SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2

Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of Learning Outcomes in Mathematics Curricula of Different Countries in the Context of Mathematical Literacy Skills

Farklı Ülkelerin Matematik Öğretim Programlarındaki Öğrenme Çıktılarının Niceliksel ve Matematik Okuryazarlığı Becerisi Bağlamında Niteliksel olarak Karşılaştırılması

İrem Çevik(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0009-0004-5710-6735
Bilgen Kerkez(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0002-5124-6030
Pages
324–350
Publication Date
2024-12-27
🏛️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)

Based on the findings, it is suggested that the mathematics learning outcomes should be reduced and distributed more evenly across the mathematical processes, and a renewed programme should be proposed to enable in-depth development of skills as well as knowledge.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this qualitative study, written resources related to the curricula of the countries and 2022 PISA results were used to examine the learning outcomes in the mathematics curricula of different countries in quantitative and qualitative dimensions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the qualitative dimension, it was observed that the outcomes were concentrated in the mathematical process of third mathematical literacy in Türkiye and Poland, and in the mathematical process of second mathematical literacy in Sweden and Denmark.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the findings, it is suggested that the mathematics learning outcomes should be reduced and distributed more evenly across the mathematical processes, and a renewed programme should be proposed to enable in-depth development of skills as well as knowledge.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Matematik okuryazarlığı becerisi · matematiksel süreçler · matematik öğretim programı

Abstract

In this qualitative study, written resources related to the curricula of the countries and 2022 PISA results were used to examine the learning outcomes in the mathematics curricula of different countries in quantitative and qualitative dimensions. In the quantitative dimension, other countries had higher PISA scores and rankings with fewer learning outcomes than Türkiye. In the qualitative dimension, it was observed that the outcomes were concentrated in the mathematical process of third mathematical literacy in Türkiye and Poland, and in the mathematical process of second mathematical literacy in Sweden and Denmark. Outcomes in Türkiye were found to be more complex and not evenly distributed across mathematical processes. Based on the findings, it is suggested that the mathematics learning outcomes should be reduced and distributed more evenly across the mathematical processes, and a renewed programme should be proposed to enable in-depth development of skills as well as knowledge.

Özet

Farklı ülkelerin matematik öğretim programlarındaki öğrenme çıktılarının niceliksel ve niteliksel boyutta incelenmesi amacıyla nitel modelde yürütülen bu çalışmada, ülkelerin öğretim programlarına yönelik yazılı kaynaklar ve 2022 PISA sonuçları kullanılmıştır. Niceliksel boyutta; diğer ülkeler Türkiye'den daha az öğrenme çıktısıyla daha yüksek PISA puanı ve sıralamasına sahiptir. Niteliksel boyutta; Türkiye ve Polonya’da üçüncü, İsveç ve Danimarka’da ikinci matematik okuryazarlığı matematiksel sürecinde çıktıların yoğunlaştığı görülmüştür. Türkiye’deki çıktıların diğerlerine göre karmaşık yapıda olduğu ve matematiksel süreçlere dengeli dağılmadığı saptanmıştır. Bulgulara dayanarak matematik öğrenme çıktılarının azaltılması ve matematiksel süreçlere daha eşit dağılımının sağlanmasıyla yenilenerek bilginin yanında becerilerin de derinlemesine geliştirilebilmesine olanak tanıyan bir program önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çevik, İ., Kerkez, B. (2024). Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of Learning Outcomes in Mathematics Curricula of Different Countries in the Context of Mathematical Literacy Skills. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2, 324–350. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1495776

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Akpınar, Y. (2004). Teachers’ approaches to some educational technology related factors affecting learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(3), 124–135. http://www.tojet.net/articles/v3i3/3315.pdf
  2. Altun, M., & Akkaya, R. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ comments on PISA math questions and our country’s students’ low achievement levels. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29(1), 19-34. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87075
  3. Altun, M. (2015). Efemat 5-6 (1st ed.). Alfa Aktüel.
  4. Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Durmuş, A. (2013). The problems faced by science and technology teachers in the first years of their profession and the change of these problems according to years. The Journal of Atatürk University Kazım Karabekir Faculty of Education, (27), 29-44. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunikkefd/issue/2786/37413
  5. Bal İncebacak, B. (2022). Comparison of the mathematics content of curriculum for primary school in Turkiye and Singapore. Trakya Education Journal, 12(3), 1403-1425. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.984222
  6. Botha, J. J. (2011). Exploring mathematical literacy: The relationship between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and their instructional practices. University of Pretoria, South Africa. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/28984
  7. Buluş Kırıkkaya, E. (2009). Opinions of science teachers in primary schools related to science and technology program. Turkish Science Education Journal, 6(1), 133-148. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/113/70
  8. Chung, I., & Chung, I. (2008). Mathematics curriculum in pasific rim countries-Chine, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Research in mathematics education (pp.255-258). Information Age Publishing.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2017) Araştırma deseni: Nicel, nitel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları. (Demir, S. B. Trans.). Eğiten Kitap. https://www.egitenkitap.com/arastima-deseni-research-design-john-w.-craswell
  10. Çaycı, B. (2018). Evaluation of lesson duration and lesson hours of primary school according to opinions of class teachers. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 3(5), 117-131. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/599551
  11. Çetinbağ, A. (2019). Comparing Turkey and Canada in the context of the program elements of primary school mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 572471). [Master’s thesis, Marmara University]. National Thesis Center.
  12. Çilingir, E., & Dinç Artut, P. (2016). Effect of realistic mathematics education approach on visual mathematics literacy perceptions and problem solving attitude of students. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(3), 578-600. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.277872
  13. Çilingir Altıner, E., & Dinç Artut, P. (2017). The effet of instruction based realistic mathematics education on elementary students’ avhievement, visual mathematic literacy and problem solving attitude. Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 46(46), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.279963
  14. Çoban, A. (2011). Comparison of primary mathematics curriculum of the United States of America, England and Turkey (Publication No. 302987). [Master’s thesis, Celal Bayar University]. National Thesis Center.
  15. Çobanoğlu, R., & Yıldırım, A. (2021). Curriculum development studies in turkey: a historical analysis from the declaration of republic to present. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 19(2), 810-830. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.912329
  16. Deveci, İ. (2018). Comparison of 2013 and 2018 science curricula in terms of basic elements in Turkey. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(2), 799-825. https://doi. org/10.17860/mersinefd.342260
  17. Dibek, M., Yalçın, S., & Yavuz, H. Ç. (2016). Investigation on the relationships between information communication technology and mathematics literacy for Turkey students. The Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 17(3), 39-58. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1487412
  18. Dursun, Ş., & Dede, Y. (2004). The factors affecting students’ success in mathematics: mathematics teachers’ perspectives. The Journal of Gazi University Gazi Faculty of Education, 24(2), 217-230. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/77327
  19. Duygu, N. (2013). International comparative study of elementary school mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 351003). [Master’s thesis, Gaziosmanpaşa University]. National Thesis Center.
  20. EMU. (2019). [Danmarks Læringsportal]. Matematik, Fælles Mål. https://www.emu.dk/grundskole/matematik/faghaefte-faelles-maal-laeseplan-og- vejledning?b=t5-t9
  21. Erbilge, A. E. (2019). Comparison of secondary school mathematics curriculum of Turkey, Canada and Hong Kong (Publication No. 584838). [Master’s thesis, Marmara University]. National Thesis Center.
  22. Erdoğan, F., Hamurcu, H., & Yeşiloğlu, A. (2016). The analyzing of TIMSS 2011 Turkey and Singapore results in mathematics program. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education-CIJE, 5(USOS Özel Sayı), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.321423
  23. Genç, M. (2017). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions of mathematical literacy (Publication No. 463568). [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University]. National Thesis Center.
  24. Gürbüz, M. Ç. (2014). The effect of pisa mathematical literacy teaching on writing Pisa questions and mathematical literacy (Publication No. 372216). [Master’s thesis, Uludağ University]. National Thesis Center.
  25. Güven, İ., & Gürdal, A. (2011). Comparative analysis of science education systems of Turkey and Canada. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(4), 89-110. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1914
  26. Güzel, İ., Karataş, İ., & Çetinkaya, B. (2010). A comparison of secondary school mathematics curriculum guidebooks: Turkey, Germany and Canada. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 309-325. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/201309
  27. Hobson, A. (2001). Teaching relevant science for scientific literacy: adding cultural context to the sciences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 238-243. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42991213
  28. Hook, W., Bishop, W., & Hook, J. (2007). A quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(2), 125-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9050-4
  29. Höfer, T., & Beckmann, A. (2009). Supporting mathematical literacy: Examples from a cross‐curricular project. International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1), 223–230. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858‐008‐ 0117‐9
  30. Kahramanoğlu, R., Bay, E., Vural, Ö. F., & Aydın Aşk, Z. (2016). Teacher views on school-based curriculum development approach (an analysis of applicability in Turkey). Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 13(34), 180-201. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/226448
  31. Karakaş, A., & Ezentaş, R. (2021). Planning, implementation and evaluation of mathematical literacy education provided to seventh grade students. The Journal of National Education, 50(232), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.743329
  32. Karataşlı, E. (2019). A comparative study of Australia-Waldorf and Turkish secondary mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 600572). [Master’s thesis, Hacettep University]. National Thesis Center.
  33. Kaya, H. İ., & Karakaya, Ş. (2012). Effects of the practices based on constructivist learning in teacher education on teacher candidates’ tendencies of problem solving. Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 9, 79-95. https://www.kafkas.edu.tr/dosyalar/sobedergi/file/009/6.pdf
  34. Köysüren, M., & Üzel, D. (2018). The effect of using technology in mathematics teaching to mathematical literacy of grade 6 students. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 81-101. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.506418
  35. Lidbäck, J. (2021). Teachers’ interpretations regarding the revisions coming with Lgr22: A study about the 2022 revision of the English syllabus, and the interpretations that English teachers have regarding the changes. Karlstad University. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1565646/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  36. Lin, S. W., & Tai, W. C. (2015). Latent class analysis of studentsʹ mathematics learning strategies and the relationship between learning strategy and mathematical literacy. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 3(6), 390–395. https://doi. org/10.13189/ujer.2015.030606
  37. MoNE. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye Ön Raporu. Ministry of National Education, Ankara. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_12/03105347_pisa_2018_turkiye_on_raporu.pdf
  38. MoNE. (2023). PISA 2022 Türkiye Raporu. Ministry of National Education, Ankara. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_03/21120745_26152640_pisa2022_rapor.pdf
  39. Öçal, T. (2017). Comparing Turkish early childhood education curriculum with respect to common core state standards for mathematics. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148- 2624.1.5c3s7m
  40. Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Şen, A. İ. (2002). 3. Evaluation of the results of third international mathematics and science study for Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23,145-154. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87927
  41. Podstawa (2017). Szkoła Podstawowa IV-VIII: Podstawa programowa kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły podstawowej. https://podstawaprogramowa.pl/Szkola-podstawowa-IV-VIII
  42. Podstawa (2018). Liceum/Technikum: Podstawa programowa kształcenia ogólnego dla czteroletniego liceum ogólnokształcącego i pięcioletniego technikum. https://podstawaprogramowa.pl/Liceum-techniku
  43. Revina, S., & Leung, F. K. S. (2018). Educational borrowing and mathematics curriculum: Realistic mathematics education in the Dutch and Indonesian primary curriculum. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-16. https://doi. org/10.12928/ijeme.v2i1.8025
  44. Schoen, R., Erbilgin, E., & Hacıömeroğlu, S. E. (2011). Analyzing the next generation sunshine state standards for mathematics: Is the state curriculum still a mile wide and an inch deep? Dimensions in mathematics. Spring. 31(1), 30-39. https://www.schoenresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/schoen-ergilbin-haciomeroglu-2011-Analyzing-the-Next-Generation-Sunshine-State-Standards-for-mathematics-Is-the-state-curriculum-still-a-mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep.pdf
  45. Skolverket (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet Lgr22. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/styrdokument/2024/laroplan-for-grundskolan-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet---lgr22
  46. Steinberg, R. N. (2011) An inquiry into science education, where the rubber meets the road. Sense. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-6091-690-8
  47. Var, S. & Altun, M. (2021). Investigation of the learning process in the field measurement subject in the fourth grade mathematics course according to the constructivist learning theory. Amasya Education Journal, 10(2), 1-23. https://doi. org/10.17539/amauefd.891703
  48. Wojnak, J., & Majorek, M. (2018). Polish education system under 2017 reform: Assumptions, aims and controversies. SHS Web of Conferences ERPA 2018. https://doi. org/10.1051/shsconf/20184801043
  49. Xie, X., & Carspecken, P. F. (2019). Philosophy, learning and the mathematics curriculum: dialectal materialism and pragmatism related to Chinese and US mathematics curriculum. Brill.
  50. Yang, D. C., Tseng, Y. K., & Wang, T. L. (2017). A Comparison of geometry problems in middle-grade mathematics textbooks from Taiwan, Singapore, Finland, and the United States. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2841-2857. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00721a
  51. Yavuz Topaloğlu, M., & Balkan Kıyıcı, F. (2015), Comparison of science curriculum: Turkey and Australia. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(2), 344- 363. https://doi. org/10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000266
  52. Yazıcıoğlu, Ö., & Pektaş, M. (2018). A comparison of the middle school science programmes in Turkey, Singapore and Kazakhstan. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(2), 143-150. https:/doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019248588
  53. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.