Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Ortaokul Matematik Ders Kitaplarındaki Dilsel ve Görsel Metinlerin Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rollerine Göre İncelenmesi

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 206 - 224, 24.12.2019

Öz

Toplumsal
cinsiyet, kişileri cinsiyetlerine göre toplum tarafından bazı kalıplara ve
kabullere zorlayan, doğal olmayan üst kimliklerdir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı
2017-2018 eğitim öğretim yılında MEB tarafından hazırlanan dört adet ortaokul
matematik ders kitaplarındaki toplumsal cinsiyet rollerinin nasıl göründüğünü
incelemektir. Doküman incelemesi yöntemi ve içerik analizinin kullanıldığı bu
çalışmada, toplumsal cinsiyet alan yazınında yer alan kavramlar odağında
ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarındaki metinler incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın
bulgularında 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf matematik ders kitaplarında erkeğe ve kadına
yüklenen rollerin belirgin biçimde ayrıştığı; kadınların genellikle ev içindeki
işlerde özellikle yemek yapmakla, erkeklerin ise ev dışı toplumsal yaşamla
ilişkilendirildiği görülmektedir. Ayrıca bu ders kitaplarında kadınlar iş gücü
ortamlarına katılmayıp daha çok ev kadını olarak, erkekler ise iş gücünün temel
öğesi olarak çok çeşitli mesleklerle nitelendirilmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu
çalışmada, Türkiye’deki ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarındaki kadın ve
erkeklerin basmakalıp (stereotip) betimlemelerle sunulduğu ve bu kitaplardaki
metinlerdeki kadınların iş gücüne katılma oranının erkeklere göre daha düşük
olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Kaynakça

  • Acher, S. (1995). Gender and teacher’s work, SAGE Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 99-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X021001099
  • Ahl, H. & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5), 543-562.
  • Akdemir, B. & Duman, M. Ç. (2017). Kadın çalışanların performansında cam tavan sendromu engeli!, International Journal of Academic Value Studies (Javstudies), 3(15), 517-526, ISSN:2149-8598.
  • Aktaş, M. C. (2016). Nitel veri toplama araçları, (Ed. Mustafa Metin) Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, 337-371. 3. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Arnot, M. & Miles, P. (2005). A reconstruction of the gender agenda: the contradictory gender dimensions in New Labour's educational and economic policy, Oxford Review of Education, 31:1, 173-189.
  • Arnot, M. (2006). Gender equality, pedagogy and citizenship: Affirmative and transformative approaches in the UK. School Field, 4(2), 131-150.
  • Arnot, M. & Ghaill, M. M. (2006). (Re) Contextualising gender studies in education Schooling in late modernity, (Ed. Madeleine Arnot and Mairtin Mac an Ghaill) The Roudledge Falmer Reader in Gender and Education. 1-15. Routledge Press: USA and Canada.
  • Arnot, M. (2007). Education feminism, gender equality and school reform in late twentieth century England, R. (Eds:Teese, S. Lamb and M. Duru-Bellat) International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy, Volume 2: Inequality in Education Systems, New York: Springer. pp.207-226.
  • Biemmi, I. (2018). Gender in schools and culture: taking stock of education in Italy, Gender and Education, 27(7), 812-827.
  • Bingöl, O. (2014). Toplumsal cinsiyet olgusu ve Türkiye’de kadınlık, KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomı̇k Araştırmalar Dergı̇si 16 (Özel Sayı I): 108-114.
  • Carlson, M. & Kancı, T. (2017). The nationalised and gendered citizen in a global world - examples from textbooks, policy and steering documents in Turkey and Sweden, Gender and Education, 29 (3), 313–33.
  • Commeyras, M. & Alvermon, D. (1996). Reading about women in world textbooks from one feminist perspective, Gender and Education, 8(1), 31-48.
  • Çelik, T., Demirgüneş, S. & Türnüklü, A. (2016). Barış eğitimi kapsamında Türkçe ders kitaplarındaki metinlerin incelenmesi, (Ed. Selahattin Dilidüzgün) Kuram ve uygulama bağlamında türkçe öğretimi. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık, ss. 241-251.
  • Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş, Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
  • David, M. E. (2015). Women and gender equality in higher education?, Education Sciences, 5, 10-25, doi:10.3390/educsci5010010.
  • Demirgüneş S., Çelik T & İşeri, K. (2015). Türkçe ders kitaplarında akrabalık kavramları. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 3(5), 1-13.
  • Drudy, S. (2008). Gender balance/gender bias: the teaching profession and the impact of feminisation, Gender and Education, 20(4), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802190156
  • Ecevit, Y. (2011). Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisine başlangıç, Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. ss. 2-32.
  • Fahlgre, S. & Sawyer, L. (2011). The power of positioning: on the normalisation of gender, race/ethnicity, nation and class positions in a Swedish social work textbook , Gender and Education, 23(5), 535-548.
  • Foulds, K. (2014). Buzzwords at play: gender, education, and political participation in Kenya, Gender and Education, 26 (6), 653-671.
  • Fosuah, J., Agyedu, G. O. & Gyamfi, E. O. (2017). Causes and Effects of ‘Glass Ceiling’ for Women in Public Institutions of the Ashanti Region, Ghana, The International Journal of Business & Management, 5(10), 257-266.
  • Fuller, C. (2009). Sociology, gender, and educational aspirations: girls and their ambitions, London: Continuum. ISBN 978‐0‐8264‐9938‐7
  • Gaskell, J. & Taylor, S. (2003). The women's movement in Canadian and Australian education: from liberation and sexism to boys and social justice, Gender and Education, 15:2, 151-168.
  • Goulding, K. (2013). Employement policy department employement working paper no.152, Gender dimensions of national employment policies, Geneva: Gender, Equality and Diversity International Labour Office.
  • Gouvias, D. & Alexopoulos, C. (2018). Sexist stereotypes in the language textbooks of the Greek primary school: a multidimensional approach, Gender and Education, 30 (5), 642-662.
  • Guez, W. & Allan, J. (2000). Gender Sensitivity Module 5, Ag2i Communication, Unesco Zambia, Printed in France.
  • Kang, M., Lessard, D., Heston, L & Nordmaken, S. (2017). Introduction to women, gender, sexuality studies, Women, gender, sexuality studies educational materials. 1. University of Massachusetts Amherst, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/R5QZ284K, ISBN 978-1-945764-02-8.
  • Katada, K. (2012). Basic income and feminism: in terms of “the gender division of labor”, 14th international congress of the basic income earth network, Munich, 14–16 September, pp. 1-14.
  • Koçak, A. & Arun, Ö. (2006). İçerik analizi çalışmalarında örneklem sorunu, Selçuk İletişim, 4(3), 21-28.
  • Kostas, M. (2018). Snow white in hellenic primary classrooms: children’s responses to non-traditional gender discourses, Gender and Education, 30 (4), 530-548.
  • Lee, J. F. K. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks - a corpus study, Gender and Education, 30 (3), 379-395.
  • Lee, J. F. K. & Collins, P. (2009). Australian English-language textbooks: the gender issues, Gender and Education, Roudledge 21 (4), 353-370.
  • Legewie, J. & DiPrete. T (2012). School context and the gender gap in Educational achievement, SAGE American Sociological Review, 77(3) 463–485. DOI: 10.1177/0003122412440802
  • Marks, J., Lam, B. C. & McHale S. M. (2009). Family patterns of gender role attitudes, Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 221-234. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-009-9619-3
  • MEB (2015). Eğitimde toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin geliştirilmesi projesi (ETCEP), Ankara: MEB Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • Munavar, M. (2006). Gender analysis of school curriculum and text books, Pakistan: UNESCO.
  • Porter, P. (1986). Sociology of the school- gender and education, Australia: Deakin University Press. ISBN 0 7300 0400 7
  • Ridegeway, C. L. & Correll, S.L. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations, Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531. DOI: 10.1177/0891243204265269
  • Seguin, R. (1989). The Elaboration of school textbooks methodological guide-division of educational sciences, contents and methods of education, UNESCO.
  • Sever, H. (2016) The comparison of glass ceiling perception of employees working in public and private enterprises, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6, 577-588. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.65054
  • Sprague, J. & Kobrynowicz, D. (2006). A feminist epistemology, Handbook of the sociaology of gender, Springer, 25-43.
  • Tan, M. G. (2011). Eğitim. (Ed. Yıldız Ecevit). Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss.84-104.
  • Tavşancıl, E. & Aslan, E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınevi.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2018a). Cinsiyet ve eğitim durumuna göre aylık ortalama brüt ücret ve yıllık ortalama brüt kazanç tablosu. 7 Aralık 2018 tarihinde www.tuik.gov.tr adresinden erişildi.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2018b). İşgücüne dahil olmayanların yıllara göre iş gücüne dahil olmama nedenleri tablosu. 7 Aralık 2018 tarihinde www.tuik.gov.tr adresinden erişildi.
  • UNICEF Türkiye (2019). Kadınlara Karşı Her Türlü Ayrımcılığın Önlenmesi Uluslararası Sözleşmesi. 4 Şubat 2019 tarihinde https://www.unicef.org/turkey/cedaw/_gi18.html adresinden erişildi.
  • Vatandaş, C. (2007). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet rollerinin algılanışı, Sosyoloji Konferansları Dergisi, s. 35, 29-56.
  • Weber, R. P. (1989). Basic Content Analysis, Sage, London.
  • World Bank. (2011). Gender differences in employment and why they matter, World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, Washington DC, World Bank, 198-253.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. ISBN: 9781111148461.
  • Yang, C. C. R. (2016). Are males and females still portrayed stereotypically? Visual analyses of gender in two Hong Kong primary English Language textbook series, Gender and Education, 28(5), 674-692.

Investigation of Linguistic and Visual Texts in Elementary School Mathematics Textbooks according to Gender Roles

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 206 - 224, 24.12.2019

Öz

Gender is an
unnatural supra-identity that compels individuals to certain patterns and
acceptances by society according to their genders. The main purpose of this study is to examine how gender roles appear in four secondary school mathematics textbooks prepared by the Ministry of Education in the 2017-2018 academic year. In this study using the data
analysis method which is an analytical research approach, texts in the
elementary school mathematics textbooks were reviewed from the aspect of
concepts based on the gender literature. The findings of the study indicated that the roles attributed to males and females in the 5, 6, 7 and 8th grade mathematics textbooks were clearly differentiated; it is seen that females are usually associated with cooking in the household, and males are associated with social life outside the home. In addition, in these textbooks, females do not participate in the labor force, but rather as housewives, and males as a basic element of the workforce are characterized by a wide range of occupations. As a result of this study, in elementary school mathematics textbooks stereotypes of females and males in Turkey and it was served with descriptions of the books in the labor force participation rate of females in the texts is determined to be less than that of males.

Kaynakça

  • Acher, S. (1995). Gender and teacher’s work, SAGE Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 99-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X021001099
  • Ahl, H. & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5), 543-562.
  • Akdemir, B. & Duman, M. Ç. (2017). Kadın çalışanların performansında cam tavan sendromu engeli!, International Journal of Academic Value Studies (Javstudies), 3(15), 517-526, ISSN:2149-8598.
  • Aktaş, M. C. (2016). Nitel veri toplama araçları, (Ed. Mustafa Metin) Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, 337-371. 3. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  • Arnot, M. & Miles, P. (2005). A reconstruction of the gender agenda: the contradictory gender dimensions in New Labour's educational and economic policy, Oxford Review of Education, 31:1, 173-189.
  • Arnot, M. (2006). Gender equality, pedagogy and citizenship: Affirmative and transformative approaches in the UK. School Field, 4(2), 131-150.
  • Arnot, M. & Ghaill, M. M. (2006). (Re) Contextualising gender studies in education Schooling in late modernity, (Ed. Madeleine Arnot and Mairtin Mac an Ghaill) The Roudledge Falmer Reader in Gender and Education. 1-15. Routledge Press: USA and Canada.
  • Arnot, M. (2007). Education feminism, gender equality and school reform in late twentieth century England, R. (Eds:Teese, S. Lamb and M. Duru-Bellat) International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy, Volume 2: Inequality in Education Systems, New York: Springer. pp.207-226.
  • Biemmi, I. (2018). Gender in schools and culture: taking stock of education in Italy, Gender and Education, 27(7), 812-827.
  • Bingöl, O. (2014). Toplumsal cinsiyet olgusu ve Türkiye’de kadınlık, KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomı̇k Araştırmalar Dergı̇si 16 (Özel Sayı I): 108-114.
  • Carlson, M. & Kancı, T. (2017). The nationalised and gendered citizen in a global world - examples from textbooks, policy and steering documents in Turkey and Sweden, Gender and Education, 29 (3), 313–33.
  • Commeyras, M. & Alvermon, D. (1996). Reading about women in world textbooks from one feminist perspective, Gender and Education, 8(1), 31-48.
  • Çelik, T., Demirgüneş, S. & Türnüklü, A. (2016). Barış eğitimi kapsamında Türkçe ders kitaplarındaki metinlerin incelenmesi, (Ed. Selahattin Dilidüzgün) Kuram ve uygulama bağlamında türkçe öğretimi. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık, ss. 241-251.
  • Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş, Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
  • David, M. E. (2015). Women and gender equality in higher education?, Education Sciences, 5, 10-25, doi:10.3390/educsci5010010.
  • Demirgüneş S., Çelik T & İşeri, K. (2015). Türkçe ders kitaplarında akrabalık kavramları. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 3(5), 1-13.
  • Drudy, S. (2008). Gender balance/gender bias: the teaching profession and the impact of feminisation, Gender and Education, 20(4), 309-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250802190156
  • Ecevit, Y. (2011). Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisine başlangıç, Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları. ss. 2-32.
  • Fahlgre, S. & Sawyer, L. (2011). The power of positioning: on the normalisation of gender, race/ethnicity, nation and class positions in a Swedish social work textbook , Gender and Education, 23(5), 535-548.
  • Foulds, K. (2014). Buzzwords at play: gender, education, and political participation in Kenya, Gender and Education, 26 (6), 653-671.
  • Fosuah, J., Agyedu, G. O. & Gyamfi, E. O. (2017). Causes and Effects of ‘Glass Ceiling’ for Women in Public Institutions of the Ashanti Region, Ghana, The International Journal of Business & Management, 5(10), 257-266.
  • Fuller, C. (2009). Sociology, gender, and educational aspirations: girls and their ambitions, London: Continuum. ISBN 978‐0‐8264‐9938‐7
  • Gaskell, J. & Taylor, S. (2003). The women's movement in Canadian and Australian education: from liberation and sexism to boys and social justice, Gender and Education, 15:2, 151-168.
  • Goulding, K. (2013). Employement policy department employement working paper no.152, Gender dimensions of national employment policies, Geneva: Gender, Equality and Diversity International Labour Office.
  • Gouvias, D. & Alexopoulos, C. (2018). Sexist stereotypes in the language textbooks of the Greek primary school: a multidimensional approach, Gender and Education, 30 (5), 642-662.
  • Guez, W. & Allan, J. (2000). Gender Sensitivity Module 5, Ag2i Communication, Unesco Zambia, Printed in France.
  • Kang, M., Lessard, D., Heston, L & Nordmaken, S. (2017). Introduction to women, gender, sexuality studies, Women, gender, sexuality studies educational materials. 1. University of Massachusetts Amherst, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/R5QZ284K, ISBN 978-1-945764-02-8.
  • Katada, K. (2012). Basic income and feminism: in terms of “the gender division of labor”, 14th international congress of the basic income earth network, Munich, 14–16 September, pp. 1-14.
  • Koçak, A. & Arun, Ö. (2006). İçerik analizi çalışmalarında örneklem sorunu, Selçuk İletişim, 4(3), 21-28.
  • Kostas, M. (2018). Snow white in hellenic primary classrooms: children’s responses to non-traditional gender discourses, Gender and Education, 30 (4), 530-548.
  • Lee, J. F. K. (2018). Gender representation in Japanese EFL textbooks - a corpus study, Gender and Education, 30 (3), 379-395.
  • Lee, J. F. K. & Collins, P. (2009). Australian English-language textbooks: the gender issues, Gender and Education, Roudledge 21 (4), 353-370.
  • Legewie, J. & DiPrete. T (2012). School context and the gender gap in Educational achievement, SAGE American Sociological Review, 77(3) 463–485. DOI: 10.1177/0003122412440802
  • Marks, J., Lam, B. C. & McHale S. M. (2009). Family patterns of gender role attitudes, Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 221-234. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-009-9619-3
  • MEB (2015). Eğitimde toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğinin geliştirilmesi projesi (ETCEP), Ankara: MEB Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • Munavar, M. (2006). Gender analysis of school curriculum and text books, Pakistan: UNESCO.
  • Porter, P. (1986). Sociology of the school- gender and education, Australia: Deakin University Press. ISBN 0 7300 0400 7
  • Ridegeway, C. L. & Correll, S.L. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations, Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531. DOI: 10.1177/0891243204265269
  • Seguin, R. (1989). The Elaboration of school textbooks methodological guide-division of educational sciences, contents and methods of education, UNESCO.
  • Sever, H. (2016) The comparison of glass ceiling perception of employees working in public and private enterprises, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6, 577-588. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2016.65054
  • Sprague, J. & Kobrynowicz, D. (2006). A feminist epistemology, Handbook of the sociaology of gender, Springer, 25-43.
  • Tan, M. G. (2011). Eğitim. (Ed. Yıldız Ecevit). Toplumsal cinsiyet sosyolojisi, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss.84-104.
  • Tavşancıl, E. & Aslan, E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınevi.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2018a). Cinsiyet ve eğitim durumuna göre aylık ortalama brüt ücret ve yıllık ortalama brüt kazanç tablosu. 7 Aralık 2018 tarihinde www.tuik.gov.tr adresinden erişildi.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2018b). İşgücüne dahil olmayanların yıllara göre iş gücüne dahil olmama nedenleri tablosu. 7 Aralık 2018 tarihinde www.tuik.gov.tr adresinden erişildi.
  • UNICEF Türkiye (2019). Kadınlara Karşı Her Türlü Ayrımcılığın Önlenmesi Uluslararası Sözleşmesi. 4 Şubat 2019 tarihinde https://www.unicef.org/turkey/cedaw/_gi18.html adresinden erişildi.
  • Vatandaş, C. (2007). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet rollerinin algılanışı, Sosyoloji Konferansları Dergisi, s. 35, 29-56.
  • Weber, R. P. (1989). Basic Content Analysis, Sage, London.
  • World Bank. (2011). Gender differences in employment and why they matter, World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, Washington DC, World Bank, 198-253.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. ISBN: 9781111148461.
  • Yang, C. C. R. (2016). Are males and females still portrayed stereotypically? Visual analyses of gender in two Hong Kong primary English Language textbook series, Gender and Education, 28(5), 674-692.
Toplam 51 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Eğitim Bilimleri
Yazarlar

Tuğba Çelik 0000-0002-2211-9243

Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez 0000-0001-8595-3262

Semirhan Gökçe 0000-0002-4752-5598

Yayımlanma Tarihi 24 Aralık 2019
Kabul Tarihi 31 Aralık 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Çelik, T., Aydoğan Yenmez, A., & Gökçe, S. (2019). Ortaokul Matematik Ders Kitaplarındaki Dilsel ve Görsel Metinlerin Toplumsal Cinsiyet Rollerine Göre İncelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 38(2), 206-224. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.593411