Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi

Yıl 2023, , 144 - 173, 09.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1114183

Öz

Sınıf içi uygulamaların temel amaçlarından biri uygun ve etkili bir öğretim sağlamaktır. Bu çalışmada etkili matematik öğretimine ilişkin kavramsal bir çerçeve önerisinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için son yıllarda üretilen ve öğretim uygulamalarının etkililiğini değerlendirmek için geliştirilen çerçeveler üzerine odaklanılmıştır. Eleştirel ve sistematik alanyazın incelemesi sonucunda 12 farklı öğretim değerlendirme çerçevesi belirlenmiştir. Bu çerçeveler çeşitlilik ve kapsamlılık bağlamında karşılaştırmalı olarak içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Analizler sonucunda etkili matematik öğretimine ilişkin oluşturulacak çerçevenin yedi farklı boyut üzerinden yapılandırılabileceği belirlenmiştir: bağlam değişkenleri, planlama ve hazırlık, sınıf ortamı, sınıf içi uygulamalar, değerlendirme, ürün değişkenleri ve mesleki sorumluk. Belirlenen boyutlar arasındaki ilişkiler, bütüncül bir bakış açısı ortaya koymak amacıyla modellenmiş ve buna dayalı olarak da kavramsal çerçeve şekillendirilmiştir. Kapsamlılıkla ile ilgili olarak, geniş ayrıntılar ve gözlemlenebilir özellikler elde etmede dört çerçevenin belirleyici olduğu görülmüştür: Güçlü Kavrama için Öğretim Çerçevesi, Öğretimin Matematiksel Kalitesi, Öğretim için Çerçeve ve Etkili Öğretim Hakkında Düşünmek için Temel bir Çerçeve. Önerilen kavramsal çerçevenin sınırlarını çizen bu değerlendirme çerçeveleri kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alınarak detayları paylaşılmıştır. Bu çerçevelerin boyutları ve bileşenleri önerilen kavramsal çerçevede gösterilmiştir. Ayrıca ortaya konulan kavramsal çerçevenin önemi ele alınmış; kuram ve uygulamaya bakan yönleriyle sahip olduğu potansiyel üzerinde durulmuştur. Önerilen bu çerçeve araştırmacıların yanı sıra uygulayıcılara da rehberlik etme potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu çalışmada sunulan çerçeve, matematik öğretimi ile ilgili spesifik ve mikro düzeyde bir inceleme için işlevsel bir araçtır. Önerilen çerçevenin potansiyelini teoride ve uygulamadaki ampirik kanıtlara dayalı olarak göstermek için daha fazla araştırma önerilmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Baker, M. (2000). Writing a literature review. The Marketing Review, 1, 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347002529189 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Handbook of research on teaching, 4, 433-456.
  • Boston, M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The elementary school journal, 113(1), 76-104. https://doi.org/10.1086/666387 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Brophy, J. E. (1999). Teaching. International Academy of Education and the International Bureau of Education. https://inee.org/sites/default/files/Teaching.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Council_of_Chief_State_School_Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528630.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument.
  • Danielson, C. (2014). Framework for teaching. Adapted for the Kentucky Department of. http://education.ky.gov/teachers/pges/tpges/documents/kentucky%20framework%20for%20teaching.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessments: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in education. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(1), 7. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/7/ adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Ellez, A. M. (2004). Etkin öğrenme, strateji kullanımı, matematik başarısı, güdü ve cinsiyet ilişkleri DEÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin press. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hangül, T., Özmantar, M. F., Agaç, G., & Yavuz, İ. (2021). A Turkish adaptation of a framework for evaluating the mathematical quality of instruction: Matematik öğretiminin niteliğini değerlendiren bir çerçevenin Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Journal of Human Sciences, 18(4), 616-643. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v18i4.6136 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hendrickson, S., Hilton, S., & Bahr, D. (2008). The comprehensive mathematics instruction (CMI) framework: A new lens for examining teaching and learning in the mathematics classroom. Utah Mathematics Teacher, 1(1), 44-52. https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/schoolcounselingprogramsalt2016/ba/Dan%20Coffin.CMI%20Framework.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111428328 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Horizons Research Inc. (1999). Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Classroom Observation Protocol. http://www.horizonresearch.com/instruments/lsc/cop.php adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kilday, C. R., & Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An analysis of instruments that measure the quality of mathematics teaching in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 365-372. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-008-0286-8 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kirkevold, M. (1997). Integrative nursing research—an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of advanced nursing, 25(5), 977-984. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025977.x adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kyriacou, C. (2009). Effective Teaching in Schools: Theory and Practice (Third). Delta Place: Nelson Thornes.
  • MQI (2016). Mathematical Quality of Instruction. https://mqicoaching.cepr.harvard.edu/rubric adresinden 07.05.2016 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group*, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2012). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.
  • Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary educational psychology, 20(4), 426-443. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1029 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Classroom processes and positive youth development: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of interactions between teachers and students. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(121), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.295 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
  • Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) Reference Manual. Technical Report. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447205 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & the_Teaching_for_Robust_Understanding_Project. (2016). An introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2012). Psychology applied to teaching (13. b.). Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
  • Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • UTOP. (2009). UTOP Training Guide. https://thetrc.org/web/assets/files/evaluation/UTOP_Manual.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Walkington, C., Arora, P., Ihorn, S., Gordon, J., Walker, M., Abraham, L., & Marder, M. (2012). Development of the UTeach observation protocol: A classroom observation instrument to evaluate mathematics and science teachers from the UTeach preparation program. Unpublished paper. Southern Methodist University.
  • Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational research, 73(1), 89-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Weaver, D., Dick, T., Higgins, K., Marrongelle, K., Foreman, L., & Miller, N. (2005). OMLI classroom observation protocol. O. R. R. Corporation.
  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking Inside the Classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. http://secure.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/complete.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: Overcoming the positive/negative dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(1), 157-168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228759042_Attitude_toward_mathematics_Overcoming_the_positivenegative_dichotomy adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Zientek, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2010). Using commonality analysis to quantify contributions that self-efficacy and motivational factors make in mathematics performance. Research in the Schools, 17(1), 1. https://www.proquest.com/openview/c006008bfdcc93d8c8dea6c84fd540cb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=10235 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

A Conceptual Framework Proposal for Effective Mathematics Teaching

Yıl 2023, , 144 - 173, 09.01.2023
https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1114183

Öz

One of the primary purposes of classroom practices is to provide appropriate and effective mathematics instruction. This study aimed to propose a conceptual framework for effective mathematics instruction. To realize this aim, the study focused on the frameworks produced in recent years to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices. As a result of a critical and systematic literature review, 12 different evaluation frameworks were determined. The frameworks were examined through the comparative content analysis in two aspects: diversity and complexity. In terms of diversity, analyses suggested seven different dimensions that could be used to structure a conceptual framework; these were: contextual variables, planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, evaluation, product variables, and professional responsibilities. The relationships among the determined dimensions were modeled to present a holistic perspective, and the conceptual framework was formed based on this. With regard to complexity, it has been seen that four frameworks were decisive in providing extensive details and observable features. These were the frameworks of Teaching for Robust Understanding, Mathematical Quality of Instruction, The Framework for Teaching, and A Basic Framework for Thinking about Effective Teaching. These assessment rubrics which guided the scope of the proposed conceptual framework were considered in greater detail. The dimensions and components of these frameworks were represented in the suggested conceptual framework. In addition, the importance of conceptual framework was discussed along with theoretical and practical potentials. The proposed framework has the potential to guide practitioners as well as researchers. The framework presented in this study is a functional tool for a specific and micro-level examination relevant to mathematics instruction. Further research is suggested to demonstrate the potential of the proposed framework in theory and practice based on empirical evidence.

Kaynakça

  • Baker, M. (2000). Writing a literature review. The Marketing Review, 1, 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347002529189 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Handbook of research on teaching, 4, 433-456.
  • Boston, M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The elementary school journal, 113(1), 76-104. https://doi.org/10.1086/666387 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Brophy, J. E. (1999). Teaching. International Academy of Education and the International Bureau of Education. https://inee.org/sites/default/files/Teaching.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Council_of_Chief_State_School_Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528630.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Danielson, C. (2011). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument.
  • Danielson, C. (2014). Framework for teaching. Adapted for the Kentucky Department of. http://education.ky.gov/teachers/pges/tpges/documents/kentucky%20framework%20for%20teaching.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessments: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in education. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(1), 7. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/7/ adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Ellez, A. M. (2004). Etkin öğrenme, strateji kullanımı, matematik başarısı, güdü ve cinsiyet ilişkleri DEÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin press. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hangül, T., Özmantar, M. F., Agaç, G., & Yavuz, İ. (2021). A Turkish adaptation of a framework for evaluating the mathematical quality of instruction: Matematik öğretiminin niteliğini değerlendiren bir çerçevenin Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Journal of Human Sciences, 18(4), 616-643. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v18i4.6136 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hendrickson, S., Hilton, S., & Bahr, D. (2008). The comprehensive mathematics instruction (CMI) framework: A new lens for examining teaching and learning in the mathematics classroom. Utah Mathematics Teacher, 1(1), 44-52. https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/schoolcounselingprogramsalt2016/ba/Dan%20Coffin.CMI%20Framework.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111428328 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Horizons Research Inc. (1999). Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement Classroom Observation Protocol. http://www.horizonresearch.com/instruments/lsc/cop.php adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kilday, C. R., & Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An analysis of instruments that measure the quality of mathematics teaching in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(4), 365-372. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-008-0286-8 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kirkevold, M. (1997). Integrative nursing research—an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. Journal of advanced nursing, 25(5), 977-984. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025977.x adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Kyriacou, C. (2009). Effective Teaching in Schools: Theory and Practice (Third). Delta Place: Nelson Thornes.
  • MQI (2016). Mathematical Quality of Instruction. https://mqicoaching.cepr.harvard.edu/rubric adresinden 07.05.2016 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group*, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2012). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. Cengage Learning.
  • Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary educational psychology, 20(4), 426-443. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1029 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Classroom processes and positive youth development: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of interactions between teachers and students. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(121), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.295 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
  • Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) Reference Manual. Technical Report. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447205 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
  • Schoenfeld, A. H., & the_Teaching_for_Robust_Understanding_Project. (2016). An introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2012). Psychology applied to teaching (13. b.). Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
  • Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208301010 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • UTOP. (2009). UTOP Training Guide. https://thetrc.org/web/assets/files/evaluation/UTOP_Manual.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Walkington, C., Arora, P., Ihorn, S., Gordon, J., Walker, M., Abraham, L., & Marder, M. (2012). Development of the UTeach observation protocol: A classroom observation instrument to evaluate mathematics and science teachers from the UTeach preparation program. Unpublished paper. Southern Methodist University.
  • Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational research, 73(1), 89-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Weaver, D., Dick, T., Higgins, K., Marrongelle, K., Foreman, L., & Miller, N. (2005). OMLI classroom observation protocol. O. R. R. Corporation.
  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. (2003). Looking Inside the Classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. http://secure.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/complete.pdf adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: Overcoming the positive/negative dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(1), 157-168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228759042_Attitude_toward_mathematics_Overcoming_the_positivenegative_dichotomy adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Zientek, L. R., & Thompson, B. (2010). Using commonality analysis to quantify contributions that self-efficacy and motivational factors make in mathematics performance. Research in the Schools, 17(1), 1. https://www.proquest.com/openview/c006008bfdcc93d8c8dea6c84fd540cb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=10235 adresinden 07.05.2022 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
Toplam 38 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Sistematik Derleme ve Meta Analiz
Yazarlar

Gülay Agaç 0000-0002-7788-4444

Mehmet Fatih Özmantar 0000-0002-7842-1337

Tuğba Hangül 0000-0003-4871-497X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 9 Ocak 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 9 Mayıs 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023

Kaynak Göster

APA Agaç, G., Özmantar, M. F., & Hangül, T. (2023). Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 13(1), 144-173. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1114183
AMA Agaç G, Özmantar MF, Hangül T. Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. AJESI. Ocak 2023;13(1):144-173. doi:10.18039/ajesi.1114183
Chicago Agaç, Gülay, Mehmet Fatih Özmantar, ve Tuğba Hangül. “Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi”. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International 13, sy. 1 (Ocak 2023): 144-73. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1114183.
EndNote Agaç G, Özmantar MF, Hangül T (01 Ocak 2023) Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International 13 1 144–173.
IEEE G. Agaç, M. F. Özmantar, ve T. Hangül, “Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi”, AJESI, c. 13, sy. 1, ss. 144–173, 2023, doi: 10.18039/ajesi.1114183.
ISNAD Agaç, Gülay vd. “Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi”. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International 13/1 (Ocak 2023), 144-173. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1114183.
JAMA Agaç G, Özmantar MF, Hangül T. Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. AJESI. 2023;13:144–173.
MLA Agaç, Gülay vd. “Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi”. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, c. 13, sy. 1, 2023, ss. 144-73, doi:10.18039/ajesi.1114183.
Vancouver Agaç G, Özmantar MF, Hangül T. Etkili Matematik Öğretimine İlişkin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve Önerisi. AJESI. 2023;13(1):144-73.