Ortaokul Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı Kazanımlarının TIMSS-2019 Bilişsel Alan Becerisine Göre Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada 2018 ortaokul matematik öğretim programında yer alan kazanımların TIMSS-2019 bilişsel alan becerilerine göre nitel araştırma yöntemi ve doküman analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı tarafından yayınlanan Ortaokul (5., 6., 7., 8. Sınıflar) Matematik Öğretim Programında yer alan toplam 215 kazanım ifadesi TIMSS bilişsel alan becerileri dikkate alınarak öğrenme alanlarına ve sınıf düzeyine göre değerlendirilmiştir. Müfredatta yer alan bazı kazanım ifadeleri birden fazla düzey içerdiğinden 268 kazanım ifadesi kategorize edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre tüm kazanımların yaklaşık %28'i bilme, %48'i uygulama ve %24'ü muhakeme bilişsel alanlarındadır. Bilmenin bilişsel alanı en çok 5. sınıf kazanımlarında görülmektedir. Uygulama alanı en çok 7. sınıfta görülmektedir. Muhakeme alanı 8. sınıfta en yüksek, en düşük ise 5. sınıfta görülmektedir. Dikkat çekici bir şekilde, öğrenme çıktılarının bilişsel özelliklerinin öğrenme alanlarına göre dağılımında tüm öğrenme alanları içinde en çok uygulama bilişsel alanına yer verilmektedir. Akıl yürütmenin bilişsel alanı en yüksek oranda veri işleme öğrenme alanında yer alırken; bilmenin bilişsel alanı çoğunlukla sayıların ve işlemlerin öğrenme alanında yer alır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• TIMSS 2019
• bilişsel alan
• matematik dersi öğretim programı

Analysis of Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum Learning Outcomes by TIMSS-2019 Cognitive Domain Skills

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the learning outcomes in the 2018 secondary school mathematics curriculum according to TIMSS-2019 cognitive domain skills by using qualitative research method and document analysis. The study evaluated a total of 215 learning outcome statements in the Secondary School (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Grades) Mathematics Curriculum published by the Board of Education and Discipline according to learning domains and grade level, taking into account TIMSS cognitive domain skills. Since some of the learning outcome statements in the curriculum contain more than one level, 268 outcome statements were categorized. According to the findings obtained from the research, approximately 28% of all learning outcome are in knowing, 48% in applying, and 24% in reasoning cognitive domains. The cognitive domain of knowing is mostly observed in the 5th grade learning outcomes. The applying domain is mostly observed in the 7th grade. The reasoning domain is observed at the highest rate in the 8th grade while it is observed with the lowest rate in the 5th grade. Remarkably, the applying cognitive domain is included the most in all learning domains in the distribution of the cognitive characteristics of the learning outcomes based on the learning domains. While the cognitive domain of reasoning takes place in the data processing learning domain at the highest rate; the cognitive domain of knowing is mostly located in the learning domain of numbers and operations.

Keywords

• Secondary school curriculum
• secondary school mathematics course
• cognitive domain skills
• TIMSS.

References

1. Ababneh, E., Al-Tweissi, A. and Abulibdeh, K. (2016). TIMSS and PISA impact – the case of Jordan. Research Papers in Education, 31(5), 542-555.
2. Aktan, O. (2019). Investigation of primary school mathematics curriculum lesson acquisitions according to renewed bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48, 1-18.
3. Aydın, M. (2016). What do international student assessments tell us? E. Yılmaz, M. Çalışkan and S. A. Sulak (Ed.), In reflections from educational sciences (pp. 213-226). Konya: Çizgi Bookstore.
4. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E. Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L. and Smith, T. A. (1997). Mathematics Achievement in Middle School Years:IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Retrieved from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/amtimss.pdf in 02.08.2020.
5. Beckmann, S. (2004). Solving algebra and other story problems with simple diagrams: A method demonstrated in grade 4-6 texts used in Singapore. The Mathematics Educator, 14(1), 42-46.
6. Bilican, S., Demirtaşlı, R. N. ve Kilmen, S. (2011). The attitudes and opinions of the students towards mathematics course: The comparison of TIMSS 1999 and TIMSS 2007. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1277-1283.
7. Böge, H. ve Akıllı, R. (2019). Secondary school and imamhatip secondary school mathematics 8 textbook. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Publications.
8. Bulut A. S. (2016, 3-5 November). The examination of the TIMSS exam in terms of teachers’ views. International Academic Research Congress, Antalya. Retrieved 02.07.2020 from https://books.inescongress.com/publication-ines-2016-full-text-book-2.html.

9. Bütüner, S. Ö. ve Güler, M. (2017). Facing the reality: a study on TIMSS mathematics achievement of Turkey. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 12(23), 161-184.
10. Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S and Chinese students’ mathematical performance on tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
11. Creswell, J. W. and Miller, D. W. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
12. Çilingir, E. ve Dinç-Artut, P.(2016). Investigation by cognitive domains of the questions from TIMSS 2011 and math textbook. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(21), 79-94.
13. Delil, H. (2006). An analysis of geometry problems in 6-8 grades Turkish mathematics textbooks. Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
14. Deli̇l, A., Özcan, B. ve Işlak, O. (2020). An analysis of Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum learning outcomes in terms of TIMSS-2019 assessment frameworks. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(1), 270-282.
15. Fan, L., Zhu, Y. and Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633-646.
16. Gürlen, E., Demirkaya, A. ve Doğan, N. (2019). Experts opinions on the impacts of PISA and TIMMS exams on educational policies and curriculums. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 52, 287-319.
17. Güner, N., Sezer, R. ve Akkuş-İspir, O. (2013). Middle school mathematics teachers’ perspective on TIMSS. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 33(1), 11-29.
18. İncikabi, L. (2012). After the reform in Turkey: A content analysis of SBS and TIMSS assessment in terms of mathematics content, cognitive domains, and item types. Education as Change, 16(2), 301-312.
19. İncikabı, L. And Hartono, T. (2013). A comparative analysis of ratio and proportion problems in Turkish and the US middle school mathematics textbooks. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 1-15.
20. İncikabı, L., Mercimek, O., Ayanoğlu, P., Aliustaoğlu, F. ve Tekin, N. (2016). An evaluation of middle school mathematics teaching programs based on TIMSS Cognitive Domains. Elementary Education Online, 15(4), 1149-1163.
21. İncikabı, L. and Tjoe, H. (2013). A comparative analysis of ratio and proportion problems in Turkish and the US middle school mathematics textbooks. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 1-15.
22. İpek, J., Yılmaz-Turgut, G. ve Tunga, Y. (2016). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının PISA ve TIMSS sınavları hakkındaki görüşleri. International Journal of Innovative Research in Education, 3(1), 32-41.
23. Kayapınar, A., Şahin N., Erdem G. ve Şentürk-Leylek B. (2019). Primary school math grade 4 textbook. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Publications.
24. Kılıç, H., Aslan-Tutak, F. ve Ertaş, G. (2014). Changes in middle school mathematics curriculum through the lens of TIMSS. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(2), 129-141.
25. Korkmaz, H. (2004). Alternative assessment approaches in science and technology education. Ankara: Yeryüzü Publishing.
26. Kul, Ü., Sevimli, E. and Aksu, Z. (2018). A comparison of mathematics questions in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of synthesized taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Education, 7(3), 136-155.
27. Kulm G. and Capraro R. M. (2008). Textbook use and student learning of number and algebra ideas in middle grades. G. Klum (Ed.), Teacher knowledge and practice in middle grades mathematics in (pp. 255-272). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
28. Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 234-241.
29. MoNE, (2018). Mathematics curriculum. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=329 on 30.08.2020.
30. Martin, M. O., & Kelly, D. L. (1998). TIMSS technical report. Retrieved from https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/isc/publications.html in 01.09.2020.
31. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (2nd Ed.). USA: SAGE Publications.
32. Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/frameworks/ in 02.10.2020.
33. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L. and Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
34. Reys, B. J. and Reys, R.E. (2006). The development and publication of elementary mathematics textbooks: Let the Buyer Beware! Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 377-384.
35. Suna H.E., Şensoy S., Parlak B., & Özdemir E. (2020). TIMSS 2019 Turkey preliminary report. Retrieved from https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_12/10175514_TIMSS_2019_Turkiye_On_Raporu_.pdf on 3.08.2021.
36. Stein, M.K., Remillard, J. and Smith, M.S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr., (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (319–369). Information Age.
37. Şişman, M., Acat, M. B., Aypay, A. ve Karadağ, E. (2011). TIMSS 2007 national math and science report 8th grade. Ankara: EARGED Publications.
38. Theisen, G. L. and Boakari, F. M. (1983). The underachievement of cross-national studies of achievement. Comparative Education Review, 27(1), 46-68.
39. Yıldırım, A., Özgürlük, B., Parlak, B., Gönen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 national math and science preliminary report 4th and 8th grades. Retrieved from https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_06/23161945_timss_2015_on_raporu.pdf on 02.10.2020.
40. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (10th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin.