top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 22 September 2022

Analysis of Turkish Middle School Mathematics Textbooks in Terms of Opportunities to Learn “Area Measurement”

Hayrunnisa Ayyildiz, Meral Cansiz Aktaş

Ordu University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.560

Pages: 473-488

Keywords: Area Measurement, Math Textbooks Opportunities to Learn

Abstract

This study aims to examine the 5th- and 6th-grade mathematics textbooks approved by the Turkish Ministry of National Education for the 2021–2022 academic year in terms of the opportunities to learn provided in the sub-learning domain of “Area Measurement.” A document analysis was performed as a part of this study. Consistent with the aim of the study, educational content (instructions, worked examples, exercises, activities, and unit evaluation) related to the area measurement sub-learning domain in five different 5th- and 6th-grade mathematics textbooks were examined in terms of the learning opportunities they offered. Dedoose, a web-based program, was used in the data collection phase of the study. The data analysis revealed that in the examined textbooks, the tasks on the topic of area measurement have an emphasis on procedural knowledge. It was determined that the activities and worked examples in the examined textbooks on the said topic had only one outcome and one solution method. In terms of contextual features, textbook tasks on the topic of area measurement were found to be mostly intra-mathematical. In light of the findings, certain recommendations were made.

References

  1. Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

  2. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115-131.

  3. Barrantes, M., & Blanco, L. J. (2006). A study of prospective primary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning school geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(5), 411-436. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10857-006-9016-6

  4. Batdı V., & Oral B. (2020). Bilimsel araştırmalarda geçerlik ve güvenirlik [Validity and reliability in scientific research]. Oral B. ve Çoban A. (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde [In Scientific research methods in education from theory to practice] (s. 129-131). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  5. Battista, M. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students’ development of understanding of area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_6.

  6. Battista, M. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  7. Bektaş, M., Kahraman, S., & Temel, Y. (2021). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 6.sınıf matematik ders kitabı [Middle and imam hatip secondary school 6th grade mathematics textbook]. Ankara: MEB yayınları.

  8. Bergwall, A. (2019). Proof-related reasoning in upper secondary school: characteristics of Swedish and Finnish textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1704085

  9. Bingolbali, E. (2020). An analysis of questions with multiple solution methods and multiple outcomes in mathematics textbooks. International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 51(5), 669-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1606949

  10. Çağlayan, N., Dağıstan, A., & Korkmaz, B. (2021). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 6.sınıf matematik ders kitabı [Middle and imam hatip middle school 6th grade mathematics textbook]. Ankara: MEB yayınları.

  11. Cannon, M. N. (2021). Young Adolescents’ Opportunity to Develop Concept Images of Polygons in Middle School Mathematics Textbooks (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida.

  12. Chappell, M. F., & Thompson, D. R. (1999). Take Time for Action: Perimeter or Area? Which Measure Is It? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(1), 20-23. https://doi.org/10.5951/ MTMS.5.1.0020

  13. Cırıtcı, H., Gönen, İ., Araç, D., Özarslan, M., Pekcan, N., & Şahin, M. (2021). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 5.sınıf matematik ders kitabı [Middle and imam hatip secondary school 5th grade mathematics textbook]. Ankara: MEB yayınları.

  14. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  15. Dağlı, H. (2010). Primary school fifth grade students' misconceptions about perimeter, area and volume. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon.

  16. Erenkuş, M. A., & Savaşkan, D.E. (2018). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 5.sınıf matematik ders kitabı [Middle and imam hatip middle school 5th grade mathematics textbook]. Ankara: Koza Yayınları

  17. Glasnovic-Gracin, D. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003-1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431849

  18. Gonzales, P., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al. (2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005–005). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  19. Haggarty, L. & Pepin, B. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192022000005832

  20. Hirstein, J. J., Lamb, C. E., & Osborne, A. (1978). Student misconceptions about area measure. The Arithmetic Teacher, 25(6), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.25.6.0010

  21. Hong, D. S., Choi, K. M., Runnalls, C., & Hwang, J. (2018). Do textbooks address known learning challenges in area measurement? A comparative analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(3), 325-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-018-0238-6

  22. Keitel, C., Otte, M., & Seeger, F. (1980). Text Wissen Tätigkeit. Königstein: Scriptor.

  23. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  24. Kridler, P. G. (2012). Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge: A Balanced Approach? Doctoral dissertation). George Mason University.

  25. Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 179–192). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  26. Leikin, R. Levav-Waynberg, A. (2008). Solution spaces of multiple-solution connecting tasks as a mirror of the development of mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Can J Sci Math Technol Educ., 8(3):233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802304464

  27. Lin, C. Y., Becker, J., Byun, M. R., Yang, D. C., & Huang, T. W. (2013). Preservice teachers’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of fraction operations: A comparative study of the United States and Taiwan. School Science and Mathematics, 113(1),41-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000025

  28. Lin, P.-J., & Tsai, W.-H. (2003). Fourth graders’ achievement of mathematics in TIMSS 2003 field test. (In Chinese) Science Education Monthly, 258, 2-20.

  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

  30. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8.sınıflar) [Mathematics lesson curriculum (Primary and Middle School 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.

  32. Moreira, C. Q., & Contente, M. do R. (1997). The role of writing to foster pupil’s learning about area. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st PME International Conference, 3, 256- 263.

  33. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.

  34. Murphy, C. (2012). The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic of area. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10857-011-9194-8.

  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM Publications.

  36. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9015-z

  37. Outhred, L., & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Young children’s intuitive understanding of rectangular area measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 144–167. https://doi.org/10.2307 /749749

  38. Petersson, J., Sayers, J., Rosenqvist, E. & Andrews, P. (2020). Two novel approaches to the content analysis of school mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 44(2), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1766437

  39. Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage

  40. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM, 46(5), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4.

  41. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition, 1102-1118. New York: Oxford University Press.

  42. Şahin, M., & Doğan, S. (2019). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu 6.sınıf matematik ders kitabı [Secondary and imam hatip secondary school 6th grade mathematics textbook]. Ankara: Engürü Yayınları

  43. Sarama J, & Clements D. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: learning trajectories for young children. New York (NY): Routledge.

  44. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 63, 161-182.

  45. Smith III, J. P., Males, L. M., & Gonulates, F. (2016). Conceptual limitations in curricular presentations of area measurement: One nation’s challenges. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(4), 239-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1219930

  46. Smith, J. P., Males, L. M., Dietiker, L. C., Lee, K., & Mosier, A. (2013). Curricular treatments of length measurement in the United States: do they address known learning challenges? Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 388–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.828728.

  47. Snider, V. E. (2004). A comparison of spiral versus strand curriculum. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4, 29-39.

  48. Son, J. W. & Diletti, J. (2017). What can we learn from textbook analysis?. Son, J. W., Watanabe, T., & Lo, J. J. (Ed.)., What matters? Research trends in international comparative studies in mathematics education içinde (s. 3-32.). Springer.

  49. Stephan, M., & Clements, D. (2003). Linear and area measurement in Prekindergarten to grade 2. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 3–16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

  50. Sullivan, P., Clarke, DM., & Clarke, BA. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York (NY): Springer.

  51. Swan, M. (2007). The impact of task-based professional development on teachers’ practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4-6), 217-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9038-8

  52. Tan-Şişman, G., & Aksu, M. (2009). Yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin alan ve çevre konularındaki başarıları [Achievement of seventh grade students in area and circumference subjects]. İlköğretim Online, 8(1), 243-253.

  53. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book - using timss to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  54. Van De Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). İlkokul ve ortaokul matematiği: gelişimsel yaklaşımla öğretim. [Primary and middle school mathematics: teaching with a developmental approach]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.

  55. Vicente, S., Sánchez, R. & Verschaffel, L. (2019). Word problem solving approaches in mathematics textbooks: A comparison between Singapore and Spain. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00447-3

  56. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 458-477.

  57. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (11.Baskı) [Research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin yayıncılık.

  58. Zhao, W. (2018). A study of the United States and Chinese preservıce mathematıcs teachers'procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

  59. Zhu Y, Fan L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: a comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. Int J Sci Math Educ, 4(4), 609–626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9036-9

bottom of page