Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

QUALITY OF THE TASKS IN THE NEW TURKISH ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS: THE CASE OF PROPORTIONAL REASONING

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbaugh, F. & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydın, N., & Beşer, Ş. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 8. Sınıf (Mathematics Textbooks for Grade 8). Ankara: Tuna Press.

  • 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 

  • 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).

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ersoy, Y. (2006). Innovations in mathematics curricula of elementary schools-I: Objective, content and acquisition. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göğün, Y. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 6. Sınıf (Mathematics textbooks for grade 6). Ankara: Özgün Press

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lawton, C. A. (1993). Contextual factors affecting errors in proportional reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 460–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (an expanded sourcebook). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: The Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Romberg, T. A. (2004). Standards-based mathematics assessment in middle school: Rethinking classroom practice. New York, NY: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. England: Penguin Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thomson, S. & Fleming, N. (2004). Summing it up: Mathematics achievement in Australian schools in TIMMS 2002. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toker, Z. (2010). Matematik Ders Kitabı: 7. Sınıf (Mathematics textbooks for grade 7). Ankara: Dorukkaya Press.

  • TTKB (2012). Ders Kitaplarının İncelenmesinde Puanlamaya Esas Ölçütler (Criteria for the review and approval of school textbooks). http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr. Accessed January 2012.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Erciyes University, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey

    Ibrahim Bayazit

Authors
  1. Ibrahim Bayazit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim Bayazit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayazit, I. QUALITY OF THE TASKS IN THE NEW TURKISH ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS: THE CASE OF PROPORTIONAL REASONING. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 11, 651–682 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9358-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9358-8

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation