Opinions of Mathematics Teachers about Mathematics Literacy Proficiency Level Table

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the opinions of mathematics teachers about the mathematical literacy proficiency level table and their knowledge about the proficiency levels. In line with the purpose of the research, case study was used as a method. In the sample of the study, there are 201 mathematics teachers working in various secondary and high schools in 56 provinces across Türkiye. The data collection instruments employed in this study encompassed a demographic information questionnaire, a proficiency level opinion form, and proficiency level determination questions. Of the educators who actively engaged in this research, 103 individuals were identified as male participants, while the remaining 98 were designated as female participants. 179 of them work in public schools and 22 of them work in private schools. Again, the working years of the teachers who mainly participated in the research are between 6 and 10 years. These teachers mainly teach 11th graders and work in Anatolian high schools. As a result of the findings obtained from the research, it is seen that although the teachers found the proficiency level table to be understandable in general, they emphasized the need to explain through more examples. In addition, when the teachers asked them to level the questions according to the proficiency level table, it was seen that they could not accurately level the questions according to the table. The research was concluded by giving suggestions to the people who will do similiar ones in this field.

Keywords

• Mathematical literacy
• Mathematics teacher
• Proficiency level table

References

1. Akgündüz, D. (2018). STEM eğtiminin kuramsal çerçevesi ve tarihsel gelişimi [Theoretical framework and historical development of STEM education]. In D. Akgündüz (Ed.). Okul öncesinden üniversiteye kuram ve uygulamada STEM eğitimi [STEM education in theory and practice from preschool to university] (pp. 19-50). Ankara, Türkiye: Anı Yayıncılık.
2. Aksu, N. (2019). Farklı ülkelerden PISA sınavına katılan öğrencilerin matematik okuryazarlığını etkileyen faktörlerin tahmin edilmesi [Estimation of factors affecting mathematical literacy of students from different countries participating in PISA exam] (Master’s thesis). Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Türkiye.
3. Altun, M. (2020). Matematik okuryazarlığı el kitabı: Yeni nesil soru yazma ve öğretim düzenleme teknikleri [Mathematical literacy handbook: Next generation question writing and instructional editing techniques]. Bursa, Türkiye: Aktüel Yayıncılık.
4. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2002). High-stakes assessment as a tool for promoting mathematical literacy and the democratization of mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, (21), 499-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00147-5
5. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M. H., & Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000-2006)-International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9210-y
6. Asar, E. (2019). PISA 2015 matematik okur-yazarlığı testinin farklı dilleri konuşan ülkeler arasında ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi [An investigation of the measurement of the measurement between speaking countries of different languages of the PISA 2015 mathematics literact test] (Master’s thesis). Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye.
7. Aşkar, P., & Olkun, S. (2005). PISA 2003 sonuçları açısından okullarda bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri kullanımı [The use of ICT in schools based on PISA 2003 data]. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, (19), 15-34.
8. Aydoğdu-İskenderoğlu, T., & Baki, A. (2011). İlköğretim 8. sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki soruların PISA matematik yeterlik düzeylerine göre sınıflandırılması [Classification of the questions in an 8th grade mathematics textbook with respect to the competency levels of PISA]. Eğitim ve Bilim [Education and Science Journal], 36(161), 287-301.

9. Aydoğdu-İskenderoğlu, T., Erkan, İ., & Serbest, A. (2013). 2008-2013 yılları arasında SBS matematik sorularının PISA matematik yeterlik düzeylerine göre sınıflandırılması [Classification of SBS mathematics questions between 2008-2013 years with respect to PISA competency levels]. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education], 4(2), 147-168.
10. Anderson, J. O., Lin, H. S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for international student assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 591-614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9090-y
11. Bansilal, S., Mkhwanazi, T., & Mahlabela, P. (2012). Mathematical literacy teachers’ engagement with contextual tasks based on personal finance. Perspectives in Education, 30(3), 98-109.
12. Bekdemir, M., & Duran, M. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencileri için görsel matematik okuryazarlığı öz yeterlik algı ölçeği (GMOYÖYAÖ)’nin geliştirilmesi [Development of a visual math literacy self efficacy perception scale (VMLSEPS) for elementary students]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty], 31(1), 89-115. https://doi.org/10.7822/egt96
13. Bezek-Güre, Ö., Kayri, M., & Erdoğan, F. (2020). PISA 2015 matematik okuryazarlığını etkileyen faktörlerin eğitsel veri madenciliği ile çözümlenmesi [Analysis of factors effecting PISA 2015 mathematics literacy via educational data mining]. Eğitim ve Bilim [Education and Science], 45(202), 393-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8477
14. Birbiri, D. (2014). PISA 2003 ve PISA 2012 sınav sonuçlarının problem çözme becerilerine yönelik değişkenlerinin Türkiye açısından incelenmesi [The review of variables related to problem solving skills in PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 of Turkey] (Master’s thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Türkiye.
15. Bozkurt, I. (2019). Matematik okuryazarlığı konusunda yetiştirilen öğretmenlerin öğrencilerinde matematik okuryazarlığının gelişiminin incelenmesi [The investigation of the development of student’ mathematical literacy who are educated by mathematic teachers trained about mathematical literacy] (Doctoral dissertation). Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Türkiye.
16. Calp, M., & Kalkan, M. (2022). Liselere geçiş sınavı Türkçe sorularının PISA okuma becerileri yeterlilik düzeyleriyle uyumluluk durumu [Compatibility of high school entrance exam Turkish questions with PISA reading skills proficiency levels]. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Mother Tongue Education], 10(4), 880-901. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1151295
17. Chung, Y. (2013). Education for sustainable development (ESD) in Sweden: A study of ESD within a transition affected by PISA reports (Master’s thesis). Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. California: SAGE Publications
19. Çapar, B., & Gürdal, O. (2001). Kütüphanecilik bölümü öğrencilerinin okuryazarlık durumu üzerine bir araştırma. [A research on the literacy status of library students]. Türk Kütüphaneciliği [Turkish Librarianship], 15(4), 407-418.
20. Çepni, S. (2018). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project work]. Trabzon, Türkiye: Celepler Matbaacılık Yayın ve Dağıtım.
21. De Corte, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction. Applied Psychology, 53(2), 279–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00172.x
22. Dilekçi, A., & Çiçek, S. (2022). An analysis of secondary school Turkish language course assessment tools in the sense of PISA reading skill criteria. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 9(1), 417-431.
23. Eraslan, A. (2009). Finlandiya’nın PISA’daki başarısının nedenleri [Reasons behind the success of Finland in PISA: Lessons for Turkey]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi [Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education], 3(2), 238-248.
24. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2018). What is a case study? Evidence-Based Nursing, (21), 7-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845
25. Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U. S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513640.pdf
26. Kabael, T., & Barak, B. (2016). Ortaokul matematik öğretmeni adaylarının matematik okuryazarlık becerilerinin PISA soruları üzerinden incelenmesi [Research of middle school pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical literacy on PISA items]. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi [Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education], 7(2), 321-349. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.73360
27. Kaleli-Yılmaz, G. (2019). Özel durum çalışması yöntemi [Case method]. In H. Özmen & O. Karamustafaoğlu (Eds.). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in education] (pp. 251-274). Pegem Academy.
28. Kamaliyah, K., Zulkardi, Z., & Darmawijoyo, D. (2013). Developing the sixth level of PISA-like mathematics problems for secondary school students. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 9-28.
29. Karabay, E., Yıldırım, A., & Güler, G. (2015). Yıllara göre PISA matematik okuryazarlığının öğrenci ve okul özellikleri ile ilişkisinin aşamalı doğrusal modellerle analizi [The analysis of the relationship of PISA maths literacy with student and school characteristics by years with hierarchical linear models]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty], (36), 137-151.
30. Karataş, Z. (2019). 11. ve 12. sınıf temel düzey ders kitaplarındaki örnek ve soruların PISA matematik yeterlik düzeylerine göre incelenmesi [Investigation of examples and questions in 11th and 12th grade elementary-level course books according to the PISA mathematics proficiency levels] (Master’s thesis). Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Türkiye.
31. Kıbrıslıoğlu, N. (2015). PISA 2012 matematik öğrenme modelinin kültürlere ve cinsiyete göre ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi: Türkiye-Çin(Şangay)- Endonezya örneği [The investigation of measuremnet invariance of PISA 2012 mathematics learning model according to culture and gender: Turkey-China(Shangai)-Indonesia] (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.
32. Korkmaz, T. (2016). Matematik uygulamaları dersinin öğrencielrin matematik okuryazarlığına etkisi [Effects of mathematical applications course on the students’ mathematical literacy] (Master’s thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
33. Kozaklı-Ülger, T., Bozkurt, I., & Altun, M. (2022). Analyzing in-service teachers’ process of mathematical literacy problem posing. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11985.
34. Lengnink, K. (2005). Reflecting mathematics: An approach to achieve mathematical literacy. ZDM, 37(3), 246-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0016-2
35. McCrone, S. S., & Dossey, J. A. (2007). Mathematical literacy – it’s become fundamental. Principal Leadership, 7(5), 32-37.
36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Ministry of National Education. (2005). Results of the OECD PISA-2003 research on Turkey: PISA 2003 project national final report. Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PISA-2003-Ulusal-Nihai-Rapor.pdf
38. Ministry of National Education. (2010a). PISA 2006 project national final report. Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/eski%20dosyalar/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PISA2006-Ulusal-Nihai-Rapor.pdf
39. Ministry of National Education. (2010b). International student assessment program PISA 2009 national preliminary report. Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PISA-2009-Ulusal-On-Rapor.pdf
40. Ministry of National Education. (2013). PISA 2012 national preliminary report. Retrieved from https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/test/analizler/docs/pisa/pisa2012-ulusal-on-raporu.pdf
41. Ministry of National Education. (2015). PISA 2012 survey national final report. Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/?page_id=22
42. Ministry of National Education. (2016). PISA 2015 national report. Retrieved from http://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/test/analizler/docs/PISA/PISA2015_Ulusal_Rapor.pdf
43. Ministry of National Education. (2019). PISA 2018 Turkey preliminary report. Retrieved from http://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_12/03105347_PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf
44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). PISA released items-mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/38709418.pdf
45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013a). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA%202012%20framework%20e-book_final.pdf
46. Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013b). PISA 2012 released mathematics items. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2012-2006-rel-items-maths-ENG.pdf
47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do student performance in mathematics, reading and science volume I. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-I.pdf
48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a). PISA 2018 results what students know and can do: Volume I. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5f07c754-en.pdf?expires=1596486489&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=69EFF04AFE73D6569399BE44F1593FA4
49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/b25efab8-en.pdf?expires=1695022212&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CF870A7090786A5FC2AFC4D80B6FE653
50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 assessment and analytical framework. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/dfe0bf9c-en.pdf?expires=1695407997&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=42F04962AA786CC71365DCC4FDFFB32F
51. Özgen, K., & Kutluca, T. (2013). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik okuryazarlığına yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi [An investigation of primary mathematics pre-service teachers’ views towards mathematical literacy]. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Dicle University Social Sciences Institute Journal], (10), 1-22.
52. Öztürk, N., & Masal, E. (2020). Sınavla öğrenci alacak ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezi sınav matematik sorularının PISA matematik okuryazarlığı yeterlik düzeyleri açısından sınıflandırılması [The classification of math questions of central examination for secondary education institutions in terms of PISA mathematics literacy levels]. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 4(1), 17-33.
53. Retnawati, H., & Wulandari, N. F. (2019). The development of students’ mathematical literacy proficiency. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 77(4), 502-514.
54. Sarıkaya, B. K. (2022). Ortaokul matematij uygulamaları ders kitaplarının PISA yeterlik düzeyleri açısından incelenmesi [Examination of secondary school mathematics applications textbooks in terms of PISA proficiency levels] (Master’s thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
55. Sari, R. H. N., & Wijaya, A. (2017). Mathematical literacy of senior high school students in Yogyakarta. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 100-107. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v4i1.10649
56. Seis, A. (2011). 6.-8. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının PISA 2003 belirsizlik ölçeğine göre incelenmesi [An investigation of 6th – 8th grade mathematics textbooks according to PISA 2003 uncertainty scale] (Master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Türkiye.
57. Selçuk, E., & Tezbaşaran, A. A. (2022). PISA fen okuryazarlığı yeterlik düzeylerinin ölçme ve değerlendirme ve fen bilimleri alan uzmanları açısından değerlendirilmesi [Examination of PISA science literacy proficiency levels in terms of experts]. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi [Anatolian Journal of Teacher], 6(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.1096600
58. Soytürk, İ. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik okuryazarlığı öz-yeterlik ve matematiksel problem çözmeye yönelik inançlarının araştırılması [An investigation of classroom teacher candidates’ self-efficacy about mathematical literacy and their beliefs about mathematical problem solving] (Master’s thesis). İstanbul University, İstanbul, Türkiye.
59. Sönmez, D. (2022). PISA matematik okuryazarlığı sorularının farklı açılardan kritik edilmesi [Criticizing from different perspective of PISA mathematical literacy questions] (Doctoral dissertation). Bursa Uludağ University, Bursa, Türkiye.
60. Sönmez, D., & Kaleli-Yılmaz, G. (2021, October). PISA matematik okuryazalığı yeterlik düzeyleri tablosu hakkında ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri [The opions of secondary school mathematics teachers are about PISA mathematical literacy proficiency levels table]. Paper presented at Fifth International Symposium on Turkish Computer and Mathematics Education, Antalya, Türkiye.
61. Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., & Özer, M. (2020). Türkiye’de öğrencilerin okuryazarlık becerilerinin yıllara ve okul türlerine göre değişimi: öğrencilerin PISA uygulamalarındaki performansı [Changes in literacy of students in Turkey by years and school types: Performance of students in PISA applications]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi [Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology], 11(1), 76-97. : https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.702191
62. Şaban, H. İ. (2019). Matematik ders kitapları cebir öğrenme alanındaki soruların PISA matematik yeterlik düzeylerine göre incelenmesi [Investigation of questions related to algebra learning in mathematics textbooks with respect to the competency levels of PISA] (Master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye.
63. Şahin, N. (2022). Ortaokul matematik kitaplarındaki geometri sorularının PISA matematik yeterliliklerine göre incelenmesi [Analysing of geometry questions in secondary school mathematics books in terms of PISA mathematics proficiency] (Master’s thesis). Giresun University, Giresun, Türkiye.
64. Şefik, Ö., & Dost, Ş. (2016). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik okuryazarlığı hakkındaki görüşleri [Secondary preservice mathematics teachers’ views on mathematical literacy]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED) [Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education], 10(2), 320-338. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.277935
65. Turkish Language Association. (1998). Turkish language association. Ankara, Türkiye: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
66. Ültay, E., Akyurt, H., & Ültay, N. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde betimsel içerik analizi [Descriptive content analysis in social sciences]. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [IBAD Journal of Social Sciences], (10), 188-201. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.871703
67. Vila, F., & Sanz, A. (2013). Mathematical literacy in Plant Physiology undergraduates: Results of interventions aimed at improving students’ performance. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(6), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.813979
68. Yeğit, H. (2019). Beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik okuryazarlık başarı düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Analysis of mathematics literacy levels of fifth grade students]. Fen, Matematik, Girişimcilik ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education], 2(3), 174-195.
69. Yenilmez, K., & Ata, A. (2013). Matematik okuryazarlığı dersinin öğretmen adaylarının matematik okuryazarlığı özyeterliğine etkisi [Effects of mathematical literacy course on pre-service mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy levels of mathematical literacy]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(2), 1803-1816. https://doi.org/10.9761/jasss_675
70. Yıldırım, İ. (2019). 5-8. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının PISA değişim ve ilişkiler ölçeğine göre incelenmesi [An investigation of 5-8th grade mathematics textbooks according to PISA change and relations scale] (Master’s thesis). Bartın University, Bartın, Türkiye.
71. Yore, L. D., David, P., & Tuan, H. L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, (5), 559-589.