Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

The Nature of Middle School In-Service Teachers’ Engagements in Proving-Related Activities

Ortaokul Öğretmenlerinin İspatla İlişkili Etkinliklere Katılımlarının Doğasının İncelenmesi

Pages
100–130
Publication Date
2019-04-21
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)

Some reasons behind this failure were teachers’ lack of a perceived need for justification and proof after exploring the task, and their lack of seeing algebraic symbolization as a viable means of expressing mathematical ideas.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although reasoning and proof in learning and teaching mathematics is crucial and have gained more presence in school mathematics, both students and their teachers face great difficulties when engaging in proving activities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One potential cause for such difficulties might be due to teachers’ conception of proof.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Some reasons behind this failure were teachers’ lack of a perceived need for justification and proof after exploring the task, and their lack of seeing algebraic symbolization as a viable means of expressing mathematical ideas.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Matematik öğretmen eğitimi · Mesleki gelişim · Akıl yürütme

Abstract

Although reasoning and proof in learning and teaching mathematics is crucial and have gained more presence in school mathematics, both students and their teachers face great difficulties when engaging in proving activities. One potential cause for such difficulties might be due to teachers’ conception of proof. However, to date, there are few, if any, studies that have examined how secondary school in-service mathematics teachers learn justification and proof. Thus, in order to fill this gap, this study examines secondary school in-service teachers’ engagement in proving activities by providing observational data from a master’s level professional development course that focuses on teaching reasoning and proof. The findings from this work show that teachers were very successful at engaging in exploration of the proving tasks, but they fail to produce complete-deductive arguments. Some reasons behind this failure were teachers’ lack of a perceived need for justification and proof after exploring the task, and their lack of seeing algebraic symbolization as a viable means of expressing mathematical ideas.

Özet

Akıl yürütme ve ispat matematik öğrenmede ve öğretmede çok önemli olmasına ve okul matematiğinde daha fazla yer edinmiş olmasına rağmen, hem öğrenciler hem öğretmenler, ispatla ilgili etkinliklerde büyük zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadır. Bu tür zorluklara neden olan önemli potansiyel neden, öğretmenlerin ispat kavramı ile ilgili anlayışları olabilir. Buna rağmen ortaokulda görev yapan matematik öğretmenlerinin gerekçelendirme ve ispat kavramlarını nasıl öğrendiklerini araştıran çok az çalışma vardır. Bu nedenle, alan yazındaki boşluğu doldurmak için, bu çalışma ortaokul öğretmenlerinin akıl yürütme ve ispat ile ilgili etkinliklerle etkileşimlerine odaklanan yüksek lisans düzeyindeki bir mesleki gelişim dersinin gözlemsel verilerini incelemektedir. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular, ö ğretmenlerin ispat etkinliklerini çözmede oldukça başarılı olduklarını, ancak tümdengelimsel argümanlar üretmede zorlandıklarını göstermektedir. Bu başarısızlığın arkasındaki bazı nedenler, öğretmenlerin etkinliklere çözüm üretmeyi ispatı tamamlamak olarak görerek ispat yapma ihtiyacı duymamaları ve cebirsel ifadeleri (simgeleştirmeyi) matematiksel fikirleri ifade etmek için uygun bir araç olarak görmemeleri olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOGAN, M. F. (2019). The Nature of Middle School In-Service Teachers’ Engagements in Proving-Related Activities. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 100–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/6093

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Alibert, D. (1988). Toward new customs in the classrooms.For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(2), 31-43.
  2. Alibert, D.,&Thomas, M. (1991). Research on mathematical proof. In D. Tall (Ed.)Advanced Mathematical Thinking(pp. 215-230). Kluwer: The Netherlands. Ball, D., Hoyles, C., Jahnke,H., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (2002). The teaching of proof. Paper presented at the International Congress of Mathematicians, Beijing, China. Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof –explanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.
  3. Bieda (2010). Enacting proof-related tasks in middle school mathematics: challenges and opportunities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 351-382.
  4. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students’ justification fortheir views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 359-387.
  5. Chazan, D., & Lueke, H. M. (2009). Exploring tensions between disciplinary knowledge and school mathematics: Implications for reasoning and proof in school mathematics.Teaching and learning mathematics proof across the grades, 21-39. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage Publications. Dogan, M. F. (2015).The Nature of Middle School In-Service Teachers' Engagements in Proving-Related Activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. Dogan, M.F.(2017).Learning Proof as Collective Mathematical Activity.International Conference on Mathematics and Mathematics Education (ICMME-2017), (pp. 910-912), 11-13 May 2017,
  6. Harran University, Şanlıurfa. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative theory. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6-13.
  7. Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the importance of proof. For the learning of mathematics, 15(3), 42-49.
  8. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.
  9. Hanna, G. (2018). Reflections on proofas explanation. InAdvances in Mathematics Education Research on Proof and Proving(pp. 3-18).
  10. Springer, Cham. Harel, G.,& Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. Sch