INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF PROBLEM-POSING ACTIVITIES IN MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS

Öz

This study seeks to analyze the problem-posing activities in the math textbooks of Turkey, Singapore and Canada. To do so, it draws on the document analysis method, and first identifies the problem-posing activities in the textbooks and then classifies these activities by type, learning area and sub-learning area. Overall, the problem-posing activities are overall most frequently available in the CAN textbooks and least frequently available in the SGP textbooks. This study, on the other hand, shows that most of the problem-posing activities are in the semi-structured type, relative to the other two types, and this type is most frequently found in the Canadian textbooks. The findings on learning areas yield that all the countries have the highest number of the problem-posing activities in the learning area of numbers and operations; however, there is no problem-posing activity in the learning area of probability in any of the textbooks. This study reports that these three countries fail to give prominence to problem-posing activities and that the problem-posing activities available do not show a balanced distribution by type, learning area and sub-learning area. Considering these, this study concludes with the suggestion to include an adequate number of high-quality problem-posing activities in mathematics textbooks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Problem posing
• comparative education
• mathematics textbook
• international comparison
• crosscultural comparison

Proje Numarası

yok

ORTAOKUL MATEMATİK DERS KİTAPLARINDA BULUNAN PROBLEM KURMA ETKİNLİKLERİNİN ULUSLARARASI DÜZEYDE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmada Türkiye, Singapur ve Kanada matematik ders kitaplarında bulunan problem kurma etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Doküman analizi yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada öncelikle ders kitaplarında bulunan problem kurma etkinlikleri belirlenmiş sonrasında ise bu etkinlikler türlerine, öğrenme alanlarına ve alt öğrenme alanlarına göre sınıflandırılmıştır. Problem kurma etkinliklerinin üç ülkenin ders kitapları arasında en fazla Kanada en az Singapur ders kitaplarında olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte yarı yapılandırılmış türde problem kurma etkinliklerinin diğer iki türe göre ayrıca Kanada ders kitaplarında daha fazla olduğu görülmüştür. Öğrenme alanları açısından üç ülkenin de en fazla sayılar ve işlemler öğrenme alanında problem kurma etkinliğine sahip olduğu buna karşın hiçbir ülkenin ders kitabının olasılık öğrenme alanıyla ilgili problem kurma etkinliği içermediği anlaşılmıştır. Genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde üç ülkenin de problem kurma etkinliklerine yeterince yer vermediği, var olan etkinliklerin de türlerine, öğrenme alanlarına ve alt öğrenme alanlarına göre dengeli bir dağılım göstermediği sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır. Bu nedenle kitap yazarlarına problem kurma etkinliklerine yeterince ve nitelikli olarak yer vermeleri gerektiği konusunda önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Problem kurma
• karşılaştırmalı eğitim
• ders kitabı
• uluslararası karşılaştırma
• kültürlerarası karşılaştırma

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Proje Numarası

yok

Teşekkür

yok

Kaynakça

1. Altun, M. (2001). Matematik öğretimi (ilköğretim ikinci kademede) (1. baskı). Alfa Yayınları.
2. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2) 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
3. Cai, J., & Howson, A. G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 949-974). Springer.
4. Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00142-6
5. Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and US elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1521-1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9758-2
6. Cai, J., Jiang, C., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Hu, D. (2016). How do textbooks incorporate mathematical problem posing? In P. Felmer, E. Pehkonen & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), An international comparative study. In Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 3-22). Springer, Cham.
7. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students' learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9429-3
8. Cankoy, O. (2014). Interlocked problem posing and children’s problem posing performance in free structured situations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 219-238.

9. Chen, Y., & He, X. (2019). A comparative analysis on trigonometry textbooks from three countries. In S. Rezat, L. Fan, M. Hattermann, J. Schumacher & H. Wuschke (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on mathematics textbook research and development (pp. 137–142). Universitätsbibliothek Paderborn.
10. Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011). Mathematics curriculum standard of compulsory education (2011 version). Beijing Normal University Press.
11. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149-158. https:// doi: /10.1007/s11858-005-0004-6
12. Çarkçı, İ. (2016). Investigation of the problems encountered by 4th grade primary students in different problem posing situations [Master’s Thesis, University of Gazi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
13. da Ponte, J. P., & Marques, S. (2007). Proportion in school mathematics textbooks: A comparative study. In D. Pitta – Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), The European Society for research in mathematics education (pp. 2443-2452). Larnaca, Cyprus.
14. Deringöl, Y. (2020). Problem posing activities in primary school mathematics textbooks. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1619-1646. https://doi.org/doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734556
15. Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of the distributive property in US and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370001003638553
16. Dole, S., & Shield, M. (2008). The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting proportional reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800801915863
17. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.
18. English, L. D. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children's problem-posing abilities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(3), 183-217.
19. Ev Çimen, E. & Yıldız, Ş. (2017). Ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarında yer verilen problem kurma etkinliklerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 378-407. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.291814
20. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x
21. Fuson, K. C., Stigler, J. W., & Bartsch, K. (1988). Brief report: Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 449-456.
22. Gencer, G. K. (2019). Problem çözme strateji eğitimi ve matematiksel problem kurma becerisi arasındaki ilişkinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
23. Işık, A., Çiltaş, A. & Kar, T. (2012). Problem kurma temelli öğretimin farklı sayı algılamasına sahip 6. sınıf öğrencilerin problem çözme başarılarına etkisi. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 2(4), 71-80.
24. Johansson, M. (2005). The mathematics textbook: From artefact to instrument. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 10(3-4), 43-64.
25. Kajander, A., & Lovric, M. (2009). Mathematics textbooks and their potential role in supporting misconceptions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390701691558
26. Kalaycı, Y. (2014). İlkokul-ortaokul matematik ders ve öğrenci çalışma kitaplarındaki problem kurma etkinliklerinin incelenmesi ve problem kurmaya yönelik öğretmen görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
27. Kar, T., Özdemir, E., İpek, A. S., & Albayrak, M. (2010). The relation between the problem posing and problem solving skills of prospective elementary mathematics teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1577-1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.239
28. Kılıç, Ç. (2011). İlköğretim matematik dersi (1-5 sınıflar) öğretim programında yer alan problem kurma çalışmalarının incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 54-65.
29. Kılıç, Ç. (2014). Determination of primary teachers’ perception forms related to problem posing. Kastamonu Education Journal, 22(1), 203-214.
30. Kılıç, Ç. (2017). A new problem-posing approach based on problem-solving strategy: Analyzing pre-service primary school teachers’ performance. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(3), 771-789. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.3.0017
31. Kilpatrick, J. (2014, July 29-31). From clay tablet to computer tablet: The evolution of school mathematics textbooks. International Conference on Mathematics Textbooks Research and Development (ICMT), Southampton Education School, University of Southampton.
32. Kojima, K., Miwa, K., & Matsui, T. (2009). Study on support of learning from examples in problem posing as a production task. In S. C. Kong, H. Ogata, H. C. Arnseth, C. K. K. Chan, T. Hirashima, F. Klett, J. H. M. Lee, C. C. Liu, C. K. Looi, M. Milrad, A. Mitrovic, K. Nakabayashi, S. L. Wong, S. J. H. Yang (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education [CDROM] (pp. 75-82). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
33. Kruteskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematics ability in school children. University of Chicago Press.
34. Leung, S. S. (1993). The relation of mathematical knowledge and creative thinking to the mathematical problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers on tasks differing in numerical information content [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh.
35. Lee, N. H. (2013). Initial perspectives of teacher professional development on mathematical modelling in Singapore: Problem posing and task design. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 415-425). Springer, Dordrecht.
36. Li, G. R. (2000). Manchu: A textbook for reading documents. University of Hawaii Press.
37. Li, X., Song, N., Hwang, S., & Cai, J. (2020). Learning to teach mathematics through problem posing: Teachers’ beliefs and performance on problem posing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 325-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09981-0
38. Lu, C., & Wang, B. (2006). Research on mathematics teaching through using mathematical situations and posing problem in high school and primary school [in Chinese]. Guizhou People’s Publishing House.
39. MEB. (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
40. Ministry of Education. (2007). Secondary mathematics syllabus. Author.
41. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A., & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
43. Oates, T. (2014). Why textbooks count. A policy paper. University of Cambridge.
44. Otun, W. I., & Njoku, O. G. (2020). Developing pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical problem solving-posing skills through solve-reflect-pose strategy in Lagos state, Nigeria. Journal of Educational Research in Developing Areas, 1(2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.47434/JEREDA/1.2.2020.140
45. Ozer, E., & Sezer, R. (2014). A comparative analysis of questions in American, Singaporean, and Turkish mathematics textbooks based on the topics covered in 8th grade in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1688
46. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 33(5), 158-175.
47. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
48. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
49. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.
50. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Charalambous, C. Y., & Mills, V. (2009). Exploring the curriculum implementation plateau: An instructional perspective. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 245–265). Routledge.
51. Singapore. (2013). Mathematics syllabuses secondary one to four. MOE.
52. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9478-2
53. Stoyanova E., & Ellerton N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing in school mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp. 518–525). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia: The University of Melbourne.
54. Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(4), 258-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903253954
55. Suarsana, I., Lestari, I. A. P. D., & Mertasari, N. M. S. (2019). The effect of online problem posing on students' problem-solving ability in mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 809-820.
56. Şimşek, A. (2012). Matematik başarı düzeyi yüksek öğrencilerde problem kurma tekniği kullanımının problem çözme başarısına etkisi ve öğrencilerin öz-düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri [Master's thesis, Akdeniz Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
57. Tan, K. J., Ismail, Z., & Abidin, M. (2018). A comparative analysis on cognitive domain for the Malaysian primary four textbook series. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1273-1286. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/82625
58. Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. TIMSS Australia Monograph Series, 3.
59. Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2009). Problem posing and development of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service teacher training. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth congress of the European Society for research in mathematics education (pp. 1941–1950). Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
60. 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. Springer Science & Business Media.
61. Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9456-0
62. Wang, B., & Lu, C. (2000). Innovation and mathematical education of the primary and middle school [in Chinese]. Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(4), 34–37.
63. 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
64. Yan, H. (2017). Analysis and adaptation of an ESL reading and vocabulary textbook. David Publishing, 15(1), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2017.01.003
65. Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609-626.