Journals / Kastamonu Education Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4

Change in the Level of Justification in Problem Solving Over Time

Problem Çözmede Gerekçelendirme Seviyelerinin Zamana Göre Değişimi

Pages
1481–1494
Publication Date
2019-07-15
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 findings suggest that through teacher feedback and structured writing with prompted questions, students can develop an awareness of rigorous mathematical justifications over time.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Students’ actions in a mathematical context contain some sort of proving in the forms of justification, explanation, verification, etc.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, 58 teacher candidates’ problem solving processes were analyzed across time in terms of the level of justification.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings suggest that through teacher feedback and structured writing with prompted questions, students can develop an awareness of rigorous mathematical justifications over time.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:gerekçelendirme · problem çözme · yazma

Abstract

Students’ actions in a mathematical context contain some sort of proving in the forms of justification, explanation, verification, etc. Each form has levels in terms of the quality that adds to mathematical understanding of students. In this study, 58 teacher candidates’ problem solving processes were analyzed across time in terms of the level of justification. The key findings from this study were as the use of external justifications decreased over time, that of internal increased especially for the first five weeks and the use of schematic justifications was fluctuated. The findings suggest that through teacher feedback and structured writing with prompted questions, students can develop an awareness of rigorous mathematical justifications over time.

Özet

Matematiksel bir bağlamda öğrencilerin eylemleri gerekçelendirme, açıklama, doğrulama gibi bazı ispat şekilleri içermektedir. Her bir ispat formunun öğrencinin matematiksel anlamasına katkı sunan niteliksel seviyesi mevcuttur. Bu çalışmada, 58 matematik öğretmen adayının problem çözme süreçleri gerekçelendirme seviyelerinin zaman içerisindeki değişimini ortaya koymak için analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın temel bulguları, zamanla dışsal gerekçelendirme kullanımının azaldığını, içsel kullanımların özellikle ilk beş hafta yükseldiğini ve şematik gerekçelendirmelerin ise dalgalanma yaptığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgular ışığında, öğretmenin dönütleri ve yapılandırılmış yazma sayesinde öğrencilerin zamanla matematiksel gerekçelendirme sunma farkındalıklarının geliştiği söylenebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKKUŞ, R. (2019). Change in the Level of Justification in Problem Solving Over Time. Kastamonu Education Journal, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4, 1481–1494. https://ajindex.com/articles/940352

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Balacheff, N. (1988). Aspects of proof in pupils’ practice of school mathematics. In D.Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children (pp. 216-235). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Ellis, A. B. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying: Students’ reasoning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38 (3), 194-229.
  2. Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany, NY: State of University of New York Press.
  3. Francisco, J. M. & Maher, C. A. (2005). Conditions for promoting reasoning in problem solving: Insights from a longitudinal study. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 361-372.
  4. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23.
  5. Hanna, G. & Barbeau, E. (2010). Proofs as bearers of mathematical knowledge. In G. Hanna, H. N. Jahnke and H. Pulte (Eds.), Explanation and Proof in Mathematics: Philosophical and Educational Perspectives (pp. 85-100).
  6. New York, NY: Springer. Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 805-842).
  7. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In A. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234-283).
  8. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 (4), 396-428.
  9. Kenyon, R. W. (1989). Writing is problem solving. In P. Connolly & T. Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to learn mathematics and science (pp. 73-87). New York and London: Teachers College. Maher, C. A. & Martino, A. M. (1996). The development of the idea of mathematical proof: A 5-year case study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (2), 194-214.
  10. Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 25-53.
  11. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. Addison-Wesley, London. Mayer R.E (1982). The psychology of mathematical problem solving. In F.K. Lester and J. Garofalo (Eds), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 1-13).Philadelphia: Th