Journals / Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates' Activity Design Processes in the Context of Activity Design Principles

Pages
139–164
Publication Date
2022-12-25
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)

In addition, it was found that none of the pre-service teachers designed an activity which considered assessment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Activity design is an integral part of mathematics education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of the study consisted of 54 undergraduate students studying in the 3rd year of Primary Level Mathematics Teacher Education programme of a state university in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, it was found that none of the pre-service teachers designed an activity which considered assessment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020-2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Activity design · mathematics education · teacher education

Abstract

Activity design is an integral part of mathematics education. This study aims to examine the pre-service primary level mathematics teachers’ consideration of the principles of activity design in the process of designing activities. For this purpose, a multiple case study as a qualitative research method was used in the study. The participants of the study consisted of 54 undergraduate students studying in the 3rd year of Primary Level Mathematics Teacher Education programme of a state university in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. The data of the study were collected by examining the activity designs in the lesson plans prepared by the students. In the analysis of the data obtained, descriptive analysis was carried out in line with the theoretical framework put forward by Yeşildere-İmre (2020). Based on the research findings, it was determined that none of the pre-service teachers included the student perspective in the purpose statement in the activities they designed and all pre-service teachers expressed the purpose of the activity from the perspective of the instructor. In addition, it was found that none of the pre-service teachers designed an activity which considered assessment. In addition, it was observed that none of the pre-service teachers used an expression for informing the students within the scope of the assessment of the activity.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAVAŞ, G., BİLGİÇ, E. N. Ü. (2022). Evaluation of Primary School Mathematics Teacher Candidates' Activity Design Processes in the Context of Activity Design Principles. Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 139–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/870240

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500401971
  2. Arastaman, G., Fidan, İ. Ö., & Fidan, T. (2018). Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik: Kuramsal bir inceleme. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 37-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.61
  3. Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan International, 77(7), 500-508.
  4. Burkhardt, H., & Swan, M. (2013). Task design for systemic improvement: Principles and frameworks. In C. Margolinas (Ed.). Task design in mathematics education (Proceedings of ICMI Study 22. ICMI Study 22, Jul 2014,
  5. Oxford, United Kingdom) pp. 431-439.
  6. Oxford, United Kingdom. Cobb, P. (1994). An exchange: Constructivism in mathematics and science education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 4–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176932
  7. Çenberci, S., & Özgen, K. (2021). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının etkinlik tasarımında günlük yaşamla ilişkilendirmeyi yansıtma becerileri. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 70-95. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.838118
  8. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
  9. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Featherstone, H. (1992). The student, the teacher, and the moon. In S. Feiman-Nemser & H. Featherstone (Eds.), Exploring teaching: Reinventing an introductory course. Teacher College Press.
  10. Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. Teachers College Press.
  11. Geiger, V., Forgasz, H., Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2014). Devising principles of design for numeracy tasks. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh & A. Prescott (Eds.). Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) pp. 239–246. Sydney: Merga. Geiger, V., Galbraith, P., Niss, M., & Delzoppo, C. (2022). Develoing a task design and implementation framework for fostering mathematical modelling competencies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109, 313-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10039-y
  12. Glaser, R. (1989). Expertise and learning: How do we think about instructional processes now that we have d