Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi

Kürşat.Ayhan ERBAŞ (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Bülent ÇETİNKAYA, (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Erdinç ÇAKIROĞLU, (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Cengiz ALACASI (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
34 29

Proje Grubu: SOBAG Sayfa Sayısı: 654 Proje No: 110K250 Proje Bitiş Tarihi: 01.10.2013 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi

Öz:
-
Anahtar Kelime:

Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2010). Designing and teaching the elementary science methods course. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Abramovich, S. (2010). Modeling as isomorphism: The case of teacher education. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 501–510). New York: Springer.
  • Allen, D. W. (1980). Micro-teaching: Personal review. British Journal of Teacher Education, 6(2), 147– 151.
  • An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teacher in China and the U.S., Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.
  • Antonius, S., Haines, C., Jensen, T. H., & Burkhardt, H. (2007). Classroom activities and the teacher. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Wenn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 295–308). New York: Springer.
  • Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor.
  • Ball, D. L. (1997). What do students know? Facing challenges of distance, context, and desire in trying to hear children. In B.J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook on teachers and teaching (Vol. II, pp. 679–718). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.
  • Ball, D. (2001). Teaching with respect to mathematics and students. In T. Wood, B.S. Nelson & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 11– 22). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Elbraum Associates, Inc.
  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K., (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Barbosa, J. C. (2001). Mathematical modeling in pre-service teacher education1. In J. F. Matos, W. Blum, S. K. Houston, and S. P. Carreira (Eds.), Modelling and mathematics education: Applications in science and technology (pp. 185–194). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
  • Barnett, C. (1991). Building a case-based curriculum to enhance the pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 263–272.
  • Barnett, C. (1998). Mathematics teaching cases as a catalyst for informed strategic inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 81–93.
  • Bergqvist, T. (2005). How students verify conjectures: Teachers’ expectations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 171–191.
  • Biccard, P., & Wessels, D. C. J. (2011). Documenting the development of modelling competencies of grade 7 mathematics students. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 375–384). New York: Springer.
  • Bisognin, E., & Bisognin, V. (2012). Teachers' perceptions on the use of mathematical modeling in the classroom. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 26(43), 1049–1079.
  • Blachford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 153–172
  • Blomhøj, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2003). Developing mathematical modelling competence: Conceptual clarification and educational planning. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 22(3), 123–139.
  • Blomhøj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2006). Teaching mathematical modelling through project work. ZDMZentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 163–177.
  • Blum, W. (1996). Anwendungsbeztige im Mathematikunterricht - Trends und Perspektiven. In G. Kadunz et al. (Eds.), Trends und Perspektiven (pp. 15–38) Wien: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.
  • Blum, W. (2011). Can modelling be taught and learnt? some answers from empirical research. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer.
  • Blum, W., Galbraith, P. L., Henn, H. W., & Niss, M. (2002). ICME Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education – discussion document. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(12), 149–171.
  • Blum, W., Galbraith, P., Henn, H-W., & Niss, M. (Eds.) (2007). Modeling and applications in mathematics teacher eduation. New York: Springer.
  • Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). “Filling Up”- the problem of independence-preserving teacher interventions in lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In Bosch, Marianna (Ed.), CERME 4 – Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1623–1633). Guixol.
  • Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2008). Investigating quality mathematics teaching – The DISUM project. In C. Bergsten et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of MADIF-5. Malmö.
  • Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, application, and links to other subjects-state, trends, and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 37–68.
  • Blythe,T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. S. (1999). Looking together at students work: A companion quide to assessing student learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Borasi, R., & Fonzi, J. (1999). Introducing math teachers to inquiry: Framework and supporting materials to design professional development. Report prepared for the National Science Foundation for Grants TPE-9153812 & DUE-9254475. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
  • Borasi, R., Fonzi, J., Smith, J. F., & Rose, B. J. (1999). Beginning the process of rethinking mathematics instruction: A professional development program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 49–78.
  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3–15.
  • Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1995). Expanding a teachers’ knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. Guskey & M. Hubermann (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35–65). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Borromeo Ferri, R. B., & Blum, W. (2009). Mathematical modelling in teacher education – experiences from a modelling seminar. In Proceedings of CERME 6. Available from http://www.inrp.fr/editions/editions-electroniques/cerme6/.
  • Bracke, M. & Geiger, A. (2011). Real-world modelling in regular lessons: a long-term experiment. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 529–550). New York: Springer.
  • Brown, C., McGraw, R., Koc, Y., Lynch, K., & Arbaugh, F. (2002). Lesson study in secondary mathematics. In D. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. Weigel, R. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Mathematics, Science, and Environmental Education (pp.139–141). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. SE 066 889)
  • Burkhardt, H. (2006). Modelling in mathematics classrooms: Reflections on past developments and the future. ZDM-Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 178–195.
  • Busse, A. (2011). Upper secondary students’ handling of real-world contexts. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 37–46): Springer Netherlands.
  • Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema. E. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building on the knowledge of students and teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 17, 457–470.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in the classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.
  • Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Frank, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20.
  • Cetinkaya, B. (2012). Understanding teachers in the midst of reform: Teachers’ concerns about reformed sixth grade mathematics curriculum in Turkey. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(3), 155–166.
  • Chacko, I., (2007). Real world problems: teachers’ evaluations of pupils’ solutions. Studies in Educational Evaluations, 33, 338–354.
  • Chamberlin, M. T. H. (2002). Teacher investigations of students‟ work: The evolution of teachers‟ social processes and interpretations of students‟ thinking. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
  • Chamberlin, M. T. (2004). Design principles for teacher investigations of student work. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 6, 52–62.
  • Chapman, O. (2007). Mathematical modelling in high school mathematics: teachers’ thinking and practice. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 325–332): New York: Springer.
  • Chauvot, J. P. (2000). Conceptualizing mathematics teacher development in the context of reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia.
  • Chick, H.L., & Baker, M. (2005). Investigating teachers’ responses to student misconceptions. In H. L. Chick, & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp: 249–256). Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne..
  • Clark, K. K., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach to describe teacher knowledge. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 159–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes, in M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Third Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 255–296, Macmilan, New York.
  • Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teachers learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 347–353.
  • Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2007). A theory of mathematical modelling in technological settings. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer.
  • Cooney, T. J. (1999). Conceptualizing teachers’ ways of knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 163–187.
  • Cooney, T. J., Shealy, B. E., & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 306–333.
  • Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers' interpretations of students' mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(2), 155–181.
  • Crouch, R., & Haines, C. (2004). Mathematical modeling: transitions between real world and the mathematical model. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 35(2), 197–206.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., & Young, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 3(9), 13–25.
  • Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Teachers’ approaches towards word problem solving: Elaborating or restricting the problem context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 152– 160.
  • DFE (1997). Mathematics in the national curriculum. London: DFE Welch Office.
  • Doerr, H. M. (2006a). Examining the tasks of teaching when using students’ mathematical thinking, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 3–24.
  • Doerr, H. M. (2006b). Teachers' ways of listening and responding to students' emerging mathematical models. ZDM- Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(3), 255–268.
  • Doerr, H. M. (2007). What knowledge do teachers need for teaching mathematics through applications and modelling? In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 69–78). New York: Springer.
  • Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–136.
  • Doerr, H. M. & English, L. D. (2004). Learning through ınteracting with students' ways of thinking. In Putt, I, Faragher, R, & McLean, M (Eds.) Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia. Mathematics Education for the Third Millenium: Towards 2010. Townsville, Queensland: Townsville: James Cook University..
  • Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2006). Middle grade teachers’ learning through students’ engagement with modeling tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 5–32.
  • Doerr, H. M., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling perspective on teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective (pp. 125–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Doerr, H. M., & Lesh, R. (2011). Models and modelling perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics in the twenty-first century. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R.B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.). Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling (pp. 247–268). New York: Springer.
  • Doorman, L. M., & Gravemeijer, K. (2009): Emerging modeling: discrete graphs to support the understanding of change and velocity. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(3), 302–310
  • Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington. DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
  • English, L. (2003). Reconciling theory, research, and practice: a models and modeling perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 225–248.
  • English, L. D. (2004) Mathematical modeling in the primary school. In Putt, Ian, Faragher, Rhonda, & McLean, Mal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia. Mathematics Education for the Third Millenium: Towards 2010. Townsville, Queensland: James Cook University.
  • English, L. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary school: Children’s construction of a consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 303–323.
  • English, L., & Watters, J. (2004). Mathematical modelling with young children. In M. Hoines, & B. Fugelsted (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 335–342). Bergen: PME.
  • English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modelling in the early school years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 58–79.
  • Enochs, L. G., Smith, P.L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202.
  • Eraslan, A. (2011). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının model oluşturma etkinlikleri ve bunların matematik öğrenimine etkisi hakkındaki görüşleri. İlköğretim Online. 10 (1), 364–377.
  • Cetinkaya, B., & Erbas, A. K. (2011). A psychometric evaluation of Turkish adaptation of the Mathematics Teacher Efficacy Belief Instrument for In-Service Teachers. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 956–966.
  • Erbaş, A. K., Kertil, M., Çetinkaya, B., Çakıroğlu, E., Alacacı, C., & Baş, S. (2013). Matematik eğitiminde matematiksel modelleme ve farklı yaklaşımlar. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249–254). New York, NY: Falme
  • Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  • Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.
  • Fennema, E., Frank, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children’s mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555–583.
  • Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 393–405.
  • Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A U.S.-Japan lesson study collaborative reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171–185.
  • Ferri, B. R. (2011). Effective mathematical modelling without blockages –a commentary. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 181–186). New York: Springer.
  • Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Friel, S. N., & Bright, G. W. (1997). Common components and guiding principles for teacher enhancement programs. In S. N. Friel & G. W. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancement in K-6 mathematics (pp. 7–21). New York: University Press.
  • Fuller, R. A. (1997). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics. MidWestern Educational Researcher, 10(2), 9–16.
  • Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 199–219.
  • Galbraith, P., & Clatworthy, N. J. (1990). Beyond standard models – Meeting the challenge of modelling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 137–163.
  • Galbraith, P., & Stillman, G. (2006). A framework for identifying student blockages during transitions in the modelling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 143–162.
  • García, F. J., Maaß, K., & Wake, G. (2010). Theory meets practice: Working pragmatically within different cultures and traditions. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 445–457). New York: Springer.
  • García, J. F., & Ruiz-Higueras, L. (2011). Modifying teachers’ practices: the case of a European training course on modelling and applications. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 569–578). New York: Springer.
  • Gearhart, M., & Saxe, G. B. (2004). When teachers know what students know: Integrating assessment in elementary mathematics teaching. Theory Into Practice, 43, 304–313.
  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Delivery models for elementary science instruction: a call for research. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(3), 1–8.
  • Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2011). Using classroom artifacts to focus teachers’ noticing: Affordances and opportunities. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 169-187). New York: Routledge.
  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633. Sol, M., Giménez, J., & Rosich, N. (2011). Project modelling routes in 12 to 16-year-old pupils. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 231–242). New York: Springer.
  • Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 17(2), 137–165.
  • Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Preamble: from models to modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 7–22). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Gravemeijer, K., & Stephan, M. (2002). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Greer, B. (1997). Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: the case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 293–307.
  • Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Modelling competencies – overview. In Blum, W., Galbraith, P.L., Henn, H.-W., & Niss, M. (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 89–98). New-York: Springer.
  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  • Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 31, 59–70.
  • Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 381–391.
  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 439–453.
  • Haines, C. R., & Crouch, R. M. (2001).Recognising constructs within mathematical modeling. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 20(3), 129–138.
  • Haines, C., & Crouch, R. (2007). Mathematical modeling and applications: ability and competence frameworks. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 417–424). New York: Springer.
  • Haines, C., Crouch, R., & Davis, J. (2000). Mathematical modelling skills: a research instrument. Technical Report No. 55. University of Hertfordshire: Department of Mathematics.
  • Handal, B. (2003). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs: A review. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 47– 57.
  • Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69.
  • Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire: A postmodern perspective. In T. Guskey & M. Hubermann (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 35– 65). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Henn, H-W. (2007). Modeling pedagogy – overview. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 321–324). New York: Springer.
  • Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. (2008). An ‘emergent model’ for rate of change. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(3), 231–249.
  • Henning, H., & Keune, M. (2007). Levels of modelling competencies. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education, The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 225–232). New York: Springer.
  • Hill, H., & Ball, D. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330– 351.
  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R. & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.
  • Hodgson, T. (1995). Secondary mathematics modeling: Issues and challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 95(7), 351–358.
  • Holmquist, M., & Lingefjärd, T. (2003). Mathematical modelling in teacher education. In Q. Ye, W. Blum, S. Houston, and Q. Jiang (Eds.), Mathematical modeling in education and culture ICTMA 10: applications in science and technology (pp. 197–208). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
  • Houston, K. (2002). Assessing the “phases” of mathematical modeling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.- W. Wenn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 249–256). New York: Springer.
  • Houston, K. (2007). Assessing the “phases” of mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Wenn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 249– 256). New York: Springer.
  • Ikeda, T. (2007). Possibilities for, and obstacles to teaching applications and modelling in the lower secondary levels. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 457–462). New York: Springer.
  • Ikeda, T., & Stephens, M. (2001). The effects of students’ discussion in mathematical modelling. In J. F. Matos, W. Blum, K. Houston, & S. P. Carreira (Eds.), Modelling and mathematics education: ICTMA 9: Applications in science and technology (pp. 381–390). Chichester: Horwood.
  • Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41, 169–202.
  • Jiang, Z., McClintock, E., & O’Brien, G. (2003). A mathematical modelling course for preservice secondary school mathematics teachers. In Q. Ye, W. Blum, S. Houston, and Q. Jiang (Eds.), Mathematical modeling in education and culture ICTMA 10: Applications in science and technology (pp. 183–196). Chichester: Horwood Publishing.
  • Johnson, T., & Lesh, R. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on technology-based representational media. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 265–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kaiser, G. (2006). Introduction to the working group “Applications and Modelling”. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education 2005 (pp. 1611–1622). Barcelona, Spain: Ramon Llull University.
  • Kaiser, G., Blomhoj, M., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Towards a didactical theory for mathematical modelling. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 82–86.
  • Kaiser, G., & Maaß, K. (2007). Modeling in lower secondary mathematics classroom-problems and opportunities. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Wenn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 99–108). New York: Springer.
  • Kaiser, G., & Schwarz, B. (2006). Mathematical modelling as bridge between school and university. ZDM- Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 196–208.
  • Kaiser-Messmer, G. (1993). Results of an empirical study into gender differences in attitudes towards mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 209–233.
  • Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 19–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203–235.
  • Kertil, M. (2008). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının problem çözme becerilerinin modelleme sürecinde incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi.
  • Kılıç, H. (2011). Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 2(2), 17–35.
  • Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research in Education, 27, 109–157.
  • Koca, S. A. Ö., Yaman, M., & Şen, A. I. (2005). Öğretmen adaylarının etkin öğrenme-öğretme ortamı hakkındaki görüşlerinin farklı yöntemler kullanılarak tespit edilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 117–126.
  • Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for teaching and teacher educators (pp. 3–29). New York and London: Routledge.
  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
  • Koellner-Clark, K., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach to describe teacher knowledge. In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kuntze, Sebastian. (2011). In-service and prospective teachers’ views about modelling tasks in the mathematics classroom – results of a quantitative empirical study. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 279–288): Springer Netherlands.
  • Lakskmi, M. J. (2009). Microteaching and prospective teachers. New Delhi, India: Discovery Publishing House.
  • Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigation of real practice. New York: Teacher College Press.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leavitt, D. R., & Ahn, C. M. (2010). A middle grade teacher’s guide to model eliciting activities. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 353–364). New York: Springer.
  • Lerman, S. (2001). A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher education. In F. L. Lin, & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp.33-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Lesh, R., Amit, M., & Schorr, R. Y. (1997). Using "real-life" problems to prompt students to construct conceptual models for statistical reasoning. In I. Gal & J. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 123–138). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
  • Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post T. and Zawojewski, J. S. (2003). Model development sequences. In Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. M. (2003a). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh, & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3– 33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003b). In what ways does a models and modeling perspective move beyond constructivism. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 519–556). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003c). Beyond constructivism: Models and modelling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lesh, R., & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 157–189.
  • Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2&3), 109–129.
  • Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2004). Evolving communities of mind – in which development involves several interacting and simultaneously developing strands. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 205– 226.
  • Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed.) (pp.763–804). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Lesh, R., Hole, B., Hoover, M., Kelly, E., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In Kelly, A., & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591– 645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lesh, R., Hoover, M. Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–646). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lesh, R./ Hoover, M., & Kelly, A (1993). Equity, technology, and teacher development. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.) Developments in school mathematics education around the World (Vol. 3, pp. 814– 835). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Lesh, R., Yoon, C., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). John Dewey revisited—making mathematics practical versus making practice mathematical. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 315–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.
  • Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 313–331.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  • Lingefjärd, T. & Meier, S. (2010). Teachers as managers of the modelling process. Mathematical Education Research Journal, 22(2), 92–107.
  • Lingefjärd, T. (2000). Mathematical modeling by prospective teachers using technology. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Georgia.
  • Lingefjärd, T. (2002). Teaching and assessing mathematical modelling. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 21(2), 75–83.
  • Lingefjärd, T. (2006). Faces of mathematical modelling. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 96–112.
  • Lingefjärd, T. (2007). Mathematical modelling in teacher education - necessity or unnecessarily. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn, and M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 333–340). New York: Springer.
  • Lingefjärd, T. (2011). Modelling from primary to upper secondary school: Findings of empirical research – Overview. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 9–14): Springer Netherlands.
  • Lloyd, G. (1999). Two teachers’ conceptions of a reform-oriented curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227–252.
  • Lovat, T. J., & Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited. Australia: Social Science Press.
  • Maaß, K. (2005). Barriers and opportunities for the integration of modelling in mathematics classes: results of an empirical study. Teaching mathematics and its applications, 24(2-3), 61–74.
  • Maaß, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM- Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 113–142.
  • Maaß, K., & Gurlitt, J. (2011). LEMA – Professional Development of Teachers in Relation to Mathematical Modelling. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 629–639): Springer Netherlands.
  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Masingila, J. O., & Doerr, H. M. (2002). Understanding preservice teachers’ emerging practices through their analyses of multimedia case study of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 235–263.
  • McAleese, W. R., & Unwin, D. (1971). A selective survey of microteaching. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 8, 10–21.
  • MEB (2011). Ortaöğretim Projesi: Matematik Öğretmeni Özel Alan Yeterlikleri. Ankara, Türkiye: Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • Merseth, K. (1996). Cases and case methods in education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 722–744). New York: Macmillan.
  • Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ministere de l’Education Nationale (1997). Progammes de mathematiques. Paris: MENRT.
  • Misailidou, C. (2008). Assessing and developing pedagogical content knowledge: A new approach. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 391–398). Morelia, México: PME.
  • Mousoulides, N., Sriraman, B., & Christou, C. (2007). From problem solving to modelling: The emergence of models and modelling perspectives. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 23–47.
  • Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000a). An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 207–235.
  • Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000b). Teachers' and researchers' beliefs about the development of algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 168–190.
  • Nathan, M.J., & Petrosin, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905–928.
  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2012). NCTM/NCATE Standards (2012) – Secondary (Initial Preparation). Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/Standards/ProgramStandardsandReportForms/tabid/676/Default.aspx
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, V A: Author.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19 (4), 317–328.
  • Niss, M. (1988). Report on Theme Group 3: Problem solving, modelling and applications. In A. Hirst, & K. Hirst (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 237–252). János Bolyai Mathematical Society: Budapest.
  • Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn, and M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 3–32). New York: Springer.
  • Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D.W. (1993). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Oliveira, A. M. P., & Barbosa, J. C. (2009). Mathematical modeling and the teachers’ tensions. In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ modeling competencies (pp. 511–517). New York: Springer.
  • Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
  • Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (1996). Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 28(4), 101–108.
  • QSR Int., (2008). QSR NVivo [Bilgisayar yazılımı]. Doncaster Victoria, Australia: QSR International. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 331–350.
  • Reusser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution-the social rationality of mathematical modeling in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 309–327.
  • Richert, A. E. (1991). Using teacher cases or reflection and enhanced understanding. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 113–132). New York: Teacher College Press.
  • Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 230-253.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 99–141.
  • Schifter, D., Russell, S. J., & Bastable, V. (1999). Teaching to the big ideas. In M. S. Solomon (Ed.), The diagnostic teacher: Constructing new approaches to professional development (pp. 22–47). New York: Teacher College Press.
  • Schimidt, B. (2011). Modelling in the classroom: Obstacle from teachers’ perspective. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in the teaching and learning of mathematical modelling. (pp.641–651) New York: Springer
  • Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). Macmillan: New York.
  • Schorr, R. Y., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2000). Using clinical interviews to promote preservice teachers’ understanding of children’s mathematical thinking. In M. L. Fernández (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the NorthAmerican Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 599–605). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for science mathematics and environmental education.
  • Schorr R. Y., & Koellner-Clark, K. (2003). Using a modeling approach to analyze the ways in which teachers consider new ways to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 191– 210.
  • Schorr, R. Y., & Lesh, R. (2003). A modeling approach for providing teacher development. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective (pp. 141–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237.
  • Seago, N., & Mumme, J. (2002, April). The promises and challenges of using video as a tool for teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004).Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 163–183.
  • Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 20–37.
  • Shimizu, Y. (2002). Lesson study: What, why, and how? In H. Bass, Z. P. Usiskin, & G. Burrill. (Eds.), Studying classroom teaching as a medium for professional development: Proceedings of a U.S.- Japan Workshop (pp. 53–57). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Shternberg, B., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). Models of functions and models of situations: On design of a modeling based learning environment. In H. M. Doerr, & R. Lesh (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A model and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem solving in mathematics education (pp. 479–500). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
  • Siller, H.-S., Kuntze, S., Lerman, S., & Vogl, C. (2011). Modelling as a big idea in mathematics with significance for classroom instruction – How do pre-service teachers see it? In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 990–999). Rzeszow, Poland: University.
  • Sowder, J. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  • Sowder, J., Armstrong, B., Lamon, S., Simon, M., Sowder, L., & Thompson, A. (1998). Educating teachers to teach multiplicative structures in the middle grades. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 127–155.
  • Sriraman, B. (2005). Conceptualizing the notion of model eliciting. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1686– 1695). Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain.
  • Sriraman, B., & Lesh, R. A. (2006). Modeling conceptions revisited. ZDM- Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38, 247–254.
  • Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3),273– 269.
  • Stillman, G., & Galbraith, P. (2011). Evolution of applications and modelling in a senior secondary curriculum. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 689–700). New York: Springer.
  • Stillman, G. (2010). Implementing applications and modelling in secondary school: Issues for teaching and learning. In B. Kaur, & J. Dindyal (Eds.), Mathematical Applications and Modelling: Yearbook 2010 (pp. 300–322). Singapore, World Scientific.
  • Swan, M. (2007). The impact of task-based professional development on teachers’ practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 217–237.
  • Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. (2005). Ortaöğretim matematik (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
  • Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. (2011). Ortaöğretim matematik (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) dersi öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  • Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. (2013). Ortaöğretim matematik dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Erişim Tarihi: 07.03.2013, URL: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151
  • Tekin, A., & Bukova Güzel, E. (2011). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin matematiksel modellemeye ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. 20. Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, 8-10 Eylül 2011, Burdur.
  • Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.
  • Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.
  • Thompson, K. A. (2007). Students’ understanding of trigonometry enhanced through the use of a real world problem. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Illinois State University, USA.
  • Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. (2003). Challenging and changing mathematics teaching practices. In A. Bishop, M. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, F. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education, (pp. 643–688). Dordrect: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children's conceptions: the case of division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.
  • Tobin, K. (1990). Changing metaphors and beliefs: A master switch for teaching. Theory into Practice, 29(2), 122–127.
  • Ubuz, B., & Haser, Ç. (2002). Matematik öğretiminde rol yapılarının değişimi. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi (s. 1–5), 16-18 Eylül 2002, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. http://www.fedu.metu.edu.tr/ufbmek-5/b_kitabi/PDF/Matematik/ Bildiri/t257d.pdf
  • van Es, E. A. (2011). A framework for learning to notice student thinking. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 134-151). New York: Routledge.
  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M.G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–596.
  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.
  • Van Zoest, L., & Bohl, J. (2005). Mathematics Teacher Identity: a framework for understanding secondary school mathematics teachers’ learning through practice. Teacher Development, 9(3) 315–346.
  • Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowledge in mathematical modeling of school word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 339–359.
  • Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2002). Everyday knowledge and mathematical modeling of school word problems. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 171–195). Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Wake, G. (2011). Teachers’ professional learning: modelling at the boundaries. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 653–664). New York: Springer.
  • Wallach, T., & Even, R. (2005). Hearing students: The complexity of understanding what they are saying, showing, and doing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(5), 393–417.
  • Wang-Iverson, P., & Yoshida,M . (2005). Building our understanding of lesson study. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
  • Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 36–39.
  • Wilson, M. S., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education (pp. 127–147). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of Professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary Professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
  • Yoon, C., Dreyfus, T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2010). How high is the tramping track? Mathematising and applying in a calculus model-eliciting activity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 141–157.
  • Yoshida, M. (1999). Lesson Study: A case study of a Japanese approach to improving instruction through school-based teacher development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
  • Yoshida, M. (2002). Framing lesson study for U.S. participants. In H. Bass, Z. P. Usiskin, & G. Burrill. (Eds.), Studying classroom teaching as a medium for professional development: Proceedings of a U.S.-Japan Workshop (pp. 58–64). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Yu, S. Y. & Chang, C. K. (2011). What did Taiwan mathematics teachers think of model-eliciting activities and modelling teaching? In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri and G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (pp. 147–158). New York: Springer.
  • Zawojewski, J. S., & Lesh, R. (2003). A models and modelling perspective on problem solving. In R. A. Lesh,& H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 317–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Zawojewski, J. S., Chamberlin, M., Hjalmarson, M. A., & Lewis, C. (2008). Designing design studies for professional development in mathematics education: Studying teachers’ interpretive systems. In A. E. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 219– 245). New York: Routledge.
  • Zawojewski, J., Lesh, R., & English, L. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 337–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Zbiek, R.M. (1998).Prospective teachers’ use of computing tools to develop and validate function as mathematical models. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(2), 184–201.
  • Zbiek, R., M., & Conner, A. (2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modeling as a context for deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 89–112.
APA ERBAŞ K, ÇETİNKAYA B, ÇAKIROĞLU E, ALACASI C (2013). Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. , 1 - 654.
Chicago ERBAŞ Kürşat.Ayhan,ÇETİNKAYA Bülent,ÇAKIROĞLU Erdinç,ALACASI Cengiz Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. (2013): 1 - 654.
MLA ERBAŞ Kürşat.Ayhan,ÇETİNKAYA Bülent,ÇAKIROĞLU Erdinç,ALACASI Cengiz Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. , 2013, ss.1 - 654.
AMA ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. . 2013; 1 - 654.
Vancouver ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. . 2013; 1 - 654.
IEEE ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C "Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi." , ss.1 - 654, 2013.
ISNAD ERBAŞ, Kürşat.Ayhan vd. "Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi". (2013), 1-654.
APA ERBAŞ K, ÇETİNKAYA B, ÇAKIROĞLU E, ALACASI C (2013). Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. , 1 - 654.
Chicago ERBAŞ Kürşat.Ayhan,ÇETİNKAYA Bülent,ÇAKIROĞLU Erdinç,ALACASI Cengiz Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. (2013): 1 - 654.
MLA ERBAŞ Kürşat.Ayhan,ÇETİNKAYA Bülent,ÇAKIROĞLU Erdinç,ALACASI Cengiz Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. , 2013, ss.1 - 654.
AMA ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. . 2013; 1 - 654.
Vancouver ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi. . 2013; 1 - 654.
IEEE ERBAŞ K,ÇETİNKAYA B,ÇAKIROĞLU E,ALACASI C "Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi." , ss.1 - 654, 2013.
ISNAD ERBAŞ, Kürşat.Ayhan vd. "Ortaöğretim Matematik Eğitiminde Matematiksel Modelleme: Hizmet İçi ve Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi". (2013), 1-654.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 1:15

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları