Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 /

Problem Analysis in Turkish and Singapore Mathematics Textbooks: Division of Fraction

Türk ve Singapur Matematik Ders Kitaplarında Problem Analizi: Kesirlerde Bölme İşlemi

Pages
370–394
Publication Date
2019-09-12
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In future studies, it can be investigated what kind of problems mathematics teachers use in their lessons.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, Turkish and Singapore mathematics textbooks were compared in terms of the problems included in the subject of the division of fractions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analyses were conducted by two different researchers, and the Cohen Kappa agreement index between the researchers was found between 0.98-1.00 for each category.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In future studies, it can be investigated what kind of problems mathematics teachers use in their lessons.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kesirlerde bölme · ders kitabı · dividing fractions

Abstract

In this study, Turkish and Singapore mathematics textbooks were compared in terms of the problems included in the subject of the division of fractions. The problems in textbooks were categorized in terms of the number of steps, type of answer, context and cognitive expectation characteristics. The analyses were conducted by two different researchers, and the Cohen Kappa agreement index between the researchers was found between 0.98-1.00 for each category. According to the findings, the Singapore book has more steps and more problems requiring explanation-solution compared to Turkish books. All problems related to dividing fractions in both countries' books contain sufficient data. The number of daily life problems in textbooks is small. In addition, it was determined that the Singapore textbook was richer than the Turkish books in terms of problems expressed in a combined form. In Turkish books, there are few problems in the category of mathematical reasoning and representation compared to the Singapore book, and there is no problem in the Turkish books in the category of conceptual knowledge. The findings can be considered as one of the reasons why Singaporean students perform better than Turkish students in terms of number content domain in international exams. In future studies, it can be investigated what kind of problems mathematics teachers use in their lessons.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türk ve Singapur matematik ders kitapları kesirlerde bölme işlemi konusunda yer verilen problemler açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Kitaplarda yer alan problemler; adım sayısı, cevap tipi, bağlam ve bilişsel beklenti özellikleri açısından sınıflandırılmışlardır. Analizler iki farklı araştırmacı tarafından yapılmış, araştırmacılar arasındaki Cohen Kappa uyum indeksi her bir kategori için 0.98-1.00 arasında bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, Singapur kitabında, Türk kitaplarına kıyasla çok adımlı, açıklama-çözüm gerektiren problem sayısı daha fazladır. Her iki ülke kitabındaki kesir bölmesiyle ilgili tüm problemler yeterli veri içermektedir. Ders kitaplarındaki günlük hayat problemi sayısı azdır. Ayrıca Singapur ders kitabının çoklu formda ifade edilmiş problemler bakımından Türk kitaplarından zengin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Türk kitaplarında, Singapur kitabına nazaran matematiksel muhakeme ve temsil kategorisine giren problem sayısı oldukça az olup, Türk kitaplarında kavramsal bilgi kategorisine giren hiçbir problem yoktur. Bu durum Singapur’un uluslararası sınavlarda Türkiye’den daha iyi bir performans göstermesinin nedenlerinden biri olarak düşünülebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÜTÜNER, S. Ö. (2019). Problem Analysis in Turkish and Singapore Mathematics Textbooks: Division of Fraction. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 370–394. https://ajindex.com/articles/138107

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alajmi, A. M. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 239-261.
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
  3. Brenner, M.E., Herman, S., Ho, H. & Zimmer, J.M. (1999). Cross-national comparison of representational competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 541–557. Brown G., & Quinn R. J. (2007). Fraction proficiency and success in algebra: What does research say?. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(3): 23-30.
  4. Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical performance on tasking involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Monograph series 7). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Cai J., & Hwang S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US andChinese students’mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421.
  5. Carpenter, T.P., Corbitt, M.K., Kepner, H.S. Jr., Lindquist, M.M. & Reys, R.E. (1980). Solving verbal problems: Results and implications from national assessment. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(1), 8–12.
  6. Carpenter T. C., Lindquist M. M., Brown C. A., Kouba V. L., Silver E. A., & Swafford J. O. (1988). Results of the fourth NAEP assessment of mathematics: Trends and conclusions. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(4), 38–41.
  7. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney S., Hsu. H. Y., & Mesa V. (2010). A Comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12 (2), 117–151.
  8. Chinnapan, M., & Forrester, T. (2014). Generating procedural and conceptual knowledge of fractions by pre-service teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 871-896.
  9. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
  10. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehesion in a learning of Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103-131.
  11. Erbaş A. K., Alacacı C., & Bulut M. A. (2012). Comparison of mathematics textbooks from Turkey, Singapore and the United States of America. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2311 – 2329. Gravemeijer, K., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling,