Reflections of Inclusion in Primary School Mathematics Curricula: A Historical Analysis

Öz

This study aims to comparatively examine the arrangements made in primary school mathematics curricula during the republican period in terms of inclusion. In this study, which is a qualitative research, document analysis method was used, and official curriculum documents were analysed with content analysis technique. The data set of this study consisted of the written texts in the 12 official curricula that were put into practice in the Republican period. Since 1936, all primary school mathematics curriculum has included inclusion with five different components: emphasis on inclusion (every, all, whole), reaching individuals with educational disabilities, taking into account individuals with special needs, taking into account individual differences and taking into account cultural differences. The results of this study revealed that there are various regulations in the republican programs in the context of inclusion and that these regulations differ in the historical process. In addition, it was determined that the most comprehensive regulations regarding inclusion were made in 2015 and 2017. The fact that all programs except 1926 have individual differences appears as a common feature of these programs. Finally, the 1936 program is the only program focused on students with educational disabilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mathematics curricula
• historical review
• inclusion

İlkokul Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programlarına Kapsayıcılığın Yansımaları: Tarihsel Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Cumhuriyetin ilanından günümüze ilkokul matematik öğretim programlarında gerçekleştirilen düzenlemelerin kapsayıcılık özelinde karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Nitel bir araştırma olan bu çalışmada doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmış ve resmi müfredat dokümanları içerik analizi tekniği ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmanın veri setini Cumhuriyetin ilanından günümüze uygulamaya konulan 12 resmi öğretim programında yer alan yazılı metinler oluşturmuştur. Analizler sonucunda tarihsel bağlamda ilkokul matematik öğretim programlarında kapsayıcılık; her, tüm, bütün gibi genel kapsayıcılık vurgusu, eğitim engeli olan bireylere ulaşma, özel gereksinimli bireyleri dikkate alma, bireysel farklılıkları dikkate alma ve kültürel farklılıkları dikkate alma özelinde beş farklı kategoride karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçları kapsayıcılık bağlamında Cumhuriyet programlarında çeşitli düzenlemelerin yer aldığını ve bu düzenlemelerin tarihsel süreç içerinde farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, kapsayıcılık özelinde en kapsamlı düzenlemelerin 2015 ve 2017 yıllarında yapıldığı belirlenmiştir. Bununla beraber 1926 dışındaki tüm programların bireysel farklılıklara yer vermesi bu programların ortak özelliği olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Son olarak 1936 programı eğitim engeli olan öğrencilere dikkat çeken tek program olma özelliği taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Matematik öğretim programları
• tarihsel inceleme
• kapsayıcılık

Kaynakça

1. Aguirre, J. M., Turner, E. E., Bartell, T. G., Kalinec-Craig, C., Foote, M. Q., Roth McDuffıe A., et. al. (2013). Making connections in practice: Developing prospective teachers' capacities to connect children's mathematical thinking and community funds of knowledge in mathematics instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112466
2. Allexsaht-Snider, M., & Hart, L.E. (2001). "Mathematics for all": How do we get there?. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 93-101.
3. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Mathematics education in the early years: Building bridges. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2009.10.2.107
4. Askew, M. (2015). Diversity, inclusion and equity in mathematics classrooms: From individual problems to collective possibility. In A. Bishop, H. Tan, & T. N. Barkatsas (Eds.), Diversity in mathematics education: Towards inclusive practices (pp. 129–145). Cham: Springer International Publishing. . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05978-5_8
5. Bartell, T. G., & Meyer, M. R. (2008). Connecting research to teaching: Addressing the equity principle in the mathematics classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 101(8), 604-608. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.101.8.0604
6. Bauer, A. M., & Kroeger, S. (2004). Inclusive classrooms: Video cases on CD-Rom activity and learning guide (Vol. 1). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
7. Booth, T., Nes, K., & Strømstad, M. (2004). Developing inclusive teacher education? In K. Nes, M. Strømstad, & T. Booth (Eds.), Developing inclusive teacher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
8. Civil, M. (2002). Everyday mathematics, mathematicians' mathematics, and school mathematics: Can we bring them together?. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 11, 40-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/749964

9. Cologon, K. (2014). Better together: Inclusive education in the early years. In K. Cologon (Ed.), Inclusive education in the early years. Right from the start (pp. 3-26). South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
10. Çelik, R. (2017). Adalet, kapsayıcılık ve eğitimde hakkaniyetli fırsat eşitliği. Fe Dergi, 9(2), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1501/Fe0001_0000000185
11. D'Ambrosio, U. (2010). Ethnomathematics: A response to the changing role of mathematics in society. Philosophy of Mathematics Education, 25.
12. Dori, Y. J., & Tal, R. T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<95::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-W
13. Dreyer, L. M. (2017). Inculusive education. L. Ramrathan, L. Le. Grange ve P. Higgs (Ed.). Education studies for initial teacher development (ss.383-400). Lansdowne: Juta & Co.(PTY) LTD.
14. Erdem, A. R. (2011). Atatürk’ün eğitim liderliğinin başarısı: Türk eğitim devrimi. Belgi Dergisi, (2), 163-181.
15. Faragher, R., Hill, J., & Clarke, B. (2016). Inclusive practices in mathematics education. Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2012-2015, 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1419-2_7
16. Gay, G. (2014). Kültürel değerlere duyarlı eğitim: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama. Anı Yayınları.
17. Gutiérrez, R. (2008). A "gap-gazing" fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 39(4), 357-364.
18. Gutiérrez, R. (2012). Context matters: How should we conceptualize equity in mathematics education?. in B. Herbel-Eisenmann, J. Choppin, D. Wagner & D. Pimm (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education (17-33). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
20. Kuyini, A. B., Yeboah, K. A., Das, A. K., Alhassan, A. M., & Mangope, B. (2016). Ghanaian teachers: Competencies perceived as important for inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1009-1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145261
21. Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesn't add up: African American students' mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Achievement, 28(6), 697-708.
22. Lambdin, D.V. & Walcott, C. (2007). Changes through the years: Connections between psychological learning theories and the school mathematics curriculum. In W. G. Martin & M.E. Strutchens (Eds). The Learning of Mathematics: 69th NCTM Yearbook (pp 3-26). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
23. Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1999). Teaching special students in general education classrooms. New York: Merril, Prentice Hall.
24. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/ mainstreaming. British Journal Of Educational Psycology, 77(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X156881
25. McDonnell, J., & Hunt, P. (2014). Inclusive education and meaningful school outcomes. In M. Agran, F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk & D. Ryndak (Eds.), Equity & full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future (pp. 155–176). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
26. MEB (2006). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Ankara, Türkiye.
27. MEB (2010). İlköğretim Okullarındaki Kaynaştırma Uygulamalarının Değerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. https://www.meb.gov.tr/earged/earged/ilk_kaynas_eg_uyg_deg.pdf.
28. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (1926). İlk Mektepler Müfredat Programı, İstanbul.
29. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (1936). İlk Mektepler Müfredat Programı, İstanbul.
30. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (1948). İlkokul programı. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2017). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: MEB.
32. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Milli Eğitim Basımevi-Ankara.
33. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB-TTKB) (1990). İlköğretim matematik dersi programı. Ankara: MEB.
34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB-TTKB) (1998). İlköğretim okulu matematik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB
35. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB-TTKB) (2005). İlköğretim matematik program. Ankara: MEB.
36. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB-TTKB) (2013). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Milli Eğitim Basımevi-Ankara.
37. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB-TTKB) (2015). İlköğretim matematik dersi (1, 2, 3 ve 4.Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB.
38. Milli Eğitim Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı (MEGSB) (1968). İlkokul matematik programı. Ankara: MEB.
39. Milli Eğitim Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı (MEGSB) (1983). İlkokul matematik programı. Ankara: MEB.
40. Neary, T., & Halvorsen, A. (1995). What is “inclusion”? California peers outreach project: Application and replication of inclusive models at the local level, final report.
41. OECD (1995). Integrating Students With Special Needs Into Mainstream Schools. Paris: OECD Publications.
42. Ouane, A. (2008). Lifelong learning connections: The nodal role of diversified post-primary and post-basic approaches. UIL paper to session, 6, 5-9.
43. Reidel, J., Tomaszewski, T., & Weaver, D. (2003). Improving student academic reading achievement through the use of multiple intelligence teaching strategies. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No: ED 479 204.
44. Roos, H. (2015). Inclusion in mathematics in primary school: What can it be? Licentiate thesis. Växjö: Linnaeus University.
45. Roos, H. (2019). The meaning of inclusion in student talk: Inclusion as a topic when students talk about learning and teaching in mathematics (Ph. D. thesis). Linnaeus University.
46. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research, grounded theory procedures and technics. London: Sage Publications.
47. Türk, E. (1999). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığında Yapısal Değişmeler Türk Eğitim Sistemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
48. UNESCO (2001). Open File on Inclusive Education. Paris, UNESCO.
49. UNESCO (2001). Understanding and responding to children’s needs in inclusive classrooms: A guide for teachers. Paris, UNESCO.
50. UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for inclusion ensuring access to education for all. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientifıc and Cultural Organization.
51. UNESCO (2009). Defining an inclusive education agenda: Reflections around the 48th session of the international conference on education. Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.
52. UNESCO, A. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Geneva: UNESCO IBE.
53. Wehman, P. (2013). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
54. Williams, S. C. (2002). How speech-feedback and word prediction software can help students write. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(3), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203400310
55. Yolcu, A. (2020). Kültürel olarak duyarlı matematik etkinlikleri. Y. Dede, M. F. Doğan, ve F. Aslan Tutak (Ed.) Matematik eğitiminde etkinlikler ve uygulamaları (s.467-487). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786257880084.20
56. Zhou, L., Parker, A. T., Smith, D. W., & Griffin-Shirley, N. (2011). Assistive technology for students with visual impairments: Challenges and needs in teachers’ preparation programs and practice. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500402