Original article | TAY Journal 2023, Vol. 7(1) 303-328
Analysis of Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum Learning Outcomes by TIMSS-2019 Cognitive Domain Skills
Ahsen Seda Bulut, Zehra Taşpınar Şener
pp. 303 - 328 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2023.537.14 | Manu. Number: tay journal.2023.014
Published online: March 31, 2023 | Number of Views: 22 | Number of Download: 583
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the learning outcomes in the 2018 secondary school mathematics curriculum according to TIMSS-2019 cognitive domain skills by using qualitative research method and document analysis. The study evaluated a total of 215 learning outcome statements in the Secondary School (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Grades) Mathematics Curriculum published by the Board of Education and Discipline according to learning domains and grade level, taking into account TIMSS cognitive domain skills. Since some of the learning outcome statements in the curriculum contain more than one level, 268 outcome statements were categorized. According to the findings obtained from the research, approximately 28% of all learning outcome are in knowing, 48% in applying, and 24% in reasoning cognitive domains. The cognitive domain of knowing is mostly observed in the 5th grade learning outcomes. The applying domain is mostly observed in the 7th grade. The reasoning domain is observed at the highest rate in the 8th grade while it is observed with the lowest rate in the 5th grade. Remarkably, the applying cognitive domain is included the most in all learning domains in the distribution of the cognitive characteristics of the learning outcomes based on the learning domains. While the cognitive domain of reasoning takes place in the data processing learning domain at the highest rate; the cognitive domain of knowing is mostly located in the learning domain of numbers and operations.
Keywords: Secondary school curriculum, secondary school mathematics course, cognitive domain skills, TIMSS.
| How to Cite this Article? |
|---|
|
APA 6th edition Harvard Chicago 16th edition |
| References |
|---|
|
Bal, P., Karabay Turan, A. ve Kuşdemir Kayıran, B. (2021). Analysis of elementary school teachers’ evaluations regarding the mathematics curriculum. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(2), 717-732. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.696848 Başaran, İ.E. and Çınkır, Ş. (2013). Türk eğitim sistemi ve okul yönetimi. [Turkish education system and school management] Ankara. Siyasal Kitabevi. Baştürk, V. (2021). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin cebirsel problemleri matematiksel modellemeyi kullanarak çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the errors of the sixth year students in the solution of algebraic problems]. (Dissertation Number. 662531). [Doctoral dissertation, Bursa Uludag University), YÖK Thesis Center. Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Matematik Eğitimi [Mathematics Education from Theory to Practice]. Ankara: Harf Eğitim. Bobbitt, J. F. (2017). The curriculum. (M. E. Rüzgar, Trans.; 1st ed.). Pegem Akademi. Bozkurt, E., Küçükakın, G. Ve Öksüz, H. (2021). Middle school mathematıcs teachers' perceptions about reform curriculum, Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 21 (3), 833-847. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2021.21.64908-882886 Büyükkaragöz, S. S. (1997). Program geliştirme: Kaynak Metinler. [Program development: Source Texts]. Konya: Öz Eğitim. Çil, O. (2022). A comparative exploration of Turkish and Irish curricula via TIMMS cognitive domains. Issues in Educational Research, 32(2), 434-452. http://www.iier.org.au/iier32/cil.pdf Delil, A., Özcan, B. N. & Işlak, O. (2020). An Analysis of turkish primary school mathematics curriculum learning outcomes in terms of tımss-2019 assessment frameworks. Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Science, 18(1) , 270-282. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.669086 Deringöl, Y. (2006). İlköğretimde matematik problem çözmeyi öğretmede yeni yaklaşımlar [Mathematics problem in primary education new approaches to teaching solve]. (Master Thesis, Istanbul University Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul]. http://nek.istanbul.edu.tr:4444/ekos/TEZ/41540.pdf Doğan, A. (2020). Investigation of Gains in Primary School Mathematics Curriculum according to Solo Taxonomy. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 9 (3), 2305-2325. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.768583 Erden, M. (1998). Eğitimde program değerlendirme (3. Baskı) [Curriculum evaluation in education (3rd Edition)], Ankara: Anı. Ersoy, Y. (2006). Innovations in Mathematics Curricula of Elementary Schools-I: Objective, Content and Acquisition. Elemantary Education Online, 5(1), 30-44. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/91060 Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Gökkurt, B., Örnek, T., Hayat, F., & Soylu, Y. (2015). Assessing students’ problem-solving and problem-posing skills. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(2), 751-774. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000145637 Güzel, M., Bozkurt, A. & Özmantar, M.2021). Analysis of the evaluations and interventions made by mathematics teachers in the activity design and implementation process. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9 (18), 513-545. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.880304 Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A. M. Y., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P. & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003013.pdf Hook, W., Bishop, W., & Hook, J. (2007). A quality math curriculum in support of effective teaching for elementary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 125–148. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10649-006-9050-4 İncikabı, L., Mercimek, O., Ayanoğlu, P., Aliustaoğlu, F. ve Tekin, N. (2016). An evaluation of middle school mathematics teaching programs based on tımss cognitive domains. Elementary Education Online, 15(4) 1149-1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.54792 Incikabi, L., Ozgelen, S., & Tjoe, H. (2012). A Comparative analysis of numbers and biology content domains between Turkey and the USA. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 523-536. http://www.ijese.net/makale/1548.html Johansson, S., & Hansen, K. (2019). Are mathematics curricula harmonizing globally over time?, Evidence from TIMSS national research coordinator data. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/99516 Kaput, J. (1998). Transforming Algebra from an Engine of Inequity to an Engine of Mathematical Power by “Algebrafying” the K-12 Curriculum, In NCTM, The Nature and role of Algebra in the K-14 Curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kartal O.Y. & Yazgan A.D. (2016). Özmantar, M. F., & Öztürk, A. (Eds.) in Curriculum Development Process and Basic Components. Primary school mathematics curriculum in the context of reform and change. Pegem Academy Kılıç, H. , Aslan-tutak, F. & Ertaş, G. (2014). Changes in middle school mathematics curriculum through the lens of TIMSS. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(2).129-141. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mersinefd/issue/17394/181812 Korkmaz, H. (2004). Fen ve teknoloji eğitiminde alternatif değerlendirme yaklaşımları [Alternative assessment approaches in science and technology education]. Ankara: Yeryüzü Yayınevi. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (2nd Ed.). USA: SAGE Publications. Ministry of National Education [MoNE], (2016). TIMSS 2015 national math and science preliminary report grades 4 and 8. Ankara, Turkey. Ministry of National Education [MoNE], (2018). Mathematics Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades. Ankara, Turkey. Ministry of Education [MoNE], (2022). Central Examination Report for Secondary Education Institutions. Turkey. Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 assessment frameworks. TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center. Chestnut Hill, MA: Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Ndlovu, M., & Mji, A. (2012). Alignment between South African mathematics assessment standards and the TIMSS assessment frameworks. Pythagoras, 33(3), 1-9. Puncova, A., & Valentova, L. (2020). Comparison of the content of Data display domain (TIMSS 2015) in Slovak and Singapore primary mathematics curriculum. Technium Soc. Sci. J., 14, 753. Taşpınar-Şener, Z. & Bulut, A. S. (2022). An analysis of the 4th and 8th grade mathematics textbooks by TIMSS cognitive domains. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 23(Special Issue), 46-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.29299/kefad.999519 Tutak, T. & Farımaz, H. (2022). Comparative analysis of mathematics questions in high school entrance exams in 2018-2019 and mathematics questions in textbooks according to math taxonomy2018-2019. Journal of Anatolian Education Research, 6,15-35. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jaer Özkaya, A. (2021). Comparison of Turkey and Kazakhstan middle school mathematics teaching programmes. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 592-611. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.987453 Yakar Yıldırım, Z (2020). 5.Sınıf Matematik Ders Kitabı İçeriğinin Program Kazanım ve Kazanım Açıklamalarını Karşılama Durumu [The Situation of Meeting the Program Outcome and Outcome Explanations of the Content of the Class Mathematics Textbook]. VIIth International EJER Congress. 10-13 September 202, 984-997, Eskişehir Anadolu University, Eskişehir. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin . Yılmaz, N., Ay, Z. Aydın, Ş.(2021). An Investigation of Tasks in the Mathematics Textbooks and Objectives in Mathematics Curriculum from 4th to 8th Grade Related with Data Content Domain According to TIMSS 2019 Cognitive Domains. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 1397-1436. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.745164 |
