Education Mind

Research Article Open Access

Hidden codes, silent concepts: Spatial language in primary math textbooks from Turkiye and England

Emel Çilingir Altıner

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of spatial language use in first-grade mathematics textbooks from Türkiye and England. It investigates the frequency, contextual depth, and pedagogical function of spatial expressions. A qualitative document analysis method was employed, using state-sanctioned textbooks from the 2023–2024 academic year. The results show that the Turkish textbook contains a higher number of spatial terms; however, these are often used in directive statements (e.g., “complete the shape below”) with limited conceptual depth. In contrast, the English textbook includes fewer spatial terms but integrates them into problem-solving tasks, cross-disciplinary activities, and narrative contexts. This approach promotes deeper spatial reasoning and cognitive engagement. The findings suggest that effective use of spatial language depends not only on its frequency but also on how meaningfully it is embedded in instructional content. The study recommends that teacher education programs emphasize the cognitive value of spatial language, and that textbook authors incorporate it in more conceptually rich and interactive ways. Future research should explore spatial language use across different grade levels, international curricula, and real classroom settings to gain further insight into its role in mathematical thinking and learning.

Keywords: Spatial language Mathematics textbooks Comparative education Primary school

References

Barwell, R. (2012). Discursive psychology and mathematics education: Possibilities and challenges. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1–2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9353-6

Bishop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics education—A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305080

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Bower, C. A., Vasilyeva, M., & Khokhlovich, S. A. (2020). Cross‐national variation in spatial language: Evidence from Russian and English speakers. Cognitive Science, 44(6), e12845. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12845

Cannon, J., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A relational frame account of spatial language: Evidence from spatial reorientation. Developmental Science, 10(6), 747–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00631.x

Casasola, M., Wei, W., Suh, M., Deloache, J. S., & Levine, S. C. (2020). When spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: A training study. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000892

Dancu, C., Gutwill, J. P., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Design-based research to improve the use of science exhibits: An example from biomechanics. Visitor Studies, 18(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1080043

Department for Education (DfE). (2014). National curriculum in England: Mathematics programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2. London: Department for Education. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-mathematics-programmes-of-study

Hermer-Vazquez, L., Spelke, E. S., & Katsnelson, A. S. (2001). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 42(1), 100–140. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2000.0741

Levine, S. C., Ratliff, K. R., Huttenlocher, J., & Cannon, J. (2012). Early puzzle play: A predictor of preschoolers’ spatial transformation skill. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025913

Mercan, Z., & Kandır, A. (2022). The effect of the Early STEAM Education Program on the visual‑spatial reasoning skills of children: Research from Turkey. Education 3–13, 52(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2075906

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1-8. sınıflar). Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

Morgan, C. (2010). The language of mathematics: Towards a critical research agenda. In M. Walshaw (Ed.), Unpacking Pedagogy: New Perspectives for Mathematics Classrooms (pp. 137–150). Information Age Publishing.

O’Halloran, K. L. (2015). The language of learning mathematics: A multimodal perspective. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 38(1), 21–35.

OECD. (2019). Mathematics framework. In PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en

Özdemir, M., & Yıldız, C. (2021). Examination of everyday life problems in primary school mathematics textbooks.. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 93–114.

Özer, S., & Aksu, H. H. (2021). The use of multiple representations in primary school mathematics textbooks: the 2018 curriculum as an example. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2021.22.01.001

Pramling, N., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2011). Educational linguistic practices in early childhood and primary education: The relevance of language for mathematics learning. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 16(1–2), 7–30.

Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students' understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009955103396

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944

Shusterman, A. (2006). Language and spatial cognition: Effects of spatial language on representations of space [Master’s thesis, Harvard University].

Szechter, L. E., & Liben, L. S. (2004). Parental guidance in preschoolers’ understanding of spatial-graphic representations. Child Development, 75(3), 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00711.x

van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2020). Learning mathematics through representations: Reflections on Realistic Mathematics Education. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 233–248). Routledge.

Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Finding the missing piece: Blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 3(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2014.02.005

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Weninger, C. (2020). Textbook analysis for citizenship education: A critical review of methodological approaches. International Journal of Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 15(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl_00023_1

Wu, S. C., Li, H., & Degotardi, S. (2021). Chinese early childhood educators’ beliefs about the role of spatial skills and language in young children’s learning. Early Child Development and Care, 191(14), 2234–2247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1722114

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (11. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Hidden codes, silent concepts: Spatial language in primary math textbooks from Turkiye and England

Abstract

References

Suggested Article

Cookie Notice