• Ibrahim BayazitEmail author


This study examines new Turkish elementary school mathematics textbooks to provide perspectives on the quality of the tasks related to the proportion concept and the ways they are presented. Tasks were analysed for several dimensions with a particular focus on their level of cognitive demands (LCD). Tasks were distinguished in two groups in terms of LCD: lower-level demand and higher-level demand. The findings revealed that 75 % of the tasks were related to higher-level demand in that they requested a certain level of interpretation, required connecting knowledge and procedures related to each other, demanded responses with some explanation and reinforced students’ non-algorithmic thinking. Only 25 % of the tasks were related to a lower-level demand, and these tasks could be resolved by recalling and implementing rules, procedures and factual knowledge without reflecting upon the meaning behind them. Most of the tasks were presented in multiple representations and framed in non-mathematical contexts. All these task characteristics indicate that the new elementary school textbooks have the capacity to promote students’ proportional reasoning. The findings also inform the international community about crucial aspects of the curriculum reforms in Turkey and provide suggestions for teachers and textbook writers concerning the quality of the tasks and their selection and implementation in the classrooms.


elementary education level of cognitive demand mathematical tasks proportional reasoning task context textbooks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arbaugh, F. & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aydın, N., & Beşer, Ş. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 8. Sınıf (Mathematics Textbooks for Grade 8). Ankara: Tuna Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bayazit, I. (2011). Selection and resolution of function problems and their effects on student learning. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(17), 906–918.Google Scholar
  4. Bayazit, I., Ubuz, B., & Aksoy, Y. (2009). Mathematical tasks to promote student learning. Proceeding of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, v-2 (pp. 129–137).Google Scholar
  5. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T. & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook on research of teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Benedetto, C. & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai, J., Lo, J. J. & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatment of arithmetic average in US and Asian school mathematics textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiansen, B. & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer, K., Post, T. & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grade mathematics (pp. 159–178). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. English, L. & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Erbas, A. K. & Ulubay, M. (2008). Implementation of the new Turkish primary education mathematics curriculum in the sixth grade: A survey of teachers’ views. The New Educational Review, 16(3–4), 51–75.Google Scholar
  14. Ersoy, Y. (2006). Innovations in mathematics curricula of elementary schools-I: Objective, content and acquisition. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 30–44.Google Scholar
  15. 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, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuson, K., Stigler, J. & Bartsch, K. (1988). Brief report: Grade placement of addition and subtraction topics in Japan, Mainland China, the Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Göğün, Y. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 6. Sınıf (Mathematics textbooks for grade 6). Ankara: Özgün PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldin, G. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The role of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Reston: NCTM Yearbook.Google Scholar
  19. Haggarty, L. & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, K. (1981). Ratio and proportion. In K. M. Hart, M. L. Brown, D. Kuchemann, D. Kerslake, G. Ruddock & M. McCartney (Eds.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 88–101). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  21. 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, 8, 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J. & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Howson, G. (2005). Meaning and school mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, O. Skovsmose & P. Valero (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 17–38). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, D. L. & Tarr, J. E. (2007). An examination of the levels of cognitive demand required by probability tasks in middle grades mathematics textbooks. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(2), 4–27.Google Scholar
  25. Keller, B. A. & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kilpatrick, J. (1996). Introduction to section I. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (v-4). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamon, S. J. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 89–120). Albany, NY: Sunny Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lawton, C. A. (1993). Contextual factors affecting errors in proportional reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Reston: NCTM Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Li, Y. (2000). A comparison of problems that follow selected content presentations in American and Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li, Y., Chen, X. & An, S. (2009). Conceptualizing and organizing content for teaching and learning in selected Chinese, Japanese and US mathematics textbooks: The case of fraction division. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lo, J. & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: A story of a fifth grader. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E., Sims, V. & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.Google Scholar
  35. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (an expanded sourcebook). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: The Authors.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Authors.Google Scholar
  38. OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pepin, B., & Haggarty, L. (2004). Mathematics textbooks and their use in secondary classrooms in England, France and Germany: Connections, quality and entitlement. Proceedings of the 28th PME International Conference (v-1, p. 390).Google Scholar
  41. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robinson, F. G. (1981). Rate and ratio: Classroom-tested curriculum materials for teachers at elementary level. Ontario: OISE Press/The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  43. Robitaille, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., McKnight, C. C., Britton, E. D., & Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum framework for mathematics and science (TIMSS Monograph No.1). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.Google Scholar
  44. Romberg, T. A. (2004). Standards-based mathematics assessment in middle school: Rethinking classroom practice. New York, NY: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  45. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C. & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US Science and Mathematics Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Singer, J., Kohn, S. & Resnick, L. (1997). Knowing about proportions in different contexts. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 115–132). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  47. Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. England: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, M. S. & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.Google Scholar
  49. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W. & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A case book for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M. & Kim, M. S. (1986). An analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Streefland, L. (1985). Search for the roots of ratio: Some thoughts on the long term learning process: Towards a theory). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu (TTKB). (2008). İlköğretim Matematik Dersi 6–8 Sınıflar Öğretim Programı ve Kılavuzu [Curriculum and guidebook for elementary school mathematics course: Grades 6 to 8]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim bakanlığı.Google Scholar
  54. Thomson, S. & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMMS 2002. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  55. Toker, Z. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 7. Sınıf (Mathematics textbooks for grade 7). Ankara: Dorukkaya Press.Google Scholar
  56. TTKB (2012). Ders Kitaplarının İncelenmesinde Puanlamaya Esas Ölçütler (Criteria for the review and approval of school textbooks). Accessed January 2012.
  57. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H. & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the Book. Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  58. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations