Matematik Ders Kitaplarında Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamlarına Yönelik Vurguların İncelenmesi: Bir Doküman ve İçerik Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı ve özel yayınevleri tarafından hazırlanan ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarında okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik vurguları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında, belirlenen dört ana boyut üzerinden yapılan analizler, kitaplardaki etkinliklerin büyük ölçüde geleneksel sınıf ortamına ve bireysel öğrenmeye odaklandığını ortaya koymuştur. Bununla birlikte, incelenen etkinliklerin önemli bir bölümünün okul dışı öğrenmeye uygun potansiyele sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Altıncı sınıf düzeyindeki kitapların, otantik bağlam ve işbirlikli çalışma açısından diğer sınıflara kıyasla daha zengin içerik sunduğu; yedinci sınıf kitaplarının ise soyut içeriğin ağırlıkta olması nedeniyle daha sınırlı bir potansiyel sergilediği tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, ders kitaplarında gerçek yaşam bağlamlarının, üstbilişsel süreçlerin ve sosyal etkileşim fırsatlarının artırılması gerektiğine işaret etmekte ve özellikle soyut matematiksel kavramların okul dışı öğrenme ile bütünleştirilmesine yönelik pedagojik öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Okul dışı öğrenme
• matematik eğitimi
• ders kitabı analizi
• otantik bağlam
• yapılandırmacı öğrenme
• işbirlikli öğrenme

Examining the Emphasis on out-of-Schilearning Environments in Mathematics Textbooks: A Document Content Analysis

Abstract

This study aims to examine the emphasis placed on out-of-school learning environments in middle school mathematics textbooks prepared by the Ministry of National Education and private publishing houses. Analyses conducted across four main dimensions revealed that the activities in the textbooks largely focused on traditional classroom settings and indivi-dual learning. However, a significant portion of the examined activities were found to have the potential to be suitable for out-of-school learning. It was determined that sixth-grade textbooks offer richer content than other grades in terms of authentic context and collaborative work, while seventh-grade textbooks exhibited more limited potential due to their predominance of abstract content. The study's results indicate the need to increase the inclusion of real-life contexts, metacognitive processes, and opportunities for social interaction in textbooks, and offer pedagogical recommendations specifically for integrating abstract mathematical concepts into out-of-school learning.

Keywords

• Out-of-school learning
• mathematics education
• textbook analysis
• authentic context
• constructivist learning
• collaborative learning.

References

1. Alkan, S., Karaali, G., & Taştepe, M. (Eds.). (2025). Mathematics beyond the classroom: A guide for expansive learning in out-of-school environments. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-05318-3
2. Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(3), 235–245.
3. Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects—State, trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302716
4. Boaler, J. (1993). The role of contexts in mathematics classrooms: Do they make mat-hematics more “real”? For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 12–17.
5. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Learning science outside the classroom. Routledge.
6. Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2021). Flipped classroom as a reform-oriented approach to teaching mathematics. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(3), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01219-8
7. Çağlakpınar, B. (2022). Okul dışı öğrenme ortamları kılavuz kitaplarının ilkokul ma-tematik programı kazanımları açısından analizi (Yüksek lisans tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi).
8. Dayak, E. (1998). İlköğretim 5. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının eğitim öğretime uy-gunluğunun değerlendirilmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi).

9. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
10. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. AltaMira.
11. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2016). The museum experience revisited. Routledge.
12. Fan, L., Chen, J., Zhu, Y., Qiu, X., & Hu, J. (2004). Textbook use within and beyond mathematics classrooms: A study of 12 secondary schools in Kunming and Fuzhou of China. In L. Fan, N.-Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 228–261). World Scientific.
13. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646.
14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cogniti-ve–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
15. Goos, M., Carreira, S., & Namukasa, I. K. (2023). Mathematics and interdisciplinary STEM education: Recent developments and future directions. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55(7), 1199–1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01516-0
16. Güzel, D., & Şimşek, A. (2012). Milli eğitim şûralarında ders kitapları. Sakarya University Faculty of Education Journal, 23(23), 172–216.
17. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Beltz.
18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
19. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Ortaokul matematik öğretim programı.
20. Obay, M., & Çelik, H. C. (2019). What do prospective primary school mathematics teachers think about context-based learning? A qualitative study. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(14), 284–313.
21. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics and financial literacy. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
22. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Learning in a digital world. https://doi.org/10.1787/7d4f0e59-en
23. Palm, T., Boesen, J., & Lithner, J. (2017). Mathematical reasoning requirements in Swedish upper secondary level assessments. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2017.1258614
24. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158–175.
25. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mat-hematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
26. Schneider, W., & Artelt, C. (2010). Metacognition and mathematics education. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 42(2), 149–161.
27. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205749219600202
28. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.
29. Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1–3), 13–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014097416157
30. Soylu, Ü. İ., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2021). Examining national academic studies on material-supported science teaching in out-of-school learning environments. Journal of Research in Informal Environments, 6(2), 203–226.
31. Stillman, G. (2020). State of the art on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 52(3), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01171-7
32. Tillman, D. A., An, S. A., & Robertson, W. H. (2019). The relationship between formal and informal learning. In Schools and informal learning in a knowledge-based world (pp. 62–80). Springer.
33. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Kluwer Academic.
34. Vasuki, M., Celestin, M., & Kumar, A. D. (2016). Curriculum design in mathematics: A review of effective frameworks and models. Growth, 2(2).
35. Vela, K. N., Pedersen, R. M., & Baucum, M. N. (2020). Improving perceptions of STEM careers through informal learning environments. Journal of Research in Inno-vative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-08-2019-0054
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University.
37. Žakelj, A., Cotič, M., & Doz, D. (2024). Evaluating the impact of active and experien-tial learning in mathematics. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2436698. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2436698
38. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Seçkin.