Türk Öğrencilerin Matematiksel Değer ve Tercihlerini Değerlendirmek İçin Bir Ölçeğin Geliştirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, matematiksel değerler ölçeğini geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Zira öğrencilerin matematiksel değerleri hakkında çok az şey bilinmektedir ve öğrencilerin kendi perspektiflerinden onların matematiksel değerlerini belirlemeye çalışan ölçme araçları da fazla yoktur. Bu bağlamda; bu çalışmanın katılımcıları, Türkiye’de 5. (11-12 yaş) ve 9. (14-15 yaş) sınıflarda okuyan ve tabakalı seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilen öğrencilerden oluşmuştur. Veriler, betimsel ve yordayıcı istatistiksel analizler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeğin, yapısal ve yordama geçerliği, Temel Bileşenler Analizi ve Madde Analizi (madde- toplam korelasyonları ve farklı grupların aritmetik ortalamalarındaki farklılıkların karşılaştırılması) kullanılarak incelenmiştir. 6 bileşen elde edilmiştir: uygunluk, pratik, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojisi, geribildirim, öğrenme yaklaşımı ve pekiştirme. Çalışmanın sonuçlarından biri, 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin 9. sınıf öğrencilerine göre 6 değer bileşenini de daha önemli gördüklerini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• matematiksel değerler,ölçek geliştirme,öğrenciler,geçerlik,değerler

Developing a Questionnaire to Evaluate Turkish Students’ Mathematics Values and Preferences

Öz

The aim of this study was to construct a questionnaire: the mathematics values questionnaire (MVQ). Because a little is known about students’ mathematics values and no assessment tool is available to measure students’ mathematics values to obtain more insight into their perspectives. For this, the proportional stratified random sample of the study consisted of Grade 5 (11-12 years old) and Grade 9 (14-15 years old) students attending schools in Turkey. The data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analyses by using a recently developed and validated survey instrument. The questionnaire’s structural and predictive validities were investigated using a  Principal component analysis (PCA) and an item analysis (item-total correlations and comparison of differences in means for distinctly different groups). Six components were extracted: relevance (C1), practice (C2), information and communications technology (ICT) (C3), feedback (C4), learning approach (C5), and consolidating (C6). Our results showed that Grade 5 students placed more importance than Grade 9 students for all the six value components.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mathematics values,Questionnaire development,Students,Validation

Kaynakça

1. Andersson, A., & Österling, L. (2014). Metric equivalence in international surveys: Cultural edges. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.). Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) and PME-North America (vol. 1). Vancouver, Canada: PME.
2. Atweh, B. (2007, November). Pedagogy for socially response-able mathematics education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association of Research in Education. Fremantle, West Australia.
3. Atweh, B., & Seah, W. T. (2008). Theorizing values and their study in mathematics education. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle, Australia.
4. Baday Yıldız, E., Sivri, U., & Berber, M. (2012). Socio-economic development ranking of provinces in Turkey (2010). Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 39, 147-167
5. Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
6. Bishop, A. J. (1996, June). How should mathematics teaching in modern societies relate to cultural values some preliminary questions. Paper presented at the Seventh Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education, Hanoi, Vietnam.
7. Bishop, A. J. (1998). Culture, values and assessment in mathematics. In H. S. Park, Y. H. Choe, H. Shin, & S. H. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICMI-East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 27-37). Seoul, Korea: Korea Society of Mathematical Education.
8. Bishop, A. J. (2016). Can values awareness help teachers and parents transition preschool learners into mathematics learning? In T. Meaney, T. Lange, A. Wernberg, O. Helenius, & M. L. Johansson (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the Early Years-Results from the POEM conference 2014. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

9. Bond, M. H. (1996). Chinese value. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 208-226). Hong Kong: Oxford University.
10. Cai, J., Perry, B., Wong, N. & Wang, T. (2009). What is effective teaching: A study of experienced mathematics teachers from Australia, the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong-China, and the United States, In J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry, and N. Wong (Eds.), Effective Mathematics Teaching from Teachers’ Perspectives (pp. 1-36) Rotterdam: Sense.
11. Chin, C., & Lin, F.-L. (2001). Value-loaded activities in mathematics classroom. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME 25) (vol. 2, pp. 249–256), Utrecht: Utrecht University
12. Clarkson, P., FitzSimons, G, Bishop, A., & Seah, W. T. (2000, December). Methodology challenges and constraints in the values and mathematics project. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia.
13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education, London: Routledge Falmer.
14. Correa, C., Perry, M., Sims, L., Miller, K., & Fang, G. (2008). Connected and culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and US teachers talk about how their students best learn mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 140-153.
15. Council of Higher Education of Turkey (YÖK) (2017). Statement on CoHE’s Decisions Taken on November 9, 2017 at CoHE General Assembly Meeting Regarding Higher Education Institutions Examination. Retrieved December 02, 2017 from http://www.yok.gov.tr/en/web/cohe/detailnews.
16. Çabakçor, B. Ö., Akşan, E., Öztürk, T., & Çimer, S. O. (2011). Types of feedback that were received and preferred by prospective primary mathematics teachers. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 46-68.
17. Çetinkaya, G., & Kögce, D. (2014). An evaluation of secondary school Turkish and mathematics teachers’ verbal feedback to students. Turkish Journal of Social Work Research, 18(2), 113-136.
18. Davidson, N. A. (1971). The small group-discovery method of mathematics instruction as applied in calculus (Technical Report No. 168). Eric Document Reproduction Service. ED162879.
19. Davies, P. (2003). Closing the communications loop on the computerized peer-assessment of essays. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(1), 41-54.
20. Dede, Y. (2005, September). The views of primary mathematics teachers about the usage and value of ınstructional materials. Paper presented at the XIV. National Conference on Educational Sciences (poster presentation). Pamukkale University, Education Faculty. Denizli, Turkey.
21. Dede, Y. (2006, April). Assessing mathematics teachers’ instructional activities. Paper presented at the 1st National Congress of Primary Teachers, Gazi Education Faculty, Gazi University. Ankara, Turkey.
22. Dede. Y. (2007). Students’ ideas about teaching styles of mathematics. Abant İzzet Baysal University, Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(2), 17-30.
23. Dede, Y. (2010). Turkish students’ perceptions regarding their mathematics teachers’ classroom practices. US-China Education Review, 7(12), 10 -17.
24. Dede, Y. (2011). Mathematics education values questionnaire for Turkish preservice mathematics teachers: Design, validation, and results. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 603-626.
25. Dede, Y. (2012). Students’ attitudes towards geometry: A cross-sectional study. International Journal for Studies in Mathematics Education- IJSME, 5(1), 85-113.
26. Dede, Y. (2013). Examining the underlying values of Turkish and German mathematics teachers’ decision making processes in group studies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 670-706.
27. Dede, Y., & Yaman, S. (2006). Science and mathematics learning preferences of primary school students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (IJESE), 1(2), 172-180.
28. Ding, R., & Wong, N. Y. (2012). The learning environment in the Chinese mathematics classroom. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 150-164). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Ernest, P. (1998). Images of mathematics, values, and gender: a philosophical perspective. In C. Keitel, (Ed.). Social justice and mathematics education: proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.45-58). Utrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
30. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Qaks, CA: Corwin.
31. Fan, X. (2001). Statistical significance and effect size in education research: Two sides of a coin. Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 275–282.
32. FitzSimons, G., Seah, W. T., Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P. C. (2001). Beyond numeracy: Values in the mathematics classroom. In J. Bobis, B. Perry, & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond. Proceedings of the twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 202–209). Sydney: MERGA.
33. Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures, In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59-72). Kluwer, Dordrecht.
34. Harecker, G. (2012). Teaching values at school: A way to reach a better understanding in our world. Paper presented in Conference Proceedings New perspectives in Science Education, Florence, Italy: Pixel.
35. Harkness, J. A., Villar, A., & Edwards, B. (2010). Translation, adaptation and design. In J.A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, L. Lyberg, P. P. Mohler, B. E. Pennell, & T. W. Smith (Eds), Survey methods in multinational, multiregional and multicultural contexts (pp. 117-139), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
37. Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Retrieved November 25, 2011 from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_germany.shtml
38. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.
39. Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods & Techniques. Second Revised Edition. New Delhi: New Age.
41. Leder, G., & Forgasz, H. J. (2006). Affect and mathematics education. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 403-427). Rotterdam: Sense.
42. Maclellan, E. (1997). The role of concrete materials in constructing mathematical meaning. Education 3-13, 25(3), 31-35.
43. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2003). The third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS, 1999). National Report I, Ankara: Author.
44. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2005). Primary school mathematics curriculum (6-8. Grades), Ankara: Author.
45. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2007). PISA 2006, International Student Evaluation Program, National PreReport. Ankara: Author.
46. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2013). PISA 2012, National PreReport. Ankara: Author.
47. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2016). PISA 2016, National Report. Ankara: Author.
48. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2018a). Mathematic curriculum (Primary and middle 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8. grades). Ankara: Author.
49. Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MEB) (2018b). High school mathematics curriculum (9, 10, 11, and 12. grades). Ankara: Author.
50. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual. New York: McGraw Hill.
51. Randolph, A. P. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. Lester. F. K (Ed.). Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 257-318). Charlotte: NC.
52. Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B. (1987). Selections from values and teaching. In P.F. Carbone (Ed.), Value theory and education (pp.198-214). Malabar: Krieger. Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53. Seah, W. T. (2002). Exploring teacher clarification of values relating to mathematics education. In C. Vale, J. Roumeliotis, & J. Horwood (Eds.), Valuing Mathematics in Society (pp. 93–104). Brunswick, Australia: Mathematical Association of Victoria.
54. Seah, W. T. (2013). Assessing values in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 37th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, (vol 3, pp. 193-201). Kiel: PME
55. Seah, W. T., & Andersson, A. (2015). Valuing diversity in mathematics pedagogy through the volitional nature and alignment of values. In A. Bishop, T. Barkatsas, & H. Tan (Eds.). Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 167-184) Switzerland: Springer.
56. Seah, W. T., & Bishop, A.J. (2002). Values, mathematics and society: Making the connections, In C. Vale, J. Roumeliotis, & J. Horwood (Eds.), Valuing Mathematics in Society (pp. 105-113).Brunswick, Australia: Mathematical Association of Victoria.
57. Seah, W. T., Andersson, A., Bishop, A., & Clarkson, P. (2016). What would the mathematics curriculum look like if values were the focus? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(1), 14-20.
58. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.
59. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
60. Swadener, M., & Soedjadi, R. (1988). Values, mathematics education and the task of developing pupils' personalities: An Indonesian perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(2), 193-208.
61. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2002). Sample tasks from the PISA 2000 assessment. OECD Publications, Paris.
62. Urion, D. K., & Davidson, N. A. (1992). Student achievement in small-group instruction versus teacher-centered instruction in mathematics. Primus, 2(3), 257-264.
63. Wong, N. Y. (1993). The psychosocial environment in the Hong Kong mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12(3), 303–309.
64. Wong, N. Y. (2003). The influence of technology on the mathematics curriculum. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (vol. 1, pp. 271-321). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
65. Wong, N. Y., Han, J. W., & Lee, P. Y. (2004). The mathematics curriculum: Towards globalisation or Westernisation? In L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai, & S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 27-70). Singapore: World Scientific.
66. Yıldırım, I. (2008). Family variables influencing test anxiety of students preparing for the university entrance examination. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 31, 171-186.
67. Zhang, Q., Barkatsas, T., Law, H. Y., Leu, Y. C., & Seah, W. T. (2016). What primary students in the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan value in mathematics learning: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 907–924.