validity and reliability. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 4(1), 29-49.
• Yüzerler, S., and Doğan, M. (2012). 6th and 7th grade students' ability to use mathematical language. X. Ulusal Fen bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı. Niğde, 29.06.2012.