The Capacity of Junior Secondary Math Textbooks to Enhance Deep Learning

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ministry of Education , Birjand

2 Room 267- Mahani Building- Faculty of mathematics and computer- Shahid Bahonar U Pajohesh Sq. - 22 Bahman Blv.- Kerman- Iran.

3 Payamnoor University

Abstract

In this paper, a content analysis study is reported seeking to assess lower secondary math textbooks with regard to deep learning of mathematical concepts. Accordingly, three topics from the seventh, eighth and ninth grade math textbooks were selected for this content analysis, namely arithmetic, algebra and numbers. During the procedure for this content analysis, each problem was considered as an analysis unit. Theoretical framework derived from the literature and modified to investigate the textbook problems with four criteria: procedural complexity, type of solving processes, the degree of repetition, Exercise/Application. The results showed that with the first criterion, almost 80% of all three textbooks’ problems were in the "low procedural complexity" category; With the second criterion, 90% of the eighth and ninth grade textbooks’ problems could be solved with the solving process "using procedures", while this proportion was 80% for the seventh grade textbooks problems. With the third and fourth criteria, in all three textbooks, the problems were mainly categoized as "repetition" (60%) and "exercise" (90%). To sum up, the results of the analysis showed that in the mentioned topics, there were a high number of low complexity exercises that can be solved by using pre-learned procedures. As a result, it could be deduced that lower secondary math textbooks are far from the intended curriculum objectives and rely further on learning through drill and practice.

Keywords

References

Bell, A. (1993). Principles for the design of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 5–34.
Budiansky, S. (2001). The trouble with textbooks. ASEE Prism, 10, 24–27.
Galbraith, P. (2007). Beyond the low hanging fruit. In Modelling and Applications in Mathematics Education (pp. 79-88). Springer, Boston, MA.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Gamier, H., Givvhl, K. B., Hollhlgsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A. M-Y., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersthlg, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeck, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Howson, G. (2005). “Meaning” and School Mathematics. In Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 17-38). Springer, Boston, MA.
Pehkonen, L. (2004). The magic circle of the textbook—an option or an obstacle for teacher change. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 513–520). Bergen: PME.
Rezat, S. (2009). The utilization of mathematics textbooks as instruments for learning. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME6, Lyon France. http://www.inrp.fr/editions/cerme6. 15 July 2011.
Schoenfeld, A. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253-286.
Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 183-199.
Stacey, K. (2003). The need to increase attention to mathematical reasoning. In H. Hollingsworth, J. Lokan, & B. McCrae, Teaching mathematics in Australia: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study (pp. 119-122). Melbourne: ACER.
Tarr, J. E., Chávez, Ó., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping students’ opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191–201.
Vincent, J., & Stacey, K. (2008). Do mathematics textbooks cultivate shallow teaching? Applying the TIMSS video study criteria to Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(1), 82-107.
Journal of Curriculum Studies
Volume 14, Issue 52
June 2019
Pages 1-30

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 August 2018
  • Revise Date: 16 May 2019
  • Accept Date: 17 June 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics