You are here:

A COMPARISON OF THE MATHEMATICAL PROCESSES EMBEDDED IN THE CONTENT STANDARDS OF TURKEY AND SINGAPORE
ARTICLE

Research in Social Sciences and Technology Volume 2, Number 1, ISSN 2468-6891 e-ISSN 2468-6891 Publisher: Research in Social Sciences and Technology

Full Text

Abstract

This study compares Turkey's and Singapore's mathematics content standards in terms of the highligthed mathematical processes. A mathematical processes framework was employed to analyze the content standards drawing on the standards for mathematical practice defined by the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. The standards for mathematical practice include make sense of problems and persevere in solving them, reason abstractly and quantitatively, construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, model with mathematics, use appropriate tools strategically, attend to precision, look for and make use of structure, look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. The data sources are 2013 mathematics curriculum standards of Turkey and 2013 mathematics syllabus of Singapore for grades 7 and 8. Data analysis revealed that the two countries reflected mathematical processes differently in their content standards. Some mathematical processes are not identified in Turkey's content standards  while all mathematical processes are observed in Singapore's content standards. The distribution of the observed mathematical processes are also different in the two countries. Suggestions for future content standards revisions are shared in the paper.

Citation

Erbilgin, E. (2017). A COMPARISON OF THE MATHEMATICAL PROCESSES EMBEDDED IN THE CONTENT STANDARDS OF TURKEY AND SINGAPORE. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1),. Retrieved May 18, 2022 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. (2006). Standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. Retrieved http://www.aamt.edu.au/
  2. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Brendefur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers' conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 125-153.
  4. Brenner, M.E., Mayer, R.E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B.S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal,37(4), 663-689.
  5. Confrey, J. (2007). Tracing the evolution of mathematics content standards in the United States: Looking back and projecting forward towards national standards. Paper presented at the Conference on K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Standards Arlington, Va.
  6. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (2012). Mathematics syllabus secondary one to four. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/defaultsource/document/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/mathematics-syllabus-sec-1-to-4express-n(a)-course.pdf
  7. Cüre, F., & Özdener, N. (2008). Teachers’ information and communication technologies (ICT) using achievements and attitudes towards ICT. H.U. Journal of Education, 34, 41-53.
  8. Erbilgin, E. (2014). Analyzing Turkey’s elementary and middle school mathematics standards with general topic trace mapping. Education and Science/ Egitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 272285.
  9. Goertz, M.E. (2010). National standards: Lessons from the past, directions for the future. In B.J. Reys & R.E. Reys (Eds.), Mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions: 2010 yearbook (pp. 51–63). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
  10. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
  11. Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook,second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Erbilgin Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 53-74
  13. MoNE (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı. Retrieved July 3 2014, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ Www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151.
  14. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/Encyclopedia/
  15. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.
  16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematics success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
  17. Officers (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. [Online] Retrieved March 13 2017, at URL: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
  18. Pang, J. (2009). Good mathematics instruction in South Korea. ZDM, 41(3), 349-362.
  19. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards the new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
  20. Raines, J.M., & Clark, L.M. (2011). A brief overview on using technology to engage students in mathematics. Current Issues in Education, 14(2). Retreived 20 August 2015 from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/786
  21. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.
  22. Souter, M.T. (2001). Integrating technology into the mathematics classroom: An action research study. Action Research Exchange, 1(1). Retreived 15 October 2014 from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/souter_am.pdf
  23. Tran, D., Reys, B.J., Teuscher, D., Dingman, S., & Kasmer, L. (2016). Analysis of Curriculum Standards: An Important Research Area. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,47(2), 118-133.
  24. Provasnik, S., Malley, L., Stephens, M., Landeros, K., Perkins, R., & Tang, J.H. (2016). Highlights From TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced 2015Mathematics and Science
  25. Webb, N.L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7-25.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References