Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society (한국학교수학회논문집)

The Korean School Mathematics Society (한국학교수학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis on Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by 'Probability and Statistics' textbooks

'확률과 통계' 교과서에 제시된 맥락 기반 과제의 학습기회 분석

  • Received : 2019.08.10
  • Accepted : 2019.09.24
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, we analyzed the types of tasks presented in the 'Probability and Statistics' textbooks and how the cognitive competences required to perform the tasks provide students with opportunity-to-learn. To this end, the analysis of the 9 books of the 'Probability and Statistics' test textbooks according to the 2015 revised mathematics curriculum showed that the context-based tasks(CF type, RE type) ranged from 67.5% to 78.0% of the total number of tasks in each textbook, but the ratio of relevant and essential tasks related to real life is from 0.4% to 2.0%, it was found that most of the context-based tasks presented in the textbooks were disguised as real life materials. The cognitive competences of context-based tasks ranged from 29.6% to 50.0% in reproduction category, from 33.8% to 54.3% in connection category, and from 8.8% to 20.0% in reflection category. As a result, there was not enough opportunity-to-learn for students to experience reflective cognitive processes.

본 연구는 '확률과 통계' 교과서에 제시된 과제의 맥락 유형과 과제를 수행할 때 요구되는 인지적 역량이 학생들에게 어떠한 학습기회를 제공하는지 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 2015 개정 수학과 교육과정에 따른 '확률과 통계' 검정교과서 전체 9권을 분석한 결과, 맥락 기반 과제(CF유형, RE유형)는 각 교과서마다 전체 과제 개수의 67.5%부터 78.0%로 나타났지만 실생활에 연관된 본질적인 과제(RE유형) 비율은 0.4%부터 2.0%로 나타나 교과서에 제시된 대부분의 맥락 기반 과제는 실생활 소재를 위장한 과제임을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 맥락 기반 과제의 인지적 역량은 각 교과서마다 재생산(Rp)범주에 속하는 과제 비율은 29.6%부터 50.0%로 다양하게 나타났고, 연결(Co)범주 과제 비율은 33.8%부터 54.3%, 반성(Rf)범주 과제 비율은 8.8%부터 20.0%로 나타나 과제수행 시 학생들이 반성적 인지 과정을 경험할 수 있는 학습기회는 다소 충분하지 않음을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 구자옥, 김성숙, 이혜원, 조성민, 박혜영 (2016). OECD 국제 학업성취도 평가 연구: PISA 2015 결과 보고서. 한국교육과정평가원 연구보고 RRE, 2-2.
  2. 김경희, 시기자, 김미영, 옥현진, 임해미, 김선희, 정지영, 정송, 박희재 (2010). OECD 학업성취도 국제비교 연구 (PISA 2009) 결과 보고서. 한국교육과정평가원 연구보고 PIM 2011-4.
  3. 김구연, 전미현 (2017). 중학교 수학교과서가 학생에게 제공하는 함수 학습기회 탐색. 학교수학, 19(2), 289-317.
  4. 송미영, 임해미, 최혁준, 박혜영, 손수경, 김성숙 (2013). OECD 국제 학업성취도 평가 연구: PISA 2012 결과 보고서. 한국교육과정평가원 연구보고 RRE, 6-1.
  5. 이선정, 김구연 (2019). 한국과 미국 중학교 교과서의 통계 영역 수학과제가 제시하는 통계적 추론에 대한 학습기회 탐색. A-수학교육, 58(1), 139-160.
  6. 임해미 (2016). 동아시아 상위 성취국의 PISA 2012 수학 결과 비교 분석, 한국학교수학회논문집, 19(4), 441-456.
  7. 임해미, 전영주 (2013). PISA 2009 결과를 중심으로 한 우리나라와 상하이의 수학교육 현황 비교 분석. 한국학교수학회논문집, 16(4), 863-882.
  8. 최희선 (2019). 고등학교 <수학> 교과서에 제시된 교과 역량 과제 분석. 한국학교수학회논문집, 22(2), 95-113.
  9. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers college record.
  10. Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-7834-1
  11. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical thinking and learning, 12(2), 117-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903460070
  12. De Lange, J. (1995). Assessment: No change without problems. Reform in school mathematics and authentic assessment, 87-172.
  13. Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of the distributive property in US and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370001003638553
  14. Freudenthal, H. (1986). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
  15. Garrison, A. L. (2011). The cognitive demand of mathematical tasks: Investigating links to teacher characteristics and contextual factors. Comunicacao apresentada na Society for Research in Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
  16. Gatabi, A. R., Stacey, K., & Gooya, Z. (2012). Investigating grade nine textbook problems for characteristics related to mathematical literacy. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 403-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0052-5
  17. Graumann, G. (2011). Mathematics for problems in the everyday world. In Real-world problems for secondary school mathematics students (pp. 113-122).
  18. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational studies in mathematics, 39(1-3), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003749919816
  19. Grouws, D. A., & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Improving student achievement in mathematics, part 1: Research findings. ERIC Clearinghouse.
  20. Husen, T. (1967). International study of achievement in mathematics, a comparison of twelve countries, VOLUME II.
  21. Ikeda, T. (2007). Possibilities for, and obstacles to teaching applications and modelling in the lower secondary levels. In Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 457-462). Springer, Boston, MA.
  22. Mikk, J. (2000). Textbook: Research and Writing. Baltische Studien zur Erziehungs und Sozialwissenschaft, Band 3 (Baltic Studies for Education and Social Sciences, Volume 3). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 275 Seventh Ave., 28th Floor, New York, NY 10001-6708.
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  24. OECD. (2004). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD Publishing.
  25. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why Mathematics Textbooks Matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
  26. Robitaille, D. F., & Travers, K. J. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics.
  27. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Valverde, G., Houang, R., & Wiley, D. (1997). Many Aims, Many Visions: A Cross-national Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics, Vol. 1.
  28. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 3(4), 268-275. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.3.4.0268
  29. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based math instruction: A casebook for professional development. Teachers College Press.
  30. Tornroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005
  31. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Springer Science & Business Media.
  32. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the learning of mathematics, 25(2), 2-23.
  33. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1
  34. Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to student performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347-360. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.6.347-360