Examining Mathematics Teachers’ Use of Curriculum and Textbook

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine how mathematics teachers interpret curriculum and textbooks and to what extent / how they use these materials. For this purpose, case study design was used and 45 mathematics teachers constituted the study group of the study. The data obtained through the structured interview form developed by the researcher to determine teachers' use of textbooks and curricula were analyzed deductively. According to the findings obtained from the analysis, it was seen that teachers working in both secondary and high school levels did not like the textbooks sufficiently and did not prefer to use them in their lessons. The reasons for this are that the textbooks contain various errors, are not interesting, are not suitable for student level; Even if the curriculums are updated, they are still dense and have uneven distribution of the content according to class levels. Teachers prefer to use supplementary resources as well as textbooks. On the other hand, there are also teachers who express positive opinion about the textbook and curriculum. One of the interesting findings of the study is that teachers' perceptions of curriculum are generally acquisition-oriented.

Keywords

• Curriculum,textbook,mathematics

Kaynakça

1. Altun, M., Arslan, Ç., & Yazgan, Y. (2004). Lise matematik ders kitaplarının kullanım şekli ve sıklığı üzerine bir çalışma [A study on the way and frequency of using high school mathematics textbooks]. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 17(2), 131‐147.
2. Arslan, S. & Özpınar, İ. (2009). Evaluation of 6th grade mathematics textbooks along with the teacher opinions. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 12, 97‐11.
3. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is‐or might be‐the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6‐8.
4. Ben‐Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher‐curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
5. Brown, M. W. (2002). Teaching by design: Understanding the intersection between teacher practice and the design of curricular innovations (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, ProQuest Dissertation Database (UMI Number: 3071612).
6. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher‐tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel‐Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds), Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17‐36). New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Brown, M. W., & Edelson, D. C. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support changes in practice? Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, Northwestern University.
8. Budak, M. (2011). Teacher views about curriculum of 2005 elementary level mathematics course 6‐8. classes. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 1(4), 8‐22.

9. Çiftci, O. & Tatar, E. (2015). Teachersʹ opinions about the updated secondary mathematics curriculum. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 285‐298.
10. Freeman, D.J., Belli, G.M., Porter, A.C., Floden, R.E., Schmidt, W.H., & Schwille, J.R. (1983). The influence of different styles of textbook use on instructional validity of standardized texts. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(3), 259‐270.
11. Gökçek, T. & Hacısalihoğlu Karadeniz, M. (2013). Reasons for Choosing Alternative Sources Instead of Textbook at Secondary Education. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 20‐31.
12. Işık, C. (2008). The factors affecting the use of mathematics textbook of mathematics teachers at primary education (grades 6‐8) and their expectations. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 16(1), 163‐176.
13. Konur, K. & Atlıhan, S. (2012). Teachersʹ views on secondary mathematics curriculum content organization. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 1(2), 82‐100.
14. Lambdin, D., & Preston, R. (1995). Caricatures in innovation: Teacher adaptation to an investigation‐oriented middle school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 130‐140.
15. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers” conceptions of a reformoriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2(3), 227‐252.
16. Lloyd, G. M., Remillard, J. T., & Herbel‐Eisenmann, B. A. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel‐Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds), Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 4‐14). New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Manouchehri, A., & Goodman, T. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: Understanding the connections. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 27‐41.
18. Oliva, P. (2009). Developing the curriculum (7th Ed.). Boston, MA: PEarson.
19. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1‐40.
20. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth‐grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331‐350.
21. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211‐246.
22. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388.
23. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4‐ 14.
24. Shulman, L. S. (1990). Foreword: In M. Ben‐Peretz (Ed.), The teacher‐curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts (pp.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
25. Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in four fourth‐grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249‐275.
26. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 319‐369). Charlotte, NC: NCTM.
27. Şahin, S. & Turanlı, N. (2005). The evaluation of mathematics text books used for first year high school students. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 25(2), 327‐341.
28. Taşdemir, C. (2011). Evaluating of mathematic lesson books taught in fırst grade of elementary school according to the views of teachers (An example for Bitlis city). Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 16, 16‐27.
29. Tutak, T. & Güder, Y. (2012). The opinions of the primary 5th grade school teachers’ views about mathematics textbook. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 19, 16‐28.
30. Uludağ, İ. (2012). Evaluation of the mathematics program in primary education (1‐5 grades) according to teachers’ views (the case of Aksaray provınce) (Master’s thesis). Erzincan University, Turkey.
31. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33. Wiley, D. A. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp.3‐24). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
34. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implıcations for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57‐67.
35. Yüksel, E. (2010). The evaluation of the sixth grade mathematics textbooks of the primary education according to the views of the teachers and students (Master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Turkey.