CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT: CONSTRUCTIVIST PRIMARY MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM IN TURKEY

Article
  • 493 Downloads

Abstract

Many national and international studies put forward the idea that primary education in Turkey is questionable in many aspects. As a result, the Ministry of National Education changed primary curriculums in 2004 in Turkey. The curriculum for primary mathematics was redeveloped taking into consideration constructivist theory of education. The purpose of this study is to assess the qualities of the 2004 mathematics curriculum using a goal-oriented curriculum evaluation model in which the intrinsic value of the curriculum is examined in terms of its qualities and success depending on teachers’ perspectives, as they are one of the most important elements of the teaching–learning situation. The results show that the qualities of the 2004 mathematics curriculum match the criteria of a constructivist curriculum as set out in the literature. Also, the level of performance expected from the teachers’ perspective as those who instruct in the curriculum is very high. The results point to the fact that the 2004 mathematics curriculum may be considered as a positive change even if there is room for improvement in all aspects.

Key words

constructivism curriculum reform in Turkey elementary mathematics mathematics curriculum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albayrak, M., & Aydın, Y. (2002). 1983’ten 2002’ye İlköğretim Matematik Dersi programı. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. Ankara: ODTÜ.Google Scholar
  2. Alkan, C., Deryakulu, D., & Şimşek, N. (1995). Eğitim Teknolojisine Giriş. Ankara: ıÜüÖnder Matbaacılık.Google Scholar
  3. Brousseau, G. (1987). Les differents roles du maitre. Colloque des P.E.N. Angers. In S. A. Martin (Ed.), Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective (1993). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  5. Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (1997).The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  6. CDE- California Department of Education (1992). Mathematics Framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers [Monograph]. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  8. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching [Monograph]. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing constructions and constructing assessments: A dialogue. Educational Technology, 31, 13–17. Retrieved from: www.proguest.com in 05.11.2004.Google Scholar
  10. Ding, Z. & Guo, R. (2005). Comments on the development of curriculum evaluation theories in 20th century. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method. no. 4, pages 11–17. China. Retrieved 15th Jan 2009 from http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/ctmm/200500000004/0011.htm.
  11. Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 520–529.Google Scholar
  12. EARGED (2002) ÖBBS 2002 Durum Belirleme Raporu, MEB, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Basingstoke: Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society—teaching, schooling, and literate discourses. In Draper, R. J. (Eds.), School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom (2002). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 520–529.Google Scholar
  15. Gürol, M., Demirli C. (2003). Uzaktan Eğitimde Oluşturmacı Tasarım ve Uygulanması. Retrieved at 17.11.2004 from http://www.fenokulu.net/bilcal44.htm.
  16. IEA (2003). PRILLS 2001, International report: Study of reading literacy achievement, primary school in 35 countries. The Hague: IEA.Google Scholar
  17. Kamii, C. (1985). Can there be excellence in education without knowledge of child development?. Chicago, IL: Chicago Association for the Education of Young Children (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 254 333).Google Scholar
  18. Kamii. C. & Lewis. B. A. (1990). What is constructivism? In Brewer, J., & Daane, C. J. (Eds.), Translating constructivist theory into practice in primary grade mathematics. Education. Vol 123, No 2. (pp. 416–421).Google Scholar
  19. Martin, S. A. (1993). Reconstructing mathematics Pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. MEB (2004). Yeni Matematik Dersi Programı ve Kılavuzu. Ankara: MEB Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  21. Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Ret. From: www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.html
  22. NCES (2001). TIMMS-R—highlights from the third international mathematics and science study-repeat in 1999. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  23. NCTM-National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation Standards: The school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  24. NCTM—National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results of PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2003). İlköğretimde Etkinlik Temelli Matematik Öğretimi. Ankara: ANI Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  27. Özden, Y. (2003). Öğrenmeye Farklı Bir Bakış: Yapılandırmacılık, Öğrenme and Öğretme. Ankara: Pegem-A Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  28. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992). Creating constructivist environments and constructing creative mathematics. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  29. Schifter, D. (1996). A constructivist perspective on teaching and learning mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 492–499.Google Scholar
  30. Semerci, Ç. (2001). Oluşturmacılık Kuramına Göre Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 429–440. Pegem Yay. Ankara.Google Scholar
  31. Spinner, H., & Fraser, B., J, (2002). Evaluation of an innovative mathematics program in terms of classroom environment, student attitudes, and conceptual development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1–5, 2002).Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, P., &. Fraser, B. (1991). CLES. An instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  33. Tezci, E., & Gürol, A. (2003). Oluşturmacı Öğretim Tasarımı ve Yaratıcılık. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology—TOJET, 2(1), 8.Google Scholar
  34. von Glaserfeld, E. (1990). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19–30). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Calhoun, D. O., Bohlin, C., Rohlin, R. &; Tracz, S. (Eds.), The mathematics reform movement: Assessing the degree of reform in secondary mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24–28, 1997).Google Scholar
  36. Vural, M. (2003). İlköğretim Programları. Erzurum: Yakutiye Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  37. Wilson, B. G. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Wolf, P., Hill, A., & Evers, F. (2006). Handbook for curriculum assessment. Ontario: University of Guelph. Ret. 15th Jan 2009 from: http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/resources/pdfs/HbonCurriculumAssmt.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. World Bank (2005). Turkey education sector study. Report Number 32450-TU. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Worthen and Sanders (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of EducationUniversity of Kocaeli, Umuttepe KampusuKocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations