SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2018 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

High School Students’ Performances on Proof Comprehension Tests

Burçak YAMAN BOZ
Işıkhan UĞUREL
Bahattin İNAM
Pages
339–369
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed none of the students were successful at the most sophisticated level of the proof comprehension tests which requires conducting a proof in various ways or proving different theorems by using the same proof methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study is a part of a large scale project in which an action research design is used to teach proof to 11th grade students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were analyzed by considering the framework of Yang and Lin’s (2008) multilevel model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed none of the students were successful at the most sophisticated level of the proof comprehension tests which requires conducting a proof in various ways or proving different theorems by using the same proof methods.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Proof · proving · Comprehension of proof

Abstract

This study is a part of a large scale project in which an action research design is used to teach proof to 11th grade students. This part of the project aims to identify students’ comprehension level through five proof comprehension tests developed by the researchers based on the National Geometry Curriculum. Data were analyzed by considering the framework of Yang and Lin’s (2008) multilevel model. Results showed none of the students were successful at the most sophisticated level of the proof comprehension tests which requires conducting a proof in various ways or proving different theorems by using the same proof methods. Moreover, the highest proof comprehension was obtained from the level containing knowledge about definition, properties, and meanings of symbols. Achievement and comprehension decreased for components of a proof needing higher level mathematical skills. Based on the study’s results, suggestions about teaching proof are provided.

Özet

This study is a part of a large scale project in which an action research design is used to teach proof to 11th grade students. This part of the project aims to identify students’ comprehension level through five proof comprehension tests developed by the researchers based on the National Geometry Curriculum. Data were analyzed by considering the framework of Yang and Lin’s (2008) multilevel model. Results showed none of the students were successful at the most sophisticated level of the proof comprehension tests which requires conducting a proof in various ways or proving different theorems by using the same proof methods. Moreover, the highest proof comprehension was obtained from the level containing knowledge about definition, properties, and meanings of symbols. Achievement and comprehension decreased for components of a proof needing higher level mathematical skills. Based on the study’s results, suggestions about teaching proof are provided.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZ, B. Y., UĞUREL, I., İNAM, B. (2022). High School Students’ Performances on Proof Comprehension Tests. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 339–369. https://ajindex.com/articles/540245

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alcock, L., & Wilkinson, N. (2011). e-Proofs: Design of a resource to support proof comprehension in mathematics. Educational Designer, 1(4), Article 14. Almeida, D. (2003). Engendering Proof Attitudes: Can The Genesis of Mathematical Knowledge Teach Us Anything?. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(4), 479-488.
  2. Atwood, P.R. (2001). Learning to Construct Proofs in a First Course on Mathematical Proof. Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University. Ball, D.L., Hoyles, C., Jahnke, H.N., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2002). The Teaching of Proof. ICM, 3, 907-920.
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (16th ed.). Ankara:
  4. Pegem Akademi. Conradie, J., & Frith, J. (2000). Comprehension Tests in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(3), 225-235.
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks Di Martino, P., & Maracci, M. (2009). The Secondary-Tertiary Transition: Beyond the Purely Cognitive. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.401-408).
  6. Thessaloniki, Greece: PME. Duval, R. (2002). Proof understanding in mathematics: What ways for students. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Mathematics: Understanding Proving and Proving to Understand (pp.61-77).
  7. Edwards, B.S., & Ward, M.B. (2004). Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions. American Mathematical Monthly, 111, 411-424.
  8. Heinze, A., Cheng, Y. H., & Yang, K. L. (2004). Students’ performance in reasoning and proof in Taiwan and Germany: Results, paradoxes and open questions. ZDM, 36(5), 162-171. doi:10.1007/BF02655668 Hemmi, K. (2008). Students’ encounter with proof: the condition of transparency. ZDM, The Special Issue on Proof, 40(3), 413-426.
  9. Houston, S. K. (1993a). Comprehension Tests in Mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 12(2), 60-73.
  10. Houston, S. K. (1993b). Comprehension Tests in Mathematics: II. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 12(2), 113-120.
  11. Knapp, J. L. (2006). Students’ appropriation of proving practices in advanced calculus. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Koshy, V. (2005). Action Research for Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Leron, U. (1983).