A comparison of mathematics questions in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of synthesized taxonomy

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 136 - 155, 31.07.2018

Ümit Kul , Eyüp Sevimli , Zeki Aksu

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.395162

Cited By: 11

Abstract

The present study offers a comparative analysis of mathematics questions placed in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of cognitive process and knowledge dimension as well as the question types. In order to get the required data, eight textbooks were analyzed respectively. Document analysis was conducted to collect the data from these textbooks. In order to compare the differences and similarities between the questions found in these textbooks as well as their levels of cognitive learning, these questions were analyzed and classified according to the types of cognitive processes and knowledge dimensions they address. Mathematics questions existing in Turkish and Canadian textbooks showed a similar tendency in terms of cognitive learning domain. However, compared to the Turkish textbooks, it was found that the questions provided in the Canadian textbooks contained more constructed response questions that required higher-order cognitive abilities. It is recommended that the number of higher order thinking questions should be increased in accordance with international examinations.

Keywords

Mathematics textbook, Comparative education, Synthesized taxonomy

Türkiye ve Kanada matematik ders kitaplarındaki soruların sentezlenmiş taksonomiye göre incelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye ve Kanada’da kullanımda olan ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarındaki soruları bilişsel öğrenme düzeylerine ve soru türlerine göre inceleyip karşılaştırmaktır. Bu bağlamda Türkiye’de kullanımda olan ortaokul matematik ders kitapları ile Kanada’da kullanımda olan “Math Makes Sense” adlı ders kitapları içerik analizine tabi tutularak karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın amacına uygun olarak veriler toplanıp doküman analizi yapılmıştır. Her iki ülke ders kitaplarında yer alan matematik soruları, Sentezlenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi üzerinden bilişsel süreç ve bilgi boyutlarına göre kodlanmış ve soruların bilişsel öğrenme düzeylerine göre benzerlik ve farklılıkları karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Türkiye ve Kanada ders kitaplarında yer alan soruların bilişsel süreç ve bilgi boyutu açısından benzer özellikler gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ancak Kanada ders kitabında bilişsel beceri gerektiren açık uçlu soru türlerine daha çok yer verildiği belirlenmiştir. Ders kitaplarının içeriği oluşturulurken uluslararası sınavlarla uyumlu üst bilişsel beceri gerektiren sorulara daha fazla yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Matematik ders kitabı, Karşılaştırmalı eğitim, Sentezlenmiş taksonomi

References

• Airasian P. W., & Miranda, H. (2002). The role of assessment in the revised taxonomy. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 249-254.
• Alajmi, A., & Reys, R. (2007). Reasonable and reasonableness of answers: Kuwaiti middle school teachers’ perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 77–94.
• Alajmi, A. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 239–261.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
• Appel, R., Chichak, D., Jeroski, S., Morrow, P., Wortzman, R., Brown, T., Harcourt, L., Kinsman L., Nicolson, C.P. (2008). Math Makes Sense 5. Toronto, Ontorio: Pearson Education Canada.
• Appel, R., D’ Amour, L., Maurer, G.S., Nicolson, P.C., Brown, T., Jeroski, S., Morrow, P., & Sul, G. (2009). Math Makes Sense 6. Toronto, Ontorio: Pearson Education Canada.
• 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, 97-113.
• Assaly, I., & Smadi, O. (2015). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of master class textbook’s questions. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 100-110.
• Aydın, E. (2016). Ortaokul Matematik 8. Sınıf Ders Kitabı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara: Koza Yayın Dağıtım.
• Aydın, E., & Gündoğdu, L. (2016). Ortaokul Matematik 6. Sınıf Ders Kitabı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara: Koza Yayın Dağıtım.
• Babadoğan, C., & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. [Online]: Retrieved 10 September 2016 from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
• Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education from theory to practice]. Ankara: Harf Eğitim Publishing.
• Baron, L., Davis, G., Ludwig, S., Neel, K., Sidley, R., Brown, T., Jeroski, S., Milne, E., Pusic, J., & Sufrin, D. (2008). Math Makes Sense 8. Toronto, Ontorio: Pearson Education Canada.
• Biber A. Ç., & Tuna, A. (2017). A comparative analysis of the exercise questions in secondary school mathematics books based on learning domains and bloom’s taxonomy. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Faculty of Education, 36(1), 161-174.
• Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), 1-17.
• Bingölbali, F., Gören, A. E., & Arslan, S. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ levels of reading textbooks: an investigation within the context of the curriculum objectives. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 460-485.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals–Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
• Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 203-212.
• Delil, A., & Tetik, B. Y. (2015). An analysis of Turkish eight grade high stakes mathematics examination questions based on TIMSS-2015 framework. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 165-184.
• Duman, T., Karakaya, N., Çakmak, M., Erayi M., & Özkan, M. (2001). Konu alanı ders kitabı inceleme kılavuzu: Matematik 1–8 [Subject area course book review guide: Mathematics 1-8]. Nobel Publishing: Ankara.
• Erbaş, A., Alacacı, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). A comparison of mathematics textbooks from Turkey, Singapore, and the United States of America. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2324- 2330.
• Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: development status and directions. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 633-646.
• Garneau, M., Pusic, J., Neel, K., Jeroski, S., Ludwig, S., Sidley, R., Mason, R., & Brown, T. (2007). Math Makes Sense 7. Toronto, Ontorio: Pearson Education Canada.
• Güler, G., Özdemir, E., & Dikici, R. (2012). A comparative analysis of elementary mathematics teachers’ examination questions and SBS mathematics questions according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Erzincan University Journal of Faculty of Education, 14(1), 41-60.
• Haggarty, L., & Pepin, S. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567-590.
• Hirsch, C., Lappan, G., Reys, B., & Reys, R. (2005). Curriculum as a focus for improving school mathematics. Mathematicians and Education Reform Forum Newsletter, 18(1), 12-14.
• 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 Faculty of Education, 16(1), 163-176.
• İncikabi, 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.
• Kaplan, Z., Baran, T., & Hazer, Ö. (2013). A study of the target behaviors in the math curriculum for sixth to eighth grades in reference to cognitive processes. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Faculty of Education (KEFAD), 14(1), 347-366.
• Kar, T., Güler, G., Şen, C., & Özdemir, E. (Accepted, 2017). Comparing the development of the multiplication of fractions in Turkish and American textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1355993.
• Karadeniz, M., Baran, T., Gökçek, T., & Güç, F. (2015). Contextual examination of the Turkish middle school mathematics teachers’ exam questions. In Adams. G. (Ed.), Proceeding of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, Vol. 35(2) (pp. 90–95). London, UK: BSRLM.
• Karakaya, S. (2004). A comparative study: English and Turkish teachers’ conceptions of their professional responsibility. Educational Studies, 30(3), 195-216.
• Keskin, C. (2016). Ortaokul Matematik 7. Sınıf Ders Kitabı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara: Koza Yayın Dağıtım.
• Köğce, D. & Baki, A. (2009). Comparing mathematics questions’ levels in different type of high schools according to Bloom Taxonomy. Kastamonu Journal of Faculty of Education, 17(2), 557-574.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
• Kulm G., & Capraro R. M. (2008). Textbook use and student learning of number and algebra ideas in middle grades. In Kulm G. (Ed.), Teacher knowledge and practice in middle grades mathematics (pp. 255-272). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
• Kurtulmuş, Y. (2010). Teachers’ opinions about 8th grade primary school mathematics textbooks. (Unpublished Master Thesis). Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay.
• Li, Y., Chen, X., & An, S. (2009). Conceptualizing and organizing content for teaching and learning in selected Chinese, Japanese and US mathematics textbooks: The case of fraction division. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(6), 809-826.
• Miles, B., M., & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (21 Ed.). London: Sage Publication.
• Ministry of National Education [MEB]. (2017). 1-8th grade mathematics education curriculum. Ankara: Board of Education Publications.
• Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
• NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA
• Olkun, S. (2006). Yeni öğretim programlarını inceleme ve değerlendirme raporu: Matematik öğretim programı inceleme raporu [New curriculum review and evaluation report: Mathematics curriculum review report]. Retrieved 11 September 2017 from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol5say1/yenimufredat_raporu%5B1%5D.pdf.
• ÖDSGM. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Ulusal Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri ön raporu 4. ve 8. sınıflar. Ankara.
• Özer, E., & Sezer, R. (2014). A comparative analysis of questions in American, Singaporean, and Turkish mathematics textbooks based on the topics covered in 8th grade in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 411-421.
• Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: a way to understand teaching and learning cultures. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 33(5), 158-175.
• Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
• Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez. O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
• Rezat, S. (2009). The utilization of mathematics textbooks as instruments of learning. In Durand- Guerrier V, Soury-Lavergne S, Arzarello F. Proceedings of Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education 6; Lyon, p. 1260–1269.
• Riazi, A., & Mosalanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning objectives in Iranian high-school and pre-university English textbooks using Bloom’s Taxonomy. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 13(4), 1-16.
• Rizvi, N. S. (2007). A synthesis of taxonomies/frameworks used to analyse mathematics curricula in Pakistan. In D. Kuchemann (Ed.), Proceeding of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Vol. 27(3) (pp. 90–95). Contributions of the day conference, Northampton, UK, 17 November 2007. London, UK: BSRLM.
• Schmidt, W., McKnight, C. & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.
• Sevimli, E., & Kul, Ü. (2015). Evaluation of the contents of mathematics textbooks in terms of compliance to technology: case of secondary school. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 308-331.
• Sevimli, E. (2016). Investigation of structural features of examples which textbook located and lecturers’ preferred in calculus. Education and Science, 41(183), 319-338.
• Smith, G., Wood, L., Coupland, M., & Stephen, B. (1996). Constructing mathematical examination to assess a range of knowledge and skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 21(1), 65-77.
• Son J.W. (2012). A cross-national comparison of reform curricula in Korea and the US in terms of cognitive complexity: The case of fraction addition and subtraction. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(2), 161-174.
• Sriraman, B. (2010). Mathematics education in Turkey: At the crossroads of cultural, political, and economic currents. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42, 421-427.
• Stein, M., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences students’ learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte: Information Age.
• Taşdemir, C. (2011). Evaluating of mathematic lesson books taught in fırst grade of elementary school according to the views of teachers. Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Journal of Faculty of Education, 16, 16-27.
• Thomson, S., & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMSS 2002. Melbourne: ACER.
• Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315-327.
• Türkyılmaz, M. (2008). The opinions of teachers about the usage of essay examinations as a measurement tool in language and expression course. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Faculty of Education (KEFAD), 9(3), 1-14.
• Ubuz, B., & Sarpkaya, G. (2014). The investigation of algebraic tasks in sixth grades in terms of cognitive demands: mathematics textbook and classroom implementations. Elementary Education, 13(2), 594-606.
• Usiskin, Z. (2013). Studying textbooks in an information age-a United States perspective. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 713–723.
• Vincent, J., & Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS Video Study Criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82-107.
• Yaman, H., Akkaya, R., & Yeşilyurt, Ü. (2016). Ortaokul Matematik 5 Sınıf Ders Kitabı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Ankara: Koza Yayın Dağıtım.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (6th Ed.). [Qualitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences (6. Edition)]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zorluoğlu, S. L., Kızılaslan, A. & Sözbilir, M. (2016). School chemistry curriculum according to revised bloom taxonomy. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 (1), 260-279.