Türkiye ve Almanya Matematik Öğretim Programlarının Cebir Öğrenme Alanı Bağlamında Karşılaştırılması

Year 2023, , 51 - 69, 30.06.2023

Okan Kuzu , Yasemin Çiçek , Zeynep İğdeli

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1222957

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Türkiye ve Almanya'nın Kuzey Ren-Vestfalya eyaletine ait matematik öğretim programı cebir öğrenme alanı bağlamında incelenmiştir. Programda yer alan öğrenme çıktılarının nicelik ve nitelik açısından benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları araştırılmış; revize edilmiş Bloom taksonomisinin bilgi ve bilişsel süreç boyutlarına göre sınıflandırılmıştır. Her iki programda da kazanımların kısa, net ve günlük yaşamla ilişkilendirilerek ifade edildiği görülmektedir. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımının benimsendiği bu çalışma, betimsel tarama yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinde doküman incelemesi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda, öğrenme çıktılarının bilgi boyutunda benzer olduğu; bilişsel süreç boyutu açısından farklılık göstermektedir. Türkiye öğretim programında yer alan kazanımların en üst bilişsel düzey olarak analiz basamağında yer aldığı görülürken; Almanya müfredatı ayrıca değerlendirme ve yaratma gibi üst düzey becerilerin kazanımlarını da içermektedir. Ayrıca her iki program için de kazanımların ağırlıklı olarak işlemsel bilgi ve uygulama basamağında yer aldığı görülmektedir. Türkiye öğretim programında yer alan kazanımların niceliksel olarak Almanya öğretim programında yer alan kazanımlardan daha yüksek olduğu görülmekle birlikte içerik açısından kazanımların birbirini kapsayacak nitelikte olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Uygulama önerileri incelendiğinde ise her iki öğretim programında da ayrıntılı ve zengin bir şekilde yer verildiği görülmüştür. Öte yandan alan yazındaki karşılaştırmalı eğitim çalışmalarında kullanılan temaların ülkelere göre dağılımı incelendiğinde, çalışmaların daha çok programın unsurlarına (amaç/hedef, içerik, eğitim durumları ve test durumları) odaklandığı görülmüştür. Temel matematiksel kavramların anlamlandırılması ve üst düzey bilişsel becerilerin kazandırılması sürecinde, gerçek yaşam problemleri ve süreç temelli öğretim modelleri dikkate alınarak öğretim ortamları ve programları tasarlanabilir. Öte yandan teknolojinin hayatın bir parçası olması nedeniyle eğitim süreci dijital oyunlar ve/veya hikayelerle bütünleştirilerek dijital içerikli öğretim materyallerini içerecek şekilde programlar ve kazanımlar hazırlanabilir. Ayrıca matematik öğretim sürecinde farklı temsil türleri kullanılabilir ve etkinlikler tasarlanabilir.

Keywords

Cebir, Bloom taksonomisi, Öğretim programı, Almanya, Türkiye

A Comparison of the Mathematics Curriculums in Turkey and Germany in the Context of Algebra Learning Domain

Abstract

In this study, Turkey and German state of North Rhine-Westphalia mathematics curriculum have been examined in the context of the algebra learning area. The learning outcomes have been investigated similarities and differences of the in terms of quantity and quality; classified in terms of knowledge and cognitive process dimensions of the revised Bloom's taxonomy. This study, in which the qualitative research approach was adopted, was carried out with the descriptive screening. Document analysis technique has been used in the data collection process. As a result of the analysis, it is determined that the learning outcomes are similar in terms of knowledge dimension; difference in terms of cognitive process dimension. While it is seen that the outcomes in the Turkey curriculum are in the analyze step as the highest cognitive level; Germany curriculum also includes outcomes fof higher level skills such as evaluate and create. Moreover, it is seen that the outcomes are mainly included in the procedural knowledge and apply step for both curriculums. Although it is seen that the outcomes in the Turkey curriculum are quantitatively higher than the outcomes in the Germany curriculum, it has been determined that the outcomes in terms of content are of a nature to cover each other. When the implementation suggestions were examined, it was seen that they were included in both curriculums in a detailed and rich way. On the other hand, when the distribution of the themes used in comparative education studies in the literature according to the countries was investigated, it was determined that the studies mostly focused on the elements of the curriculum (aim/goal, content, educational situations and testing situations). In the process of making sense of basic mathematical concepts and acquisition of high-level cognitive skills, teaching environments and programs can be designed by considering real life problems and process-based teaching models. On the other hand, since technology is a part of life, the education process can be integrated with digital games and/or stories, and programs and learning outcomes can be prepared in a way that includes teaching materials with digital content. In addition, different types of representation can be used in the mathematics teaching process and appropriate activities can be designed.

Keywords

Algebra, Bloom taxonomy, Curriculum, Germany, Turkey.

References

• Abid, A.A.O. (2017). A comparıson between the middle school mathematics curriculum “A case study of Turkey and Libya”. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Kastamonu.
• Altıntaş, S., & Görgen, İ. (2014). Comparative analysis of the mathematic curriculums of Turkey and South Korea. NWSA: Education Sciences, 9(2), 191–216.
• Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
• Arı, A. (2013). Revised Bloom, SOLO, Fink, Dettmer taxonomies in cognitive area classification and their international recognition cases. Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 259–290.
• Atweh, B., Barton, A. C., Borba, M. C., Gough, N., Keitel-Kreidt, C., Vistro-Yu, C., & Vithal, R. (Eds.). (2007). Internationalisation and globalisation in mathematics and science education. Springer.
• Bacakoğlu, T. Y., & Işık-Tertemiz, N. (2021). A comparison of mathematics curriculum of Turkey and Singapore in the context of geometry learning area. Nevsehir Hacı Bektas Veli University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(3), 1089-1107.
• Bakioğlu, A., & Göçmen. G. (2013). Singapur eğitim sistemi [Singapore education system]. In A. Bakioğlu (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı eğitim yönetimi [Comparative education management] (ss. 127-155). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Batur, A., Özmen, Z. M., Topan, B., Akoglu, K., & Güven, B. (2021). A cross-national comparison of statistics curricula. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 290–319.
• Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
• Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Cross-Cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423–432.
• Bozkurt, A., Çırak-Kurt, S., & Tezcan, S. (2020). A comparison of the middle school mathematics curricula of Turkey and Singapore with respect to the learning domain of algebra. PAU Journal of Education, 48, 152–173.
• Böke, C. H. (2002). A compersion of Turkey primary mathematics curriculum and English mathematics curriculum. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hacettepe.
• Bümen, N. T. (2006). Program geliştirmede bir dönüm noktası: Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 31(142), 3-14.
• CoHE-World Bank (1997). Milli eğitimi geliştirme projesi hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitimi [National education development project pre-service teacher training]. Ankara: Council of Higher Education.
• Çelik, S., Kul, Ü., & Çalık-Uzun, S. (2018). Using Bloom's revised taxonomy to analyse learning outcomes in mathematics curriculam. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 775–795.
• Çetinbağ, A. (2019). A comparison of primary mathematics curriculum of Turkey and Canada in the context of elements of the program domain. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Marmara.
• Çiçek, Y., Kuzu, O., & Çalışkan, N. (2021). A comparison of mathematics curriculum of Turkey and Germany in the context of geometry learning domain. Istanbul Aydın University Journal of Social Science, 13(1), 225–260.
• Çil, O., Kuzu, O., & Şimşek, A.S. (2019). Investigation of 2018 secondary mathematics curriculum according to the revised Bloom taxonomy and components of the program. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1), 1402–1418.
• Çoban, A. (2011). Comparison of primary mathematics curriculum of the United States of America, England and Turkey. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Celal Bayar.
• Dede, Y., & Argün, Z. (2003). Why do students have difficulty with algebra?. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education, 24(24), 180–185.
• Doğan, N., & Barış F. (2010). Tutum, değer ve özyeterlik değişkenlerinin TIMSS-1999 ve TIMSS-2007 sınavlarında öğrencilerin matematik başarılarını yordama düzeyleri. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 1(1), 44–50.
• Doğanay, A., & Ünal, F. (2006). Eleştirel düşünmenin öğretimi [Teaching critical thinking]. In İçerik türlerine dayalı öğretim [Teaching based on content types]. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Duygu, N. (2013). International comparative study of elementary school mathematics curriculum. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa.
• Erbaş, A., Çetinkaya, B., & Ersoy, Y. (2009). Student difficulties and misconceptions in solving simple linear equations. Education and Science, 34(152), 44–59.
• Erbilge, A. E. (2019). Comparison of secondary school mathematics curriculum of Turkey, Canada and Hong Kong. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Marmara.
• Erdoğan, F., Hamurcu, H., & Yeşiloğglu, A. (2016). The analyzing of TIMSS 2011 Turkey and Singapore results in mathematics program. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5 (USOS Special Edition), 31–43.
• Forster, N. (1994). The analysis of company documentation. In C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research (pp. 228-244). London: Sage Publications.
• Galo, E. (2008). A comparative analysis of the mathematics curricula for primary schools in Turkey and in Kosova. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Marmara.
• Güzel, I. (2010). Turkey, Germany, Canada highscool mathemathics curriculum comparing. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Zonguldak Karaelmas.
• Güzel, I., Karatas, I., & Cetinkaya, B. (2010). A comparison of secondary school mathematics curriculum guidebooks: Turkey, Germany and Canada. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1(3), 309–325.
• Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda and C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Weissbach, H. (2018). Almanya ve Türkiye'nin PISA 2000-2015 Sonuçlarındaki Değişimin İncelenmesi ve PISA Sonrası Almanya’daki Eğitim Reformları. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
• Hasić, A., & Romano D. A. (2018). Comparative analysis of mathematics curricula for 5th grades in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia Middle Schools. IMVI Open Mathematical Education Notes, 8(2), 61-67.
• Hawker, S., & Cowley, C. (Eds.). (1997). Oxford dictionary and thesaurus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Iliman-Püsküllüoglu, E., & Hosgörür, V. (2017). The evaluation of comparative education graduate theses carried out between 2010 and 2016 in Turkey. MSKU Journal of Education, 4(1), 46–61.
• Ismail-Amet, E. (2021). Comparison of the secondary school mathematics curriculum of Turkey and Greece. [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Bursa Uludag.
• Kablan, Z., Baran, T., & Hazer, Ö. (2013). A study of the target behaviors in the math curriculum for sixth to eighth grades in reference to cognitive processes. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 347–366.
• Kácovský, P., Jedličková, T., Kuba, R., Snětinová, M., Surynková, P., Vrhel, M., & Urválková, E. S. (2022). Lower secondary intended curricula of science subjects and mathematics: a comparison of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(3), 384-405.
• Karaca, Z., Kuzu, O., & Calıskan, N. (2020). The effect on academic achievement of usıng concept cartoons in teaching of the polygons concept. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 110–125.
• Karakaya, A. (2021). Comparison of geometry and measurement learning domain of mathematics curriculums of Turkey, Canada and Singapore. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hacettepe.
• Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (24. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Karataşlı, E. (2019). A comparative study of Australia-Waldorf and Turkish secondary mathematics curriculum. [Master’s thesis, University of Hacettepe].
• Kaytan, E. (2007). A comparison of primary mathematics curriculums of Turkey, Singapore and England. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hacettepe.
• Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide. University College Cork.
• Köğce, D., Aydın, M., & Yıldız, C. (2009). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 1–7.
• Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice. 41(4), 212–218.
• Kul, Ü., & Aksu, Z. (2016). A comparison of middle school mathematics curricula in Turkey, Singapore and South Korea within the context of pedagogical content knowledge. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 900–921.
• Kuzu, O. (2020) Preservice mathematics teachers’ competencies in the process of transformation between representations for the concept of limit: A qualitative study. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 10(4), 1037–1066.
• Kuzu, O., & Çalışkan. N. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının motivasyon ve matematik kaygı düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Examination of teacher candidates' motivation and mathematics anxiety levels in terms of various variables]. In C.Arslan, E. Hamarta, S. Çiftçi, M. Uslu ve O. Köksal (Eds.), Eğitim bilimleri çalışmaları [Educational science studies] (pp. 5-11). Konya: Çizgi Kitabevi.
• Kuzu, O., Çil, O., & Şimşek, A.S. (2019). Investigation of 2018 mathematics curriculum objectives according to the revised Bloom's taxonomy. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 21(3), 129–147.
• Kuzu, Y., Kuzu, O., & Gelbal, S. (2019). Investigation of TEOG and LGS systems in terms of students’, teachers’, parents’ and teacher parents’ opinions. Ahi Evran University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 5(1), 112–130.
• Kuzu, O., Kuzu, Y., & Sıvacı, S. Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and metaphor perceptions towards Mathematics. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 897–931.
• Kuzu, O., & Sıvacı, S. Y. (2018). Dijital oyun bağımlılığı ile teknoloji okuryazarlığı arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between digital game addiction and technology literacy]. In I. International multidisciplinary digital addiction congress e-book, (pp. 69-78). Bursa: Kuzgun Kitap.
• Manzon, M. (2011). Comparative education: The construction of a field (Vol. 29). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publication.
• MoNE (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum (primary and middle school 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
• MSB NRW (2019). Kernlehrplan Für Die Sekundarstufe I Gymnasium in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Mathematik. Düsseldorf: Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
• Mullis I.V.S., Martin M. O., & Loveless, T. (2015). 20 Years of TIMSS: International trends in mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction. Boston College: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
• Näsström, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom’s revised taxonomy: A comparison of teachers and assessment experts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 39-51.
• OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Executive summar. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results: Combined executive summaries (Volume I-II-III). Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Özkan, A. E. (2006). A comparative study on mathematics education programs of Turkey, Belgium (Flemish), and Singapore. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hacettepe.
• Öztürk, E. (2020). Comparison of the mathematics curricula of Turkey and Canada in terms of domains of curriculum. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Yeditepe.
• Özüdogru, G. (2021). Digital storytelling in education from teachers’ perspectives. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(2), 445–454.
• Pizà-Mir, B. (2022). Curriculum Analysis According To Bloom's Revised Taxonomy In Science And Mathematics. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6 (8), 10125-10130.
• Sadak, M., İncikabı, S., & Pektaş, O. (2021). A Thematic analysis of graduate theses on comparative education in Turkey: Reflection from mathematics and science education fields. TAY Journal, 5(1), 1–23
• Serçe, F. (2020). A comparative study of high school mathematics curricula in Turkey, Estonia, Canada, and Singapore. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Düzce.
• Sezgin-Memnun, D. (2013). A general aspect to the elementary mathematics education curriculum programs belonging to the Republican era in Turkey. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 13(25), 71–91.
• Sugandi, B. (2015). Comparison of Turkish and Indonesian secondary mathematics curriculum; reflection of the paradigms. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Marmara.
• Sugandi, B., & Delice, A. (2014). Comparison of Turkish and Indonesian secondary mathematics curricula; reflection of the paradigms. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152(2014), 540 – 545.
• Uğur-Arslan, Z. (2015). Determination of the reasons of Turkey's failure in TIMSS geometry domain with comparative curriculum analysis and opinions of the specialists. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.
• Tan-Şişman, G., & Karataşlı, E. (2020). A comparative study of Australia-Waldorf and Turkish secondary mathematics curriculum. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 18(2), 650–675.
• Tatlı, S., & Adıgüzel, C.O. (2012). A Multidimensional analysis of graduate level comparative education dissertations in Turkey. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences 12(1), 143-150.
• Tezcan, S. (2016). A comparison of 5-8. Grade school mathematics curriculum from Turkey, Singapore and the United States of America (The case of Wisconsin). [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Gaziantep.
• Türkoğlu, A. (1984). Türkiye ve Fransa’da lise programlarının karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi [Comparative analysis of high school programs in Turkey and France]. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Yayınları. No: 131.
• Wach, E. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis. Ids practice paper in brief, 1-10.
• Yağan, S.A. (2020). The comparison of primary school mathematics curriculums of Australia and Turkey. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(33), 294–320.
• Yenilmez, K., & Avcu, T. (2009). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin cebir öğrenme alanındaki başarı düzeyleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 37-45.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.