Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Kesirlerle Bölme İşlemine Yönelik Kurdukları Problemlerin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırma, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının kesirlerle bölme işlemine yönelik problem kurma becerilerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Temel nitel araştırma yaklaşımıyla yürütülen çalışmada, bir yükseköğretim kurumunda öğrenim gören 101 öğretmen adayından elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, adayların problem kurmaya istekli olduklarını ancak oluşturdukları problemlerin önemli bir kısmının bağlamsal hikâye içermediğini, matematiksel ifadeyi tam olarak yansıtmadığını ve geçerli soru köküne sahip olmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, adayların çoğunlukla kesirlerde bölme işleminin ölçme anlamına odaklandığı, diğer anlamsal türleri yeterince kullanmadığı belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının problem kurma süreçlerinde kavramsal eksiklikler sergilediğini ve araştırmacı açısından pedagojik alan bilgisi gelişimine ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir. Araştırmada, öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında problem kurma becerilerinin içerik ve bağlam açısından bütüncül biçimde ele alınması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Kesirlerle bölme işlemi
• Problem kurma
• Sınıf öğretmeni adayları

Project Number

08/02

Ethical Statement

ÇIKAR ÇATIŞMASI BEYANI Yazar bu çalışmasında herhangi bir şekilde çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan eder. ARAŞTIRMA VE YAYIN ETİĞİ BEYANI Yazar bu çalışmasında araştırma ve yayın etiğine uyulduğunu beyan eder. Araştırma için Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’ndan (27 Haziran 2025 tarih ve 08/02 numaralı) etik kurul izni alınmıştır. YAZAR SORUMLULUK BEYANI Yazar bu çalışmanın her aşamasını kendisinin yaptığını beyan eder. ÜRETKEN YAPAY ZEKÂ KULLANIMI BEYANI Yazar bu çalışmada “Çeviri, Dil düzenleme/kontrol, Kaynakça düzenleme” amacıyla üretken yapay zekâ araçlarının (ChatGPT) kullanıldığını beyan eder.

An Analysis of Problems Posed by Pre-service Primary School Teachers on Fraction Division

Abstract

This study aims to examine the problem-posing skills of pre-service primary school teachers regarding fraction division. Conducted within a basic qualitative research design, the study analysed data collected from 101 pre-service teachers enrolled in a higher education institution. The findings indicate that although the participants were willing to pose problems, a significant portion of the problems they generated lacked contextual stories, did not fully reflect mathematical expressions, and were not based on valid question stems. In addition, it was determined that the participants mostly focused on the measurement meaning of division and did not adequately employ other semantic types. The findings indicate that pre-service teachers exhibited conceptual shortcomings in their problem-posing processes, and from the researcher’s perspective, this suggests a need for further development of their pedagogical content knowledge. The study suggests that problem-posing skills should be addressed in a more holistic manner, both in terms of content and context, within teacher education programs.

Keywords

• Fraction division
• Problem posing
• Pre-service primary school teachers.

Project Number

08/02

Ethical Statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The author declares that there is no conflict of interest in this study. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT The author declares that research and publication ethics are followed in this study. The necessary permission to conduct the study was obtained from Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University (June 27, 2025; Protocol No: 08/02) AUTHOR LIABILITY STATEMENT The author declares that she has done every step of this work herself. GENERATIVE AI USE DECLARATION The author declares that GenAI tools (ChatGPT) were used in this study for “Translation, Editing/language checking, Editing References” purposes.

References

1. Akçay, A. O., & Ardıç, F. (2020). Examination of preservice primary school teachers' problem-posing skills with fractions. The Journal of International Education Science, 25(7), 108–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/INESJOURNAL.47919
2. Aksu, M. (1997). Student performance in dealing with fractions. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10544595
3. Albayrak, M. (2000). İlköğretimde matematik ve öğretimi (2. baskı). Işık Matbaası.
4. Aydoğdu, M. Z. (2024). Öğretmen adaylarının kurulan matematik problemlerini değerlendirme kriterlerinin incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 14(1), 427-441. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1390162
5. Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466. https://doi.org/10.1086/461626
6. Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (2012). Rational numbers: Toward a semantic analysis—Emphasis on the operator construct. In T. Carpenter, E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers (pp. 13–47). Routledge.
7. Bold, T., Filmer, D., Martin, G., Molina, E., Rockmore, C., Stacy, B., Svensson, J., & Wane, W. (2017). What do teachers know and do? Does it matter? Evidence from primary schools in Africa (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7956). The World Bank. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906568
8. Bütüner, S. Ö. (2019). Türk ve Singapur matematik ders kitaplarında problem analizi: Kesirlerde bölme işlemi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47, 370-394. https://doi.org/0.9779/pauefd.522909

9. Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2005). Revisiting a theoretical model on fractions: Implications for teaching and research. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 233–240). PME.
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge.
11. Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project (4th ed.). How to Books.
12. Georgia Department of Education. (2019). Georgia Standards of Excellence framework: Mathematics sixth grade unit 1—Number system fluency. Georgia Standards of Excellence. https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Documents/Math-Grade-6-Unit-1.pdf
13. Hoppers, W. (Ed.). (2009). Post-primary education in Africa: Challenges and approaches for expanding learning opportunities. Association for the Development of Education in Africa. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/C3D18352323FC4EC492577F200054B48-Full_Report.pdf
14. Huberman, M. (1994). Techniques of data analysis. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage.
15. Işık, C., Kar, T., Yalçın, T., & Zehir, K. (2011). Prospective teachers’ skills in problem posing with regard to different problem posing models. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.127
16. Işıksal, M. (2006). A study on pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge regarding the multiplication and division of fractions [npublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
17. Kar, T. (2014). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenlerinin öğretim için matematiksel bilgisinin problem kurma bağlamında incelenmesi: Kesirlerle toplama işlemi örneği [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Atatürk Üniversitesi.
18. Kar, T. (2023). Matematiksel problem kurmanın doğası, amacı ve önemi. In K. Özgen, T. Kar, S. Çenberci, & Y. Zengin (Eds.), Matematikte problem çözme ve problem kurma (pp. 243–261). Pegem Akademi.
19. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler (23. baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
20. Köklü, Ö. (2017). TIMSS matematik verilerinin aşamalı ölçme modelleri ile içerik, bilişsel ve konu alanları bakımından incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.307020
21. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Towards a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Information Age Publishing.
22. Lamon, S. J. (2008). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Leung, S. S., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217299
24. Lin, P. J. (2004). Supporting teachers on designing problem-posing tasks as a tool of assessment to understand students' mathematical learning. In Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
25. McAllister, C. J., & Beaver, C. (2012). Identification of error types in preservice teachers’ attempts to create fraction story problems for specified operations. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00122.x
26. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
28. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2022). PISA 2022 Türkiye raporu (ISBN No. 978-975-11-7448-2). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/www/raporlar/icerik/5
29. Education Review Office. (2024). Making It Count: Teaching Maths in Years 1–3: Good Practice Report. Education Review Office. https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/media/thudhqpr/making-it-count-teaching-maths-in-years-1-3.pdf
30. Mutlu, E. (2023). Ortaokul matematik öğretmeni adaylarının kesirlerle bölmeye yönelik problem oluşturma ve çözme becerilerinin gelişimi. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(3), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1245927
31. Newstead, K., & Murray, H. (1998). Young students' constructions of fractions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 295–302).
32. Okuyucu, M. A., & Uyar, A. (2025). Matematik eğitiminde öğretmenlerin problem kurma süreçleri. Bilim Eğitim Sanat ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 9(1), 66–81. https://izlik.org/JA44JC84AN
33. Osana, H. P., & Royea, D. A. (2011). Obstacles and challenges in preservice teachers’ explorations with fractions: A view from a small-scale intervention study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(4), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.07.001
34. Platas, L. M., Perry, L., Piper, B., Sitabkhan, Y., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. (2022). School-entry predictors of lower primary reading and mathematics achievement in Kenya. Research in Comparative and International Education, 17(3), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/17454999221084414
35. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., ... & Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
36. Sitabkhan, Y., & Platas, L. M. (2018). Early mathematics counts: Promising instructional strategies from low- and middle-income countries (Occasional Paper, RTI Press Publication No. OP-0055-1807). RTI International. https://www.rti.org/rti-press-publication/early-mathematics-counts-promising-instructional-strategies-low-and-middle-income-countries/fulltext.pdf
37. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X01500
38. Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers' knowledge of children's conceptions: The case of division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/749817
39. Toluk-Uçar, Z. (2009). Developing pre-service teachers’ understanding of fractions through problem posing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.003
40. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2015). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (9th ed.). Pearson.
41. Voica, C., Singer, F. M., & Stan, E. (2020). How are motivation and self-efficacy interacting in problem-solving and problem-posing? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 487–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10005-0
42. Wahyu, K., Kuzu, T. E., Subarinah, S., Ratnasari, D., & Mahfudy, S. (2020). Partitive fraction division: Revealing and promoting primary students' understanding. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 237–258. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.11062.237-258.
43. Xie, J., & Masingila, J. O. (2017). Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with prospective primary teachers: A case of using fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9760-9
44. Zembat, İ. O. (2015). An alternative route to teaching fraction division: Abstraction of common denominator algorithm. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(32), 399–422. https://iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/88