TÜRKİYE’DEKİ VE AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ’ NDEKİ ORTA OKUL MATEMATİK DERS KİTAPLARINDA BULUNAN ORAN VE ORANTI PROBLEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMALI

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’ de ve Amerika’ da bulunan matematik ders kitaplarındaki oran ve orantı konusunu içeren problemlerin benzerlikler ve farklılıklar bakımından analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 6. ve 7. sınıf ders kitaplarındaki bu problemler, matematiksel özellikleri, içeriksel özellikleri ve performans özellikleri bakımından içerik analizine tabii tutulmuştur. Birleşik Devletler’ deki kitaplarla kıyaslandığında, Türkiye’ deki ders kitapları 1 daha çok sadece matematiksel terimler kullanan problemler içermekte ama daha az gerçek hayat uygulalmaları içeren poblemlere yer vermekte, 2 daha çok uygulama ve muhakeme gerketiren problemler içermekte ama daha az bilme bilişsel alanı vurgulanmakta ve 3 açıklamalar ve çözüm süreçleri daha çok vurgulanmakata ama teknoloj kullanımını gerektiren hiçbir problem kullanmamaktadır.Genel olarak, Birleşik Devletler’ deki ders kitaplarının daha az çok adımlı problemler içerdiği ve daha düşük matematiksel ve bilişsel yeterlikler gerektiren problemlerle donatıldığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• matematik ders kitapları,oran ve orantı,Türkiye,Birleşik Devletler

A Comparative Analysis of Ratio and Proportion Problems inTurkish and the U.S. Middle School Mathematics Textbooks

Abstract

This study aimed to examine cross-national similarities and differences between problems involving Proportion and Ratio in Turkish mathematics textbooks and those in the U.S. mathematics textbooks. In particular, content analysis methodology was used to analyze these textbook problems at the 6th and 7th grade level in terms of their mathematics features, contextual features, and performance requirements. Compared with the U.S. textbooks, Turkish textbooks contained: 1 more pure mathematics problems but fewer real-life-application problems, 2 more Ratios and Proportions problems in the cognitive domains of applying and reasoning but fewer in the cognitive domain of knowing, and 3 more emphasis on explanations and solution processes in their problems but no problems involving the use of technology. In general, the U.S. textbooks included fewer multiple step problems and were dominated with problems of low mathematical and cognitive requirements.

Keywords

• Mathematics textbooks,ratio and proportion,Turkey,United States

Kaynakça

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
2. Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). Educational technology in Turkey: Past, present and future. Educational Media International, 39, 165-174.
3. Beaton, A., Mullis, I., Martin, M., Gonzalez, E., Kelly, D., & Smith, T. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
4. Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S and Chinese students’ mathematical performance on tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
5. Carter, J., Li, Y., & Ferrucci, B. (1997). A comparison of how textbooks present integer addition and subtraction in China and the United States. Mathematics Educator, 2, 197-209.
6. Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302.
7. Fraenkel J. R. & Wallen N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
8. Fuson, K., Stigler, J., & Bartsch, K. (1988). Brief report: Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, Mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 449-456.

9. Incikabi, L. (2011). The coherence of the curriculum, textbooks and placement examinations in geometry education: How reform in Turkey brings balance to the classroom, Education as Change, 15(2), 239-255.
10. Incikabi, L. (2012). After the reform in Turkey: A content analysis of SBS and TIMSS assessment in terms of mathematics content, cognitive domains, and item types, Education as Change, 16(2), 301-312.
11. İncikabi, L., Ozgelen, S., & Tjoe, H. (2012). A comparative analysis of numbers and biology content domains between Turkey and the USA. International Journal of Environment & Science Education, 7(4), 523-536.
12. Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 234-241.
13. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth 1000 words e Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
14. Mayer, R. E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443-460.
15. McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U. S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
16. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the Eighth Grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
18. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O. & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A. & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
19. Olkun, S., & Aydoğdu, T. (2003). Üçüncü Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Araştırması (TIMSS) nedir? neyi sorgular? örnek geometri soruları ve etkinlikler. İlköğretim- Online, 2, 28-35. Retrieved April 16, 2006 from http://www.ilkogretim- online.org.tr
20. Postlethwaite, T. N. (1988). Preface. In T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education (pp. xvii-xxvi). Oxford: Pergamon.
21. Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (Eds.) (1989). The IEA study of mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics. Oxford: Pergamon.
22. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997a). A splintered vision: An investigation of U. S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
23. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997b). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
24. Schware, R. & Jaramillo, A. (1998). Technology in education: The Turkish experiment. Information Technology for Development, 8, 29-33.
25. Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. (1986). An analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 153-171.
26. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (1994). Towards a theoretical account of strategy use and sense making in mathematical problem solving. Paper presented at the 16 annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Atlanta, GA.
27. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of the task demands of early algebra. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsade, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really an underachiever? Educational Researcher, 21, 18-24.