Mobile Applications in Musical Instrument Education: A Systematic Review of Literature

Öz

This research is a qualitative study that aims to examine the academic research in the field of mobile applications in instrumental education scanned in Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS), and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database. The document analysis method was used as the research model. The study included 16 academic studies searching the keywords “violin app and musical instrument and violin application”. The academic studies were analyzed in terms of imprint, year, country, research methods, and data collection tools. The analyzed data were tabulated and interpreted. The findings were compared with the literature, and recommendations were made.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Violin application
• Violin education
• Mobile violin education

Çalgı Eğitiminde Mobil Uygulamalar: Literatürün Sistematik Bir İncelemesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WoS) ve Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) veri tabanlarında taranan çalgı eğitimde mobil uygulamalar alanındaki akademik araştırmaları incelemeyi amaçlayan nitel bir çalışmadır. Araştırma modeli olarak doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya “violin app ve musical instrument ve violin application” anahtar kelimeleri ile taranan 16 akademik çalışma dâhil edilmiştir. Akademik çalışmalar künye, yıl, ülke, araştırma yöntemleri ve veri toplama araçları açısından analiz edilmiştir. Analiz edilen veriler tablolaştırılmış ve yorumlanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular literatürle karşılaştırılmış ve önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Keman uygulaması
• Keman eğitimi
• Mobil Keman Eğitimi

Kaynakça

1. Ayaz, M., & Şekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on student achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 143–156.
2. Blum W., & Borromeo Ferri R. (2009) Mathematical modelling: Can it be taught and learnt? Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(1), 45–58.
3. Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? The example “Sugarloaf” and the DISUM project. In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester: Horwood.
4. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.
5. Borromeo Ferri, R. (2018). Learning how to teach mathematical modeling in school and teacher education. New York: Springer International.
6. Büchter, A., & Leuders, T. (2005). Quality development in mathematics education by focussing on the outcome: new answers or new questions?. ZDM, 37(4), 263-266.
7. Cai, J. (2022). What research says about teaching mathematics through problem posing. Éducation & didactique, 16(3), 31-50.
8. 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.

9. Chapman, O. (2013). Mathematical-task knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 1–6.
10. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları. (S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
12. Çilingir-Altıner, E. (2021). Gerçekçi matematik eğitimi üzerine bir kuramsal çalışma. Eğitim ve Teknoloji, 3(1), 48-73.
13. Divrik, R. (2023). Effect of teaching mathematics supported by problem-posing strategies on problem-posing skills. International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 7(2), 371-408.
14. English, L. D. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children’s problem-posing abilities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(3), 183-217.
15. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
16. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3), 111-129.
17. 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 (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age.
18. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310.
19. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd edition). Los Angeles: Sage.
20. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Liljedahl, P. (2019). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics, grades K-12: 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning. California: Corwin.
22. Liljedahl, P., Santos-Trigo, M., Malaspina, U., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem solving in mathematics education. Cham: Springer International.
23. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.) Ankara: Nobel Akademik.
24. Peng, A., Li, M., Lin, L., Cao, L., & Cai, J. (2022). Problem posing and its relationship with teaching experience of elementary school mathematics teachers from ethnic minority area in Southwest China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(2), em2076.
25. Polya, G. (1966). On teaching problem solving. In The Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (Ed.), The role of axiomatics and problem solving in mathematics (pp. 123–129). Boston: Ginn.
26. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Encore. In Y. Li & J. N. Moschkovich (Eds.), Proficiency and beliefs in learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 287–301). Rotterdam: Sense.
27. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2023). A theory of teaching. In A. K. Praetorius, & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching (pp. 159–187). Cham: Springer International.
28. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.
29. Silver, E. A. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Looking back, looking around, and looking ahead. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 157-162.
30. 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.
31. Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N. (2015). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 123-140.
32. Stillman, G. A., Brown, J. P., & Galbraith, P. (2013). Challenges in modelling challenges: Intents and purposes. In G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. P. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to research and practice (pp. 217–227). Dordrecht: Springer.
33. Zawojewski, J. (2010). Problem solving versus modeling. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 237–243). Boston: Springer.