KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Sakarya University Journal of Education / 2026 / Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Analysis of Mathematics Textbook Activities by Cognitive Levels and TIMSS Cognitive Domains

Fatmagül Ergün(ISTANBUL 29 MAYIS UNIVERSITY)0009-0002-4137-8184
Emin Aydın(MARMARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4298-2623
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-08-10
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Overall, the findings indicate that the textbooks provide substantial opportunities for conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning, although activities requiring open-ended and non-algorithmic mathematical inquiry remain comparatively limited.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Textbook activities play a central role in determining the cognitive opportunities offered to students and in translating curriculum expectations into classroom practice.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study aimed to evaluate the activities in Grade 5 and Grade 6 mathematics textbooks in terms of cognitive demand levels and TIMSS cognitive domains.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Overall, the findings indicate that the textbooks provide substantial opportunities for conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning, although activities requiring open-ended and non-algorithmic mathematical inquiry remain comparatively limited.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mathematics Textbook · Cognitive Demand · TIMSS Cognitive Domains

Abstract

Textbook activities play a central role in determining the cognitive opportunities offered to students and in translating curriculum expectations into classroom practice. This study aimed to evaluate the activities in Grade 5 and Grade 6 mathematics textbooks in terms of cognitive demand levels and TIMSS cognitive domains. Cognitive demand was classified as Memorization and Procedures Without Connections at the low level, and Procedures With Connections and Doing Mathematics at the high level. TIMSS cognitive domains were categorized as Knowledge, Application, and Reasoning. Using document analysis, 257 activities, including 124 Grade 5 and 133 Grade 6 activities, were examined. The findings showed that high-level cognitive demand activities constituted 60.5% of Grade 5 activities and 88.7% of Grade 6 activities. Procedures With Connections was the most frequent category at both grade levels, accounting for 54.8% of Grade 5 activities and 78.9% of Grade 6 activities. Doing Mathematics activities were less frequent, representing 5.6% of Grade 5 activities and 9.8% of Grade 6 activities. In Grade 5, high-level demand was particularly prominent in Algebraic Thinking with Operations and Geometric Shapes, whereas Numbers and Quantities included a higher proportion of low-level activities. In Grade 6, high-level demand was dominant across all learning areas, and no activity was classified as Memorization. Regarding TIMSS cognitive domains, Reasoning was the most frequent domain in both Grade 5 (41.1%) and Grade 6 (85.0%). Overall, the findings indicate that the textbooks provide substantial opportunities for conceptual understanding and mathematical reasoning, although activities requiring open-ended and non-algorithmic mathematical inquiry remain comparatively limited.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ergün, F., Aydın, E. (2026). Analysis of Mathematics Textbook Activities by Cognitive Levels and TIMSS Cognitive Domains. Sakarya University Journal of Education, Volume: 16 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1854329

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (75)

  1. Akpunar, B. (2011). The analysis of the concepts of cognition and metacognition in terms of the philosophy of mind. Electronic Turkish Studies, 6(4), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.2241
  2. Akyüz, G. (2006). Investigation of the effect of teacher and class characteristics on mathematics achievement in Turkey and European union countries. Elementary Education Online, 5(2), 75–86. https://izlik.org/JA82FH97HU
  3. Altan, A., Topuz, F., Özdemir, A. Ş., & Bahadır, E. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli 5. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin Amerikan Ulusal Matematik Öğretmenleri Konseyi süreç standartları ile analizi. İstanbul Eğitim Dergisi, 3, 337–365. https://doi.org/10.71270/istanbulegitim.istj.1809161
  4. Altun, M., Arslan, Ç., & Yazgan, Y. (2004). Lise matematik ders kitaplarının kullanım şekli ve sıklığı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 131–147. https://izlik.org/JA97PP53CD
  5. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  6. Arslan, S., & Özpınar, İ. (2009). İlköğretim 6. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarının öğretmen görüşleri doğrultusunda değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 97–113. https://izlik.org/JA95BE73MG
  7. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  8. Basyal, D., Jones, D. L., & Thapa, M. (2023). Cognitive demand of mathematics tasks in Nepali middle school mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(3), 863–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10269-3
  9. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
  10. Boesen, J., Lithner, J., & Palm, T. (2010). The relation between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9242-9
  11. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  12. Bozkurt, A. (2012). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of mathematical activities. Education and Science, 37(166), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2012.1081
  13. Chapman, O. (2013). Mathematical-task knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9234-7
  14. Cihan, F., & Doruk, M. (2024). Evaluation of 2024 high school mathematics curriculum according to SOLO taxonomy and cognitive demand levels. Usak University Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1511690
  15. Cil, O. (2022). A comparative exploration of Turkish and Irish curricula via TIMSS cognitive domains. Issues in Educational Research, 32(2), 434–452. http://www.iier.org.au/iier32/cil.pdf
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  17. Delil, A., Özcan, B. N., & Işlak, O. (2020). İlkokul matematik dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının TIMSS-2019 değerlendirme çerçevesine göre analizi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1), 270–282.
  18. Demirel, Ö., & Kıroğlu, K. (2006). Konu alanı ders kitabı incelemesi. Öğreti Yayınları.
  19. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  20. Engin, Ö., & Sezer, R. (2016). 7. sınıf matematik ders kitabındaki ve programdaki etkinliklerin bilişsel istem düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42, 24–46. https://izlik.org/JA82PT25YX
  21. Erbaş, A., Alacacı, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). Türk, Singapur ve Amerikan matematik ders kitaplarının bir karşılaştırılması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(3), 2311–2330.
  22. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9069-6
  23. Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x
  24. Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company documentation. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 207–222). Sage.
  25. Güler, Z., Zengin, Y., Şimşek, A., Akıncı, B., Kanpolat, T., & Lüle, N. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli matematik ve fen bilimleri dersleri öğretim programlarının TIMSS 2027 bilişsel alanlarına göre incelenmesi. Board of Education–Turkish Ministry of National Education.
  26. Güner, N. (2015). 6.-8. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarındaki geometri, veri ve olasılık sorularının TIMSS bilişsel düzeylerine göre sınıflandırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(37), 77–90. https://izlik.org/JA63NU95BM
  27. Harries, A., Sutherland, R. J., Winter, J. C., & Dewhurst, H. (1998). A comparison of primary mathematics text books from five countries with a particular focus on the treatment of number (Final report). The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
  28. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.28.5.0524
  29. Hoque, M. E. (2016). Three domains of learning: Cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The Journal of EFL Education and Research, 2(2), 45–52.
  30. Horzum, T., & Duran, A. A. (2024). An examination of the cognitive demand levels posed by problems in the middle grades mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Spectrum, 6(2), 294–321. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1522050
  31. İnci Kuzu, Ç., Biber, A. Ç., & Uzun, M. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli 5. sınıf matematik ders kitabının matematiksel ilişkilendirme açısından incelenmesi. 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.1782328
  32. İncikabı, L., Arıkan, S., Delice, A., & Özcan, Z. Ç. (2016). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının TIMSS bilişsel alanlarına göre değerlendirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 15(4), 1149–1163. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.54792
  33. Kaplan, O. (2025). Does algebra curriculum develop cognitively advanced critical minds? Comparative analysis of Türkiye and the U.S. mathematics textbooks. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(3), 1297–1320. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1592018
  34. Kıryak, Z., Kozaklı Ülger, T., Ülger, B. B., Bozkurt, I., & Çepni, S. (2024). 2018 ve 2024 ilk ve ortaokul fen bilimleri ve matematik dersleri öğretim programları öğrenme çıktılarının karşılaştırılması ve beceriler açısından incelenmesi. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(44), 3054–3089. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.1507283
  35. Lessani, A., Md Yunus, A. S., Ahmad Tarmiz, R., & Mahmud, R. (2014). Investigating the content of mathematics textbook used in 8th grade in Malaysia based on content domain of TIMSS. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(9), 71–84.
  36. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  37. MacDonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and online tutoring: Planning learner support and activity design (2nd ed.). Gower Publishing.
  38. Ministry of National Education. (2024). PISA 2022 Türkiye raporu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  39. Ministry of National Education. (2025a). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu matematik 5. sınıf ders kitabı (1. kitap) [Middle school and Imam Hatip middle school mathematics Grade 5 textbook (Book 1)]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kitap/matematik_5_1.pdf
  40. Ministry of National Education. (2025b). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu matematik 5. sınıf ders kitabı (2. kitap) [Middle school and Imam Hatip middle school mathematics Grade 5 textbook (Book 2)]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kitap/matematik_5_2.pdf
  41. Ministry of National Education. (2025c). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu matematik 6. sınıf ders kitabı (1. kitap) [Middle school and Imam Hatip middle school mathematics Grade 6 textbook (Book 1)]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kitap/matematik_6_1.pdf
  42. Ministry of National Education. (2025d). Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu matematik 6. sınıf ders kitabı (2. kitap) [Middle school and Imam Hatip middle school mathematics Grade 6 textbook (Book 2)]. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/kitap/matematik_6_2.pdf
  43. Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (Eds.). (2017). TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  44. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  45. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.). (2016). TIMSS 2015 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  46. Namlı, Ş., & Özçakır, B. (2024). Analysing the tasks in middle school mathematics textbooks according to the levels of cognitive demand. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal), 8(3), 477–502. https://izlik.org/JA58GM62HU
  47. Nicol, C., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10649-006-5423-Y
  48. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
  49. Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2003). Matematik öğretimi. Anı Yayıncılık.
  50. Özgeldi, M., & Esen, Y. (2010). Analysis of mathematical tasks in Turkish elementary school mathematics textbooks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2277–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.322
  51. Palacios, L. A. R., & García, L. M. C. (2018). Cognitive demand for educational standards and textbooks for algebra teaching in Honduras. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 32, 1134–1151. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v32n62a19
  52. Pekkan, T., & Esmer, M. (2020). Matematik etkinliklerinin ortak özellikleri. In Y. Dede, M. F. Doğan, & F. Aslan Tutak (Eds.), Matematik eğitiminde etkinlikler ve uygulamalar (pp. 77–95). Pegem Akademi.
  53. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
  54. Polat, S., & Dede, Y. (2022). Trends in the cognitive demand levels of the attainments of Algebra learning domain in the middle school mathematics curriculum. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education, 41(1), 223–274.
  55. Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
  56. Reçber, H., & Sezer, R. (2018). Cognitive demand levels of tasks in 8th grade textbook and mathematics program. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 51(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.405848
  57. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1086/499645
  58. Romero, I. M., del Mar García, M., & Codina, A. (2015). Developing mathematical competencies in secondary students by introducing dynamic geometry systems in the classroom. Education and Science, 40(177), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2640
  59. Satmaz, I., & Yabanova, U. (2024). Analysis of Türkiye Century Maarif Model secondary school mathematics curriculum according to SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 14(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.1582857
  60. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. Jossey-Bass.
  61. Sevimli, E., & Kul, Ü. (2015). Matematik ders kitabı içeriklerinin teknolojik uygunluk açısından değerlendirilmesi: Ortaokul örneği. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(1), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.11253
  62. Sönmez, M. T. (2017). Analysis of questions about fractions in the fifth grade mathematics textbooks with respect to TIMSS cognitive process skills levels. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 5(9), 61–73. https://izlik.org/JA29FG43WF
  63. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1380361960020103
  64. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.3.4.0268
  65. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press.
  66. Sümen, Ö. Ö. (2021). Dördüncü sınıf matematik çalışma kitabında yer alan soruların TIMSS sınavı bağlamında incelenmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(Eğitim Bilimleri Özel Sayısı), 4107–4125. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.927449
  67. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.
  68. Taşpınar Şener, Z., & Kılıç Bulut, A. H. S. (2022). An analysis of the 4th and 8th grade mathematics textbooks by TIMSS cognitive domains. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(Özel Sayı), 46–83.
  69. Törnroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005
  70. Ubuz, B., & Sarpkaya, G. (2014). İlköğretim 6. sınıf cebirsel görevlerin bilişsel istem seviyelerine göre incelenmesi: Ders kitapları ve sınıf uygulamaları. İlköğretim Online, 13(2), 594–606.
  71. Ubuz, B., Erbaş, A., Çetinkaya, B., & Özgeldi, M. (2010). Exploring the quality of the mathematical tasks in the new Turkish elementary school mathematics curriculum guidebook: The case of algebra. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42(5), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0258-5
  72. Uzun, B. (2025). Analyzing the levels of cognitive demand in probability tasks: The Turkish 9th-grade mathematics textbook [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University].
  73. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2016). Elementary and middle school mathematics. Pearson Education UK.
  74. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press.
  75. Yang, D. C., & Sianturi, I. A. J. (2022). Analysis of algebraic problems intended for elementary graders in Finland, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan. Educational Studies, 48(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1740977