Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTIONS: BUILDING ON PAPER OR INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD?

Journal
IOJET
Pages
598–611
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Findings revealed that almost all of the teachers hadno experience with geometric constructions in their previous education and the majority ofpre-service teachers' opinions about geometric construction activities are positive.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined pre-service teachers’ views and experiences of building geometricconstructions on paper and with the interactive whiteboard.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group consisted of 26pre-service elementary teachers in a state university in the Black Sea region of Turkey whotook the Geometry Teaching course.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings revealed that almost all of the teachers hadno experience with geometric constructions in their previous education and the majority ofpre-service teachers' opinions about geometric construction activities are positive.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study examined pre-service teachers’ views and experiences of building geometricconstructions on paper and with the interactive whiteboard. The study group consisted of 26pre-service elementary teachers in a state university in the Black Sea region of Turkey whotook the Geometry Teaching course. The data were obtained from an opinion form consistingof open-ended questions and field notes. Findings revealed that almost all of the teachers hadno experience with geometric constructions in their previous education and the majority ofpre-service teachers' opinions about geometric construction activities are positive. Theyexperienced more problems when building geometric constructions on the interactivewhiteboard so their opinions about building geometric constructions on paper are morepositive than building on the interactive whiteboard. Moreover, it was determined that preservice teachers’ views imply that building geometric constructions on the interactivewhiteboard makes sense in the affective learning domain, whereas building on papercontributes more to the cognitive learning domain.

🔖

Cite This Article

0000-0002-6720-509X, 0., 0000-0003-0425-9565, 0. (2022). PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ VIEWS ON GEOMETRIC CONSTRUCTIONS: BUILDING ON PAPER OR INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARD?. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 598–611. https://ajindex.com/articles/542353

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Baki, A. (2018). Matematiği öğretme bilgisi. Ankara:
  2. Pegem Akademi. Barzel, B, Drijvers, P., Maschietto, M., & Trouche, L. (2005). Tools and technologies in mathematical didactics. In M. Bosch (Ed.) Proceedings of CERME 4 (pp. 927– 936), Spain. Baydaş Ö., Esgice, M., Kalafat, Ö., & Göktaş, Y. (2011). Etkileşimli Tahtaların Öğretim Süreçlerine Katkıları. Paper presented at 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Fırat Üniversitesi,
  3. Elazığ, Turkey. Birişçi, S., & Uzun, S. Ç. (2014). Matematik öğretmenlerinin derslerinde etkileşimli tahta kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri: Artvin ili örneği [Mathematics teachers’ views on interactive whiteboard use in their courses: A sample of Artvin Province]. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1278-1295.
  4. Cherowitzo, B. (2006). Geometric constructions. [Online] Retrieved on 10-September-2018., at URL http://wwwmath.cudenver.edu/~wcherowi/courses/m3210/lecchap5.pdf
  5. Cheung, L.H. (2011). Enhancing students’ ability and interest in geometry learning through geometric constructions (Unpublished master thesis). The University of Hong Kong, China. Chikwere, P. & Ayama, K. (2016). Teaching of geometric construction in junior high school: An intervention. Journal of Elementary Education, 26(1), 139-146.
  6. Dağhan, G., Kibar, P. N., Akkoyunlu, B., & Atanur-Baskan, G. (2015). Öğretmen ve yöneticilerin etkileşimli tahta ve tablet bilgisayar kullanımına yönelik yaklaşımları ve görüşleri [Approaches and views of teachers and administrators related to the usage of interactive whiteboards and tablet PCs]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 399-417.
  7. Duval, R. (1998), Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana and V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century: An ICMI study. (pp.37-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Erduran, A., & Yeşildere, S. (2010). The use of a compass and straightedge to construct geometric structures. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 331-345.
  8. Glover, D., Miller, D. J., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2004). Leadership implications of using interactive whiteboards: Linking technology and pedagogy in the management of change. Management in Education, 18(5), 27-30.
  9. Gür, H., & Kobak-Demir, M. (2017). Pergel-cetvel kullanarak temel geometrik çizimlerin öğretmen adaylarının geometrik düşünme düzeylerine ve tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of basic geometric drawings using a compass-ruler on the geometric thinking levels and attitudes of the pre-servic