Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ortaokul matematik öğretmeni adaylarının (OMÖA) farklı sayı tabanlarında basamak değeri kavramını nasıl anlamlandırdıklarını ve bu süreçte somut materyalleri nasıl kullandıklarını incelemektir. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için durum çalışması deseni kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları, Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 24 OMÖA’dan oluşmaktadır. Katılımcılardan, onluk, altılık ve üçlük tabanlarda yazılmış sayılarla toplama ve çıkarma işlemlerini içeren etkinlik sorularını en az iki farklı somut materyal kullanarak yanıtlamaları istenmiştir. Katılımcılar bu etkinliği grup hâlinde tamamlamış, yazılı yanıtlarını dört hafta içinde sunmaları istenmiş ve herhangi bir tür somut materyal kullanma konusunda özgür bırakılmışlardır. Bulgular, OMÖA ‘ların basamak değeri için ilgili literatürde belirtilen orantısal ve orantısal olmayan modellere ek olarak karma model yaklaşımını da benimsediklerini ortaya koymuştur. Karma model kullanımı, öğretmen adaylarının orantısal ve orantısal olmayan modellerin güçlü yönlerinden yararlanmalarını sağlayan etkili bir strateji olarak öne çıkmıştır. Ayrıca, OMÖA’ların ikinci bir somut materyali kullanarak çözüm üretmede sınırlı kaldıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu sınırlılık, OMÖA’ların farklı taban sistemleriyle çalışırken materyal çeşitliliğini sağlama konusunda karşılaştıkları zorlukları vurgulamakta ve bunun matematiksel anlam inşa etme süreçlerini etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Basamak değeri, Somut materyal, Toplama ve çıkarma işlemleri, Taban aritmetiği, Ortaokul matematik öğretmeni adayları

Kaynakça

  1. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teacher education: Knowing and teaching mathematics for understanding. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003013
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  3. Baroody, A. (1990). How and when should place-value concepts and skills be taught?. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 281-286. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.21.4.0281
  4. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn & Bacon.
  5. Cady, J. A., Hopkins, T., & Hodges, T. E. (2008). Lesson study as professional development for mathematics teacher educators. Inquiry into Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 119-129.
  6. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
  7. Clements, D. H. (2000). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2000.1.1.7
  8. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers (Vol. 11). American Mathematical Soc. https://doi.org/10.1090/cbmath/011
  9. Council of Higher Education. (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/egitim-fakultesi-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.pdf
  10. Çaylan, B. (2018). The effects of using algebra tiles on sixth grade students’ algebra achievement, algebraic thinking and views about using algebra tiles (Thesis No. 509436) [Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
  11. Disney, A., & Eisenreich, H. (2018). Deepening place value understanding in K-2 through explanation and justification. In Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching and Learning Conference (2017-2019) (Vol. 2, pp. 66-73). https://doi.org/10.20429/stem.2018.020109
  12. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
  13. Ev Çimen, E. (2016). Doğal sayılar. A. N. Elçi, E. Bukova Güzel, B. Cantürk Günhan, & E. Ev Çimen (Eds.), Temel matematiksel kavramlar ve uygulamaları içinde (pp. 19-28). Pegem Akademi.
  14. Fasteen, J., Melhuish, K., & Thanheiser, E. (2015). Multiplication by 10 base-5: Making sense of place value structure through an alternate base. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3(2), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.3.2.0083
  15. Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
  16. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies.
  17. Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first-and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/749373
  18. Goldin, G. A., & Kaput, J. J. (1996). A joint perspective on the idea of representation in learning and doing mathematics. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (1996), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 397-430). Erlbaum.
  19. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. MacMillan Publishing Company.
  20. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value with understanding in first grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 98-122. https://doi.org/10.2307/749496
  21. Hose, J. C., & Wells, T. (2013). The marriage of place and value. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(8), 528. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.19.8.0528
  22. Houdement, C. & Petitfour, E. (2019, February). Manipulatives in special education: help or hindrance?. Paper presented at the 11th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  23. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. McClain, K. (2009). Supporting preservice teachers' understanding of place value and multidigit arithmetic. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(4), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0504_03
  25. McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701593899
  26. Ministry of National Education. (2018). İlkokul ve ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  27. Mix, K. (2010). Spatial tools for mathematical thought. In K. Mix, L. Smith, & M. Gasser (Eds.), The spatial foundations of language and cognition (pp. 41-66). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553242.003.0003
  28. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596316942
  29. Nataraj, M. S., & Thomas, M. O. (2009). Developing understanding of number system structure from the history of mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217547
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
  31. Okpube, N. M. (2016). Card games and algebra tic tacmatics on achievement of junior secondary students in algebraic expressions. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 5(2), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v5i2.4527
  32. Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2014). Helping children learn mathematics (11th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
  33. Rojo, M. M., Knight, B., & Bryant, D. P. (2021). Teaching place value to students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451221994827
  34. Ross, S. H. (1989). Parts, wholes, and place value: A developmental view. The Arithmetic Teacher, 36(6), 47-51. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.36.6.0047
  35. Roy, G. J. (2014). Developing prospective teachers' understanding of addition and subtraction with whole numbers. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers: The Journal, 2, 1-15.
  36. Rusiman, M. S., & Him, N. C. (2017). The use of concrete material in teaching and learning mathematics. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 12(8), 2170-2174.
  37. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
  38. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  39. Tarım, K., & Artut, P. D. (2013). Preservice teachers' levels of understanding of place value and numeration systems. İlköğretim Online, 12(3), 759-769.
  40. Thanheiser, E. (2009). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 251-281. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.40.3.0251
  41. Thanheiser, E., & Rhoads, K. (2009). Exploring preservice teachers’ conceptions of numbers via the Mayan number system. In S. Swars, D. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 1220-1227). Georgia State University.
  42. Thompson, P. W., & Lambdin, D. (1994). Research into practice: Concrete materials and teaching for mathematical understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, 41(9), 556-558. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.41.9.0556
  43. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Williams, J. M. B. (2018). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Longman.
  44. Yackel, E., Underwood, D., & Elias, N. (2007). Mathematical tasks designed to foster a reconceptualized view of early arithmetic. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4), 351-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9044-x
  45. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Telif hakkı ve lisans

Telif Hakkı © 2025 Yazar(lar). Açık erişimli bu makale, orijinal çalışmaya uygun şekilde atıfta bulunulması koşuluyla, herhangi bir ortamda veya formatta sınırsız kullanım, dağıtım ve çoğaltmaya izin veren Creative Commons Atıf Lisansı (CC BY) altında dağıtılmıştır.

Nasıl atıf yapılır

Yılmaz, A., & Tekerek, B. (2025). Farklı tabanlarda basamak değeri üzerine matematik öğretmeni adaylarının somut materyal kullanımının incelenmesi: doğal sayılarda toplama ve çıkarma işlemleri. Eğitim Ve Bilim, 50(223), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2025.2446