SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2014 / Sayı: 22

Visual, Analytic and Harmonic Problem Solving Preferences for Derivative and Antiderivative Tasks

Türev ve İntegral Problemlerinin Çözümünde Görsel, Analitik ve Harmonik Çözüm Tercihleri

Güney HACIÖMEROĞLU
Erhan Selçuk HACIÖMEROĞLU
Esra BUKOVA GÜZEL
Semiha KULA
Pages
108–119
Publication Date
2014-06-01
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)

The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the overall instrument was 0.91.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this present study was to adapt the Mathematical Processing Instrument for Calculus (MPI-C) developed by Haciomeroglu and Chicken (2011) to Turkish.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, the study aimed at examining students’ preferences for problem solving strategies regarding derivative and antiderivative tasks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the overall instrument was 0.91.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:görsel · analitik · harmonik

Abstract

The purpose of this present study was to adapt the Mathematical Processing Instrument for Calculus (MPI-C) developed by Haciomeroglu and Chicken (2011) to Turkish. In addition, the study aimed at examining students’ preferences for problem solving strategies regarding derivative and antiderivative tasks. Results of the study revealed that the MPI-C is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to reliably measure Turkish students’ preference for visual or analytic solution strategies. The cronbach alpha coefficients of the MPIC derivative and antiderivative tests were 0.83 and 0.86, respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the overall instrument was 0.91. Most of the students in this study preferred analytic solution strategies for the derivative and antiderivative tasks, and the mode of representations of the tasks did not affect their preference for visual or analytic solution strategies.

Özet

Öğrencilerin türev ve integral sorularını çözüm tercihlerini incelemek amacıyla Haciomeroglu ve Chicken (2011) tarafından geliştirilen Matematik İşlem Testi-Analiz (MİT-A) ölçme aracının Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması yapılmıştır. Buna ek olarak, bu çalışma ortaöğretim matematik öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin türev ve integral sorularını çözme tercihlerini belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, Matematik İşlem Testi-Analiz’in Türk kültüründe kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir. Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı MİT-A-türev için 0.83 ve MİT-A-integral için 0.86 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Testin bütünü için bu değer 0.91 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin çoğunun türev ve integral sorularını analitik çözmeyi tercih ettiklerini göstermiştir. Öğrenciler soru tipi değiştiğinde çözüm tercihini değiştirmediğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

HACIÖMEROĞLU, G., HACIÖMEROĞLU, E. S., GÜZEL, E. B., KULA, S. (2014). Visual, Analytic and Harmonic Problem Solving Preferences for Derivative and Antiderivative Tasks. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 22, 108–119. https://ajindex.com/articles/75896

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Akbulut, K. ve Işık, A. (2005). Limit kavramının anlaşılmasın- da etkileşimli öğretim stratejisinin etkinliğinin incelenmesi ve bu süreçte karşılaşılan kavram yanılgıları. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13 (2), 497-512.
  2. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215-241. Aspinwall. L., & Shaw, K. L. (2002). Representations in Calculus: Two contrasting cases. Mathematics Teacher, 95, 434-439.
  3. Brown, D. L., & Wheatley, G. H. (1989). Relationship between spatial ability and mathematics knowledge. In A. C. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 143-148).
  4. New Brunswick, NJ. Bukova-Güzel, E. (2007). The effect of a constructivist learning environment on the limit concept among mathematics student teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7, 1189-1195.
  5. Clements, K. (1984). Terence Tao. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 213-238.
  6. Cruz, I., Febles, M., & Diaz, J. (2000). Kevin: A visualizer pupil. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20, 30-36.
  7. Çetin, N. (2009). The performance of undergraduate students in the limit concept. Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40 (3), 323-330.
  8. Duru, A. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perception about the concept of limit. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 1710-1715.
  9. Eisenberg, T., & Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the reluctance to visualize in mathematics. In W. Zimmermann & S. Cunningham (Eds.), Visualization in Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp. 127 – 138). Washington, DC: MAA. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2. baskı). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Guy, R.K. (1984). How can we lead in an up-to-date and fair fashion?. The College Mathematics Journal, 15, 396-397.
  10. Guzman, M. (2002). The role of visualization in the teaching and learning of mathematical analysis. In D. Hughes-Hallett, & C. Tzanakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics (pp. 2-25).
  11. Crete, Greece: ERIC Haciomeroglu, E.S. (2007). Calculus students’ understanding of derivative graphs: Problems of representaions in calculus. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Universitesi, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri. Haciomeroglu, E. S., & Chicken, E. (2011). Investigating relations between ability, preference, and calculus per