Utkun Aydın, Zelha Tunç-Pekkan, Rukiye Didem Taylan, Bengi Birgili, Mustafa Özcan


This study examined school type differences in fifth-grade students’ fractional knowledge with data from a university-school partnership. Students (n = 203) from a public school and a private school willing to collaborate in University within School Project participated. Results revealed that there were significant school type differences in fractional knowledge favoring private school students. Since school type differences have important impacts on the quality and equity of mathematical outcomes, we need to strongly consider the implications of these school type-related differences and pay attention particularly to the structure of schooling in public schools and the student performance in private schools.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



public schools, private schools, school type differences, middle school students, university-school partnership


Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 182-192.

Amjad, R., & MacLeod, G. (2014). Academic effectiveness of private, public and private–public partnership schools in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 37, 22-31.

Aydagül, B. (2006). Education: An Overarching ‘Acquis’ for Turkey. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 5(1), 93-103.

Aydın, U., Tunç-Pekkan, Z., Taylan, R. D., Birgili, B., & Özcan, M. (in press). Impacts of a university-school partnership on middle school students' fractional knowledge. The Journal of Educational Research.

Aydın, U., Birgili, B., Tunç-Pekkan, Z., Taylan, R. D., & Özcan, M. (2016). Improving fifth grade students’ fractional knowledge through university-school partnership. Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Meeting. April 8-12, Washington, DC, USA.

Bassani, C. (2006). A test of social capital theory outside of the American context: family and school social capital and youth’s math scores in Canada, Japan and the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(6), 380–403.

Berberoglu, G., & Kalender, I. (2005). Investigation of student achievement across years, school types and regions: the SSE and PISA analyses. Educational Sciences and Practice, 4(7), 21–35.

Bishop, A., & Forgasz, H. (2007). Issues in access and equity in mathematics education. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (NCES 2006-461). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cain, G. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1983). Public and private schools revisited. Sociology of Education, 56(4), 208-218.

Cinoglu, M. (2006). Private education as a policy tool in Turkey. International Education Turkey, 7(5), 676-687.Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic.

Coleman, J., Kilgore, S., & Hoffer, T. (1981). Public and private high schools. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Driessen, G., Agirdag, O., & Merry, M. S. (2016). The gross and net effects of primary school denomination on pupil performance. Educational Review, 68(4), 1-15.

Education Reform Initiative [Eğitim Reformu Girişimi ERG]. (2017). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2015-2016 [Education monitoring report 2015-2016]. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/egitim-izleme-raporu-2015-16/.

Education Reform Initiative [ERG]. (2016). Türkiye’de kapsayıcı eğitimi yaygınlaştırmak için politika önerileri [Policy recommendations to promote education in Turkey]. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/kapsayici-egitimin-durumu-ve-oneriler-2/.

Education Reform Initiative [ERG]. (2014). Türkiye eğitim sisteminde eşitlik ve akademik başarı. [Equity and academic achievement in Turkish education system]. http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/turkiye-egitim-sisteminde-esitlik-ve-akademik-basari/.

Education Reform Initiative [ERG]. (2012). Türkiye PISA 2012 Analizi: Genel Bulgular ve eğilimler. [Turkey PISA 2012 Analysis: General findings and trends]. http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/turkiye-pisa-2012-analizi-genel-bulgular-ve-egilimler/.

Education Reform Initiative [ERG]. (2009). Türkiye’de öğrenci başarısında eşitsizliğin belirleyicileri. [Determinants of inequality in student achievement]. http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/yayin/turkiyede-ogrenci-basarisinda-esitsizligin-belirleyicileri/.

Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1992). Summer setback: Race, poverty, school composition, and mathematics achievement in the first two years of school. American Sociological Review, 72-84.

Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). New York: Mcgraw- Hill.

Gee, K. A. (2015). Achieving gender equality in learning outcomes: Evidence from a non-formal education program in Bangladesh. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 207-216.

Githua, B. N., & Mwangi, J. G. (2003). Students’ mathematics self-concept and motivation to learn mathematics: relationship and gender differences among Kenya’s secondary-school students in Nairobi and Rift Valley provinces. International Journal of Educational Development, 23(5), 487-499.

Gong, X., Ding, Y., & Tsang, M. C. (2014). Gender differences of academic performance in compulsory education in rural Southwestern China. International Journal of Educational Development, 39, 193-204.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Race, class, and gender in education research: An argument for integrative analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 195-211.

Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 145-187.

Günçer, B., & Köse, M. R. (1993). Effects of family and school on Turkish students’ academic performance. Education and Society, 11(1), 51-63.

Halai, A. (2011). Equality or equity: Gender awareness issues in secondary schools in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), 44-49.

Hallett, D., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395–406.

Hallett, D., Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Thorpe, C. M. (2012). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural fraction understanding: The role of abilities and school experience. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(4), 469-486.

Han, S. W. (2016). National education systems and gender gaps in STEM occupational expectations. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 175-187.

Hanna, G. (Ed.) (1996) Towards gender equity in mathematics education: An ICMI study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jimenez, E., Lockheed, M.E., & Paqueo, V. (1991). The relative efficiency of private and public schools in developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 6(2), 205-218.

Jurdak, M., Vithal, R., de Freitas, E., Gates, P., & Kollosche, D. (2016). Economic factors behind mathematics education. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Social and political dimensions of mathematics education (pp. 23-29). Springer.

Koçberber, G., & Kazancık, L. (2010). A novel approach towards the examination of educational opportunities at primary schools. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 165–176.

Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: Changing perspectives. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 597–622). New York: Macmillan.

Liou, D. D., Marsh, T. E., & Antrop-González, R. (2017). Urban sanctuary schools for diverse populations: Examining curricular expectations and school effectiveness for student learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(1), 68-83.

Lubienski, S. T. (2008). On “gap gazing” in mathematics education: The need for gaps analyses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 350-356.

Lubienski, S.T., Lubienski, C., & Crane, C. C. (2008). Achievement differences and school type: The role of school climate, teacher certification and instruction. American Journal of Education, 115 (1), 97-138.

Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651-698.

Mahuteau, S., & Mavromaras, K. G. (2014). Student scores in public and private schools: Evidence from PISA 2009. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8471. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2505333

Masino, S., & Niño-Zarazúa, M. (2016). What works to improve the quality of student learning in developing countries?. International Journal of Educational Development, 48, 53-65.

Masland, S. W. (1994). Gender equity in classrooms: The teacher factor. Equity & Excellence in Education, 27(3), 19-27.

Mathematical Sciences Education Board [MSEB]. (1989). Even/body counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013). Ortaokul Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Middle School Mathematics Program (Grades 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Retrieved from http://ttkb. meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/72.

Murnane, R. J., Newstead, S., & Olsen, R. J. (1985). Comparing public and private schools: The puzzling role of selectivity bias. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 3(1), 23-35.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2008). Equity in mathematics education. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=13490

Oakes, J. (1995). Opportunity to learn: Can standards-based reform be equity-based reform. In I. M. Carl (Ed.), Seventy-five years of progress: Prospects for school mathematics (pp. 78-98). Reston, VA: NCTM.

OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world (Vol. 1: Analysis & Vol. 2: Data). Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Özcan, M. (2013). Okulda Üniversite: Türkiye’de öğretmen eğitimini yeniden yapılandırmak için bir model önerisi. [University within School: A new model to re-structure teacher education in Turkey]. Ankara: TÜSİAD Yayınları [TÜSİAD Publications].

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Pangeni, K. P. (2014). Factors determining educational quality: Student mathematics achievement in Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development, 34, 30-41.

Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 633-662.

Ronau, R. N. (1993). Excellence and equity in mathematics: Not a Zero-Sum relationship. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(3), 48-50.

Sarıer, Y. (2010). An evaluation of equal opportunities in education in the light of high school entrance exams (OKS-SBS) and PISA results. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education, 11(3), 107-129.

Secada, W. G. (1995). Social and critical dimensions for equity in mathematics education. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 146–164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

SPSS (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21. Boston, Mass: International Business Machines Corporation.

Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children's fractional knowledge. New York: Springer.

Taylan, R. D., Tunç-Pekkan, Z., Aydın, U., Birgili, B., & Özcan, M. (2016). Influence of a number line based model of instruction on 5th grade students’ use of mathematical language during clinical interviews. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Research Conference, April 11-13, San Fransisco, USA.

Tremblay, S., Ross, N., & Berhelot, J. M. (2001). Factors affecting grade 3 student performance in Ontario: a multi-level analysis. Education Quarterly Review, 7(4), 25–36.

Tunç-Pekkan, Z., Taylan, R. D., Birgili, B., Aydın, U., & Özcan, M. (2016). Academicians as teachers: Nurturing teacher experience. 13th International Congress on Mathematics Education (ICME). July 24-31, Hamburg, Germany.

Willms, J. D. (1996). Indicators of mathematics achievement in Canadian elementary schools. In: HRDC (Eds.), Growing up in Canada: National longitudinal study of children and youth. Human Resources Development Canada and Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 69–82.

Yetkiner Özel, Z. E., Özel, S., & Thompson, B. (2013). SES-related mathematics achievement gap in Turkey compared to European Union countries. Education and Science, 38(170), 179–193.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1055


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Utkun Aydın, Zelha Tunç-Pekkan, Rukiye Didem Taylan, Bengi Birgili, Mustafa Özcan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).