Sekizinci Sınıf Matematik Ders Kitabındaki Etkinliklerin Matematik Okuryazarlığı Bağlamında İncelenmesi

Öz

Matematik öğretim programının merkezinde matematik okuryazarlığının önemi arttıkça amaçlanan ve uygulanan program arasında araçsal rolü olan ders kitapları da bu doğrultuda şekillenmeye devam etmektedir. Bu dayanak noktasından hareketle bu çalışmada sekizinci sınıf matematik ders kitabında yer alan etkinliklerin matematik okuryazarlığı becerileri ile ne derece uyumlu olduğunu analiz etmek amaçlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından dağıtılan sekizinci sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki etkinlikler Matematik Okuryazarlığı Soru Tasarımı Kontrol Listesi bileşenleri doğrultusunda doküman analizi yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda etkinliklerin içerik bileşeni açısından gerçek yaşamla bağlantı kurulması, kavramsal-işlemsel bilginin dengelenmesi, farklı temsillerin kullanımı açısından sınırlı kaldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bağlam bileşeni açısından, matematiği günlük yaşam ve farklı disiplinlerle ilişkilendirme becerilerini geliştirmeye yönelik sınırlı sayıda etkinlik olduğu görülmektedir. Süreç bileşeni açısından analiz, sentez, karşılaştırma, matematiksel dil ve iletişim becerilerini gerektiren modelleme etkinliklerinin kullanımının sınırlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Etkinlikler, düzey bileşeni açısından öğrenci düzeyine uygun iken yapı bileşeni açısından ilgi çekici ve araştırma yapmaya olanak tanıma noktasında yeterli düzeyde olmadığı görülmüştür. Bu doğrultuda öğrencilerin matematik okuryazarlığı becerilerinin geliştirilmesi için yeni yayınlanacak ders kitaplarında yer alacak etkinliklerin matematik okuryazarlığı bileşenleri doğrultusunda hazırlanması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etkinlik
• Matematik Okuryazarlığı
• Matematik Ders Kitabı
• Kontrol Listesi

Etik Beyan

Çalışmanın tüm süreçlerinin araştırma ve yayın etiğine uygun olduğunu, etik kurallara ve bilimsel atıf gösterme ilkelerine uydulduğunu, yazarlar arasında herhangi bir çıkar çatışması olmadığını beyan ederiz.

An Analysis of Tasks in the Eighth Grade Mathematics Textbook in the Context of Mathematical Literacy

Öz

As the importance of mathematical literacy increases at the center of the mathematics curriculum, textbooks, which play an instrumental role between the intended and implemented curriculum, continue to be shaped in this direction. Based on this premise, the study aims to analyze the extent to which the activities in the eighth-grade mathematics textbook are compatible with mathematical literacy skills. In this context, the tasks in the eighth-grade mathematics textbook distributed by the Ministry of National Education were examined using the document analysis method in line with the components of the Mathematical Literacy Question Design Checklist. The research concluded that the tasks were limited in terms of establishing connections with real life, balancing conceptual and procedural knowledge, and using different representations. In terms of the context component, it was observed that there were a limited number of tasks aimed at developing the ability to relate mathematics to daily life and different disciplines. In terms of the process component, it was determined that the use of modeling tasks requiring analysis, synthesis, comparison, mathematical language, and communication skills was limited. While the tasks are appropriate for the students' level in terms of the level component, they are not sufficiently interesting in terms of the structure component and do not provide sufficient opportunity for research. Accordingly, it is recommended that the tasks to be included in the newly published textbooks be prepared in line with the mathematics literacy components in order to develop students' mathematics literacy skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Check List
• Mathematical Literacy
• Mathematics Textbook
• Task

Kaynakça

1. Altun, M., & Bozkurt, I. (2017). Matematik okuryazarlığı problemleri için yeni bir sınıflama önerisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190), 171-188. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6916
2. Ayyıldız, H., & Cansız Aktaş, M. (2022). 8.sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının ve LGS matematik sorularının PISA temsil yeterliği açısından incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.910569
3. Basyal, D., & Mainali, B. (2022). Investigating the features of nepali 8th grade mathematics textbook. In International Conference on Mathematics Textbook Research and Development (pp. 189-194). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-8426-4_24
4. Bonnotto, C. (2007). How to replace word problems with activities of realistic mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 185–192). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-29822-1_18
5. Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (1994). La integración del momento de la técnica en el proceso de estudio de campos de problemas de matemáticas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 12(3), 314–332.
6. Bosch, M., Gascón, J., & Trigueros, M. (2017). Dialogue between theories interpreted as research praxeologies: The case of APOS and the ATD. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9734-3
7. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
8. Brown, R. (2017). Using collective argumentation to engage students in a primary mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-017-0198-2

9. Cai, J., & Howson, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_29
10. Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2018). Using contextualized tasks to engage students in meaningful and worthwhile mathematics learning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.006
11. Demir, S. B. (2018). The Effect of Teaching quality and teaching practices on PISA 2012 Mathematics Achievement of Turkish Students. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(4), 645-658. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.463409
12. Driscoll, M. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A Guide For Teachers Grades 6-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13. Dröse, J., Ahlemeyer, L. & Prediger, S. How curriculum materials can contribute to implementing instructional innovations: the case of enactment of strategy instruction. ZDM Mathematics Education 57, 1019–1034 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01662-7
14. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103-131. DOI:10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
15. Erdoğan, E., & Arslan, Ç. (2025). Matematik ders kitaplarının matematik okuryazarlığı bağlamında incelenmesi: 5. sınıf doğal sayılar ünitesi. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 39(1), 229-248. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2025391720
16. Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientifc research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6
17. Fan, L., Qi, C., Seah, W. T., & Liu, Q. (2025). Research on mathematics textbooks in relation to curriculum development and instructional reform: recent advances and future directions. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 57(5), 845-857.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01736-6
18. García-García, J. & Dolores-Flores, C. (2018). Intra-mathematical connections made by high school students in performing Calculus tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1355994.
19. Gatabi, A. R., Stacey, K., & Gooya, Z. (2012). Investigating grade nine textbook problems for characteristics related to mathematical literacy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0052-5
20. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf
21. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
22. Horsley, M., & Sikorová, Z. (2015). Classroom teaching and learning resources: International comparisons from TIMSS− A preliminary review. Orbis scholae, 8(2), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.65
23. Hwang, S., Yeo, S., & Son, T. (2021). A comparative analysis of fraction addition and subtraction contents in the mathematics textbooks in the US and South Korea. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.208
24. Huinker, D. (2015). Representational competence: A renewed focus for classroom practice in mathematics. Wisconsin Teacher of Mathematics, 67(2), 4-8.
25. İskenderoğlu, T., & Baki, A. (2011). Classification of the Questions in an 8th Grade Mathematics Textbook with Respect to the Competency Levels of PISA. Education and Science, 36(161), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2011.969
26. Kabael, T. (2019). Matematik okuryazarlığı ve PISA. In T. Kabael (Ed.), Matematik okuryazarlığı ve PISA (pp. 11–43). Anı Yayıncılık.
27. Lailiyah, S. (2017). Mathematical literacy skills of students’ in term of gender differences. The 4th International Conference on Research, Implementation, and Education of Mathematics and Science (4th ICRIEMS). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995146.
28. Lastiningsih, N., Soedjarwo, S., Mutohir, T. C., & Siswono, T. Y. E. (2018). Encouraging literacy in mathematics teaching and learning: junior high school teachers’ perspectives. In Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International Conference (MISEIC 2018) (pp. 46-48). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/miseic-18.2018.12
29. Manfreda Kolar, V., & Hodnik, T. (2021). Mathematical literacy from the perspective of solving contextual problems. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 467-483. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.467
30. Maryani, N., & Widjajanti, D. B. (2020). Mathematical literacy: How to improve it using contextual teaching and learning method? 1581(1), 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1581/1/012044
31. Maslihah, S., Waluya, S. B., Rochmad, & Suyitno, A. (2020). The role of mathematical literacy to improve high order thinking skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1539(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1539/1/012085
32. Meyer, M. R., Dekker, T., & Querelle, N. (2001). Innovation in curriculum: Context in mathematics curricula. Mathematics Teaching in the middle school, 6(9), 522-527. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.6.9.0522
33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
34. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
35. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2023). PISA 2022 Türkiye Ön Raporu. https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/test/analizler/pisa/PISA2022_On_Rapor.pdf
36. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024). Ortaokul matematik öğretim programı (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ogretim-programlari/ders/ortaokul-matematik-dersi
37. Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2007). Could elementary mathematics textbooks help give attention to reasons in the classroom?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9015-z
38. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y
39. Orrill, C. H., & Polly, D. (2015). Supporting mathematical communication through technology. In STEM Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 216-232). IGI Global.
40. O’Sullivan, B., O’Shea, A., & Breen, S. (2024). Using the task analysis guide as a lens to examine curriculum reform. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education, 3(4), 428-448. http://doi.org/0.1177/27527263241301091
41. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2003). The PISA 2003assessment framework – mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480801.pdf
42. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2023). OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2023 Issue 1: A long unwinding road, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce188438-en
43. Özgen, K. (2021). Checklist on question design for mathematical literacy. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 11(1), 259-298. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2021.008
44. Prabawati, M., & Herman, T. (2019). Development of Problem-Based Student Worksheets to Improve Mathematical Literacy Skills. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1179, No. 1, p. 012009). IOP Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1179/1/012009
45. Rezat, S., Fan, L., & Pepin, B. (2021). Mathematics textbooks and curriculum resources as instruments for change. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(6), 1189-1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01309-3
46. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
47. Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
48. Roche, A., Gervasoni, A., & Kalogeropoulos, P. (2023). Factors that promote interest and engagement in learning mathematics for low-achieving primary students across three learning settings. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35(3), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00402-w
49. Rott, B., Specht, B., & Knipping, C. (2021). A descriptive phase model of problem-solving processes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(4), 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01244-3
50. Sarıkaya, B. K., & Yenilmez, K. (2023). Ortaokul Matematik Uygulamaları Ders Kitaplarının PISA Yeterlik Düzeyleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), 25-45. https://izlik.org/JA62XP39FZ
51. Schwalbach, E. M., & Dosemagen, D. M. (2000). Developing student understanding: Contextualizing calculus concepts. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17241.x
52. Silver, E. A. (2014). Preface to part II. In Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 147-151). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04993-9_9
53. Singh, P., Yusoff, N. M., & Hoon, T. S. (2020). Content Analysis of Primary School Mathematics Textbooks and Its Relationship with Pupils Achievement. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10286
54. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American educational research journal, 33(2), 455-488. http://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455
55. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Reflections on practice: Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 3(5), 344-350. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.3.5.0344
56. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. & Smith, M. S. (2007). How Curriculum Influences Student Learning, In Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, edited by F. K. Lester Jr., 319–369. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
57. Susanti, A., Resnani, R., & Agusdianita, N. (2022). Mathematics Textbooks: an Ideal Overview of Mathematical Literacy. Social, Humanities, and Educational Studies (SHEs): Conference Series, 5(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.20961/shes.v5i2.58297
58. Şirin, B., & Yıldız, A. (2020). 8. sınıf matematik ders kitabının PISA temel matematik beceri seviyelerine göre incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 9(4), 1158-1176. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.676100
59. Tarim, K., & Tarku, H. (2022). Investigation of the Questions in 8th Grade Mathematics Textbook in terms of Mathematical Literacy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(2), em0682. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11819
60. Tarım, K., & Köksal, E. (2024). Matematik LGS Çalışma Kitabının PISA Matematik Okuryazarlığı Bağlamında İncelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1), 23-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.2024.218
61. Tout, D.,& Spithill, J. (2015). The challenges and complexities of writing items to test mathematical literacy. In K. Stacey & R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience(pp. 145-171). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10121-7_7
62. Ulusoy, F., & Turuş, İ. B. (2022). The mathematical and technological nature of tasks containing the use of dynamic geometry software in middle and secondary school mathematics textbooks. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11089-11113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11070-z
63. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
64. Wu , H. K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science and Educational Technology, 21, 754–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9363-7
65. Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
66. Valverde, G. A. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Springer Science & Business Media.
67. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
69. Yin, R. K. (2014): Case study research, design and methods. 5th edition, Sage, Los Angeles. https://l24.im/joKhXZJ