SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Investigation of Elementary School Students’ Problem Posing Abilities for Arithmetic Expressions in the Context of Order of Operations

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Aritmetiksel İfadelere Yönelik Problem Kurma Becerilerinin İşlem Önceliği Bağlamında İncelenmesi

Mehmet Fatih Öçal(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, MATEMATİK VE FEN BİLİMLERİ EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, İLKÖĞRETİM MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI)
Ali Sabri İpek(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, İlköğretim Matematik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı)0000-0001-8712-1670
Ercan Özdemir(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, İlköğretim Matematik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı)0000-0003-4797-9327
Tuğrul Kar(Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, İlköğretim Matematik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı)0000-0001-8336-1327
Pages
170–191
Publication Date
2018-08-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering the high percentage of students’ responses which stories they created did not signify the numbers and operations found in the arithmetic expressions, it was not an effective approach to evaluate the process of order of operations in the context of problem posing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the aim is two folds; investigating sixth grade elementary school students’ problem posing abilities for arithmetic expression and, in this context, determining the role of order of operations rules, one of the factors that may result in low achievement among students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study is conducted to 96 sixth grade enrolled in a public elementary school located in a city at East Black Sea Region.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering the high percentage of students’ responses which stories they created did not signify the numbers and operations found in the arithmetic expressions, it was not an effective approach to evaluate the process of order of operations in the context of problem posing.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Problem kurma · işlem önceliği · aritmetiksel işlemler

Abstract

In this study, the aim is two folds; investigating sixth grade elementary school students’ problem posing abilities for arithmetic expression and, in this context, determining the role of order of operations rules, one of the factors that may result in low achievement among students. The study is conducted to 96 sixth grade enrolled in a public elementary school located in a city at East Black Sea Region. Students were expected to create stories related to daily life situations for arithmetic expressions involving any two of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of natural numbers. The stories created were analyzed according to the criteria of being associated with daily life, whether the operations/numbers were expressed in them and order of operations. The findings gathered revealed that the percentages of incorrect answers reasoning from ignoring the order of operations were less than 11% for all items. It was determined that the difficulties experienced by students were more commonly observed in the attempts to express the numbers and operations found in the arithmetic operations verbally in daily life context. Considering the high percentage of students’ responses which stories they created did not signify the numbers and operations found in the arithmetic expressions, it was not an effective approach to evaluate the process of order of operations in the context of problem posing.

Özet

Bu araştırmada, ortaokul altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin aritmetiksel ifadelere yönelik problem kurma becerilerinin incelenmesi ve bu bağlamda düşük başarıya neden olabilecek etkenlerden biri olarak işlem önceliği kuralının rolünün belirlenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Araştırma, Doğu Karadeniz bölgesindeki bir ilde öğrenim gören 96 ortaokul altıncı sınıf öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Öğrencilerden doğal sayılarla toplama, çıkarma, çarpma ve bölme işlemlerinden ikisini içeren aritmetiksel ifadelere yönelik günlük yaşam durumlarıyla ilişkili hikayeler oluşturmaları istenmiştir. Oluşturulan hikâyeler; günlük yaşam durumlarıyla ilişkilendirme, işlemlerin/sayıların ifade edilmesi ve işlem önceliği dikkate alınarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, bütün maddeler için işlem önceliği kuralının ihmal edilmesinden kaynaklı hatalı cevapların oranlarının %11’in altında olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin yaşadıkları güçlüklerin aritmetiksel ifadelerdeki sayı ve işlemleri günlük yaşam içerisinde sözel olarak ifade etmede daha fazla yoğunlaştığı belirlenmiştir. Aritmetiksel ifadelerdeki işlem ve sayıların ifade edilemediği cevapların oransal olarak yüksek olması, işlem önceliği kuralının problem kurma bağlamında değerlendirilmesinin etkili bir yaklaşım olmadığını ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öçal, M. F., İpek, A. S., Özdemir, E., Kar, T. (2018). Investigation of Elementary School Students’ Problem Posing Abilities for Arithmetic Expressions in the Context of Order of Operations. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 170–191. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.333037

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (49)

  1. Abu-Elwan, R. (2002). Effectiveness of problem posing strategies on prospective mathematics teachers’ problem solving performance. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in S.E. Asia, 25(1), 56-69.
  2. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.
  3. Barmby, P., Harries, T., Higgins, S., & Suggate, J. (2007). How can we assess mathematical understanding? In J. H. Woo, H. C. Lew, K. S. Park & Seo, D. Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 41-48). Seoul: PME.
  4. Blando, J. A., Kelly, A. E., Schneider, B. R., & Sleeman, D. (1989). Analyzing and modeling arithmetic errors. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 301-308. Boulton-Lewis, G., Cooper, T.J., Atweh, B., Pillay, H., & Wilss, L. (1998). Pre-algebra: A cognitive perspective. In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 144–151). Stellenbosch, South Africa: Program Committee.
  5. Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and US elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1521-1540. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 57-69.
  6. Capraro, M. M., & Joffrion, H. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle-school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27, 147–164.
  7. Carlo, M., & Ioannis, P. (2011, July). Are useless brackets useful tools for teaching? Paper presented at the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Ankara.
  8. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149 – 158.
  9. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16–30. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI]. (2014). Mathematics standards. Retrieved December 19, 2016 from www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf
  11. Doğan, M. ve Karakaya, V. (2016). Ortaokul matematik 6. sınıf ders kitabı. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  12. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83-106.
  13. Ev-Çimen, E. ve Yıldız, Ş. (2017). Ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarında yer verilen problem kurma etkinliklerinin incelenmesi. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitim Dergisi, 8(3), 378-407.
  14. Friedlander, A., & Tabach, M. (2001). Promoting multiple representations in algebra. In A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp.173-184). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  15. Gunnarsson, R., Sönnerhed, W. W., & Hernell, B. (2016). Does it help to use mathematically superfluous brackets when teaching the rules for the order of operations? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92, 91–105.
  16. Işık, C. (2011). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının kesirlerde çarpma ve bölmeye yönelik kurdukları problemlerin kavramsal analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 231-243
  17. Kar, T. (2016). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of linear graphs in context of problem-posing. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(4), 643-658.
  18. Kılıç, Ç. (2013). Pre-Service primary teachers’ free problem-posing performances in the context of fractions: An example from Turkey. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 677-686.
  19. Kılıç, Ç. (2017). A new problem-posing approach based on problem-solving strategy: Analyzing pre-service primary school teachers’ performance. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 17(3), 771–789.
  20. Landy D., & Goldstone R. L. (2007, August). The alignment of ordering and space in arithmetic computation. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
  21. Lee, M. A., & Messner, S. J. (2000). Analysis of concatenations and order of operations in written mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 173-180.
  22. Leung, S. S. (1993). The relation of mathematical knowledge and creative things to the mathematical problems posing of prospective elementary school teachers on tasks differing in numerical information content (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburg, USA.
  23. Leung, S. S. (2013). Teachers implementing mathematical problem posing in the classroom: Challenges and strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 103-116. Leung, S. S., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9, 5-24.
  24. Liebenberg, R., Linchevski, L., Olivier, A., & Sasman, M. (1998, July). Laying the foundation for algebra: Developing an understanding of structure. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Congress of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa (AMESA), Pietersburg.
  25. Linchevski, L., & Livneh, D. (1996). The competition between numbers and structure. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 257-264). Valencia: Encuademaciones Artesanas.
  26. Linchevski, L., & Livneh, D. (1999). Structure sense: the relationship between algebraic and numerical contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(2), 173–196.
  27. Luo, F. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness and insights of pre-service elementary teachers’ abilities to construct word problems for fraction multiplication. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(1), 83–98.
  28. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students' formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 217-232.
  29. McAllister, C. J., & Beaver, C. (2012). Identification of error types in preservice teachers' attempts to create fraction story problems for specified operations. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 88-98.
  30. Mcmillan, H. J., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education. Boston, USA: Pearson Education.
  31. Merlin, E. M. (2008). Beyond PEMDAS: Teaching students to perceive algebraic structure (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Maryland, USA.
  32. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Basımevi.
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  34. Öksüz, C. (2009). İşlem sırasının kavratılması. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 306-312.
  35. Özgen, K., Aydın, M., Geçici, M. E. ve Bayram, B. (2017). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin problem kurma becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitim Dergisi, 8(2), 323-351.
  36. Papadopoulos, I. (2015, February). The rules for the order of operations: The case of an inservice teacher. Paper presented at the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
  37. Pappanastos, E., Hall, M. A., & Honan, A. S. (2002). Order of operations: Do business students understand the correct order? Journal of Education for Business, 78(2), 81-84.
  38. Pehkonen, E. (1995). Introduction: Use of open-ended problems. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27(2), 55-57.
  39. Peterson, D. (2000). History of the order of operations. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52582.html
  40. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
  41. Silver, E. A. (1995). The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27(2), 67-72.
  42. Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (2005). Assessing students’ mathematical problem posing. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(3), 129-135.
  43. Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp.518–525). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
  44. Ticha, M., & Hospesova, A. (2009, February). Problem posing and development of pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher training. Paper presented at the meeting of CERME 6, Lyon.
  45. Toluk-Uçar, Z. (2009). Developing pre-service teachers understanding of fractions through problem posing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 166-175.
  46. Uça, S. (2010). Matematik öğretiminde işlem sırasının kavratılmasında yeni bir yaklaşım: Mnemoni (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Aydın.
  47. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2009). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching develop-mentally (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
  48. Vanderbeek, G. (2007). Order of operations and RPN. Retrieved February 13, 2017 from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=mathmidexppap
  49. Wu, H. (2007). “Order of operations” and other oddities in school mathematics. Retrieved February 1, 2017 from https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf