A Turkish adaptation of a framework for evaluating the mathematical quality of instruction: Matematik öğretiminin niteliğini değerlendiren bir çerçevenin Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması

Tuğba Hangül; Mehmet Fatih Özmantar; Gülay Agaç; İlyas Yavuz

doi:10.14687/jhs.v18i4.6136

Authors

Tuğba Hangül Marmara University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4871-497X
Mehmet Fatih Özmantar University of Gaziantep https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7842-1337
Gülay Agaç University of Gaziantep https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7788-4444
İlyas Yavuz Marmara University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7336-0889

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v18i4.6136

Keywords:

Mathematics Instruction, Mathematical Quality, Evaluation Criteria, Matematik Öğretimi, Matematiksel Kalite, Değerlendirme Kriterleri

Abstract

A structured assessment tool on the quality of mathematics instruction is considered to be important. It is believed that such a tool could play an important role in providing feedbacks to the preservice teachers during their trainings as well as in evaluating the quality of in-service teachers’ practices. From this point of view, firstly, it has been performed a comprehensive examination of the relevant frameworks developed to evaluate the quality of mathematics instruction. As a result, it was observed that the Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI) framework differed from the others with respect to both functional and structural features. Within the scope of this study, the adaptation of the MQI framework to Turkish language has been realized. In this study, the characteristics, usage, components and theoretical background of the MQI framework are shared with the reader. In addition, the adapted version of MQI framework was shared and the performance indicators to help potential users were elaborated.

Extended English summary is in the end of Full Text PDF (TURKISH) file.

Özet

Matematik öğretiminin niteliğine ilişkin yapılandırılmış bir değerlendirme aracı oldukça önemlidir. Bu türden bir araç gerek öğretmen yetiştirme sürecinde öğretmen adaylarına geri dönüt vermek gerekse halen hizmet veren matematik öğretmenlerinin uygulamalarının niteliğini değerlendirerek uygulamaların geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunabilecektir. Bu düşüncelerle öncelikle matematik öğretiminin niteliğine ilişkin değerlendirme yapmak için kullanılabilecek çerçevelere ilişkin kapsamlı bir tarama yapılmıştır. Bu tarama neticesinde kullanışlılığı ve yapısal özellikleri nedeniyle Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI) çerçevesinin diğerlerinden ayrıldığı görülmüştür. Bu makale çalışması kapsamında matematik öğretiminin niteliğine ilişkin işlevsel bir değerlendirme yapmak amacıyla geliştirilen MQI çerçevesinin ülkemizde kullanılabilmesi amacıyla Türkçe’ye adaptasyonu gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada söz konusu çerçevenin özellikleri, kullanım şekli, bileşenleri ve kuramsal arka planı okuyucuyla paylaşılmıştır. Ayrıca adaptasyonu yapılan çerçeve paylaşılmış ve potansiyel kullanıcılara yardımcı olacak performans göstergeleri detaylandırılmıştır.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Tuğba Hangül, Marmara University

Dr, Marmara University, Atatürk Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education

Mehmet Fatih Özmantar, University of Gaziantep

Prof. Dr., University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education

Gülay Agaç, University of Gaziantep

Dr., University of Gaziantep, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education

İlyas Yavuz, Marmara University

Prof. Dr., Marmara University, Atatürk Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education

References

Airasian, PW (2000). Assessment in the classroom: A concise approach (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Airasian, PW (2001). Classroom assessment:Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Alhija, F. N.-A. (2017). Teaching in higher education: Good teaching through students’ lens. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54(4-12).

Analitik. (2019). 15.10.2019 tarihinde http://www.fenegitimi.com/performans/pdf/Analitik.pdf adresinden indirilmiştir.

Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: what can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us?. System, 29(3), 371-383.

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41-62.

Boston, M. & Wolf, M. K. (2004). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) Toolkit to Assess Academic Rigor in Mathematics Lessons and Assignments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Diego.

Boston, M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76-104.

Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The Art and Science of Classroom Assessment: The Missing Part of Pedagogy. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 27, No.1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Cai, J., Perry, B., Wong, N.-Y. & Wang, T. (2009). What is effective teaching? A study of experienced mathematics teachers from Australia, the Mainland China, Hong Kong-China, and the United States. . Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W. & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, Instruction and Research. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 25(2), 119-142.

Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument 2013 edition. The Danielson Group.

Danielson, C. (2014) Framework for Teaching. 15.06.2017 tarihinde erişilmiştir. http://education.ky.gov/teachers/pges/tpges/documents/kentucky%20framework%20for%20teaching.pdf

Goulden, N.R. (1989). Theoretical and empirical comparisons of holistic and analytic scoring of written and spoken discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Francisco.

Hendrickson, S., Hilton, S. C. & Bahr, D. (2008). The Comprehensive Mathematics Instruction (CMI) Framework: A new lens for examining teaching and learning in the mathematics classroom. Utah Mathematics Teacher, Fall, 44-52.

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, 28(5), 524-549.

Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 92-102.

Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L. & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction: An Exploratory Study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430-511. doi:10.1080/07370000802177235

Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M. & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge: What Knowledge Matters and What Evidence Counts? In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Education (pp. 111-155). Charlotte: NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kilday, C. R. & Kinzie, M. B. (2009). An Analysis of Instruments that Measure the Quality of Mathematics Teaching in Early Childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 365-372. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0286-8

LMT. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 25-47.

MacIsaac, D., & Falconer, K. (2002). Reforming physics instruction via RTOP. The Physics Teacher, 40(8), 479-485.

Montgomery, K. (2001). Authentic assessment: A guide for elementary teachers. New York: Longman.

Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when, and how?. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 7(3). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3

Moskal, B. M. & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10). Erişim adresi: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=10.

MQI. (2016). Mathematical Quality of Instruction. Retrieved from https://cepr.harvard.edu/mqi-access:

Nitko, A. J. (2001). Educational assessment of students (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. (2004). Classroom assessment scoring system: Pre-kindergarten. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Center for Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning.

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Sawada, D. & Pilburn, M. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP). Retrieved from Arizona State University: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.

Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). An Introduction to the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework. Berkeley, CA: Graduate School of Education. http://map.mathshell.org/trumath.php

Strand, K. L. (2016). An Investigation Into Intermediate Grades Teachers’ Noticing of the Mathematical Quality of Instruction. (Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Education), Portland State University, USA.

UTOP (2009). Training Guide. 15.06.2017 tarihinde erişilmiştir. https://www.thetrc.org/web/assets/files/evaluation/UTOP_Manual.pdf

Weaver, D., Dick, T., Higgins, K., Marrongelle, K., Foreman, L. & Miller, N. (2005). OMLI classroom observation protocol.

Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R. & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States.

Ziebarth, S. W., Fonger, N. L. & Kratky, J. L. (2013). Instruments for studying the enacted curriculum. In D. Thompson & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), The enacted mathematics curriculum: A conceptual framework and research needs (pp. 97-120). Charlotte: NC: Information Age Publishing.