KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists / 2023 / Volume: 11 Issue: 4

Subject, functionality and level of proofs preferred by pre-service elementary mathematics teachers

Bahar Dinçer(İZMİR DEMOKRASİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4767-7791
Deniz Kaya(NEVŞEHİR HACI BEKTAŞ VELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7804-1772
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2023-12-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

By determining which topics and theorems students have difficulty in proving in addition to trigonometry, additional learning on these subjects can be recommended.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study examined the subject(s) that elementary mathematics teacher candidates find most suitable for proving in analysis courses, the functional structure of proof they remember most, the level of proof, and the reasons for preferring this proof.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For this reason, this research aims to reveal the pre-service teachers' preferences for proof in analysis courses, the proof they keep in mind the most and its functional structure, their level of proof, and their views on proof relationally and holistically.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:By determining which topics and theorems students have difficulty in proving in addition to trigonometry, additional learning on these subjects can be recommended.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mathematics education · pre-service teacher · proof

Abstract

This study examined the subject(s) that elementary mathematics teacher candidates find most suitable for proving in analysis courses, the functional structure of proof they remember most, the level of proof, and the reasons for preferring this proof. For this reason, this research aims to reveal the pre-service teachers' preferences for proof in analysis courses, the proof they keep in mind the most and its functional structure, their level of proof, and their views on proof relationally and holistically. In this study, which was conducted with a qualitative research approach, a form consisting of open-ended questions was applied to teacher candidates. In this form, teacher candidates were asked various questions about the mathematical proofs they made. With descriptive analysis, the answers of the pre-service teachers who participated in the research were systematically defined, and data were tried to be defined through content analysis. Accordingly, while the subject that the pre-service teachers found the most appropriate application of the proof approach to be the subject of trigonometry, it was determined that the proof that remained in their minds the most was also related to the subject of trigonometry. By examining the functional structure of these proofs written by pre-service teachers, it has been seen that they have the function of explanation and systematization. In addition, the reasons for preferring the proof they made were asked of the pre-service teachers, and the answers were gathered on the fact that proof provides the most permanence and causal learning. It was emphasized that theorems that require formula memorization generally become more understandable with the proof method. According to the results of the research, it is stated that the common opinion of the prospective teachers is that teaching how to obtain the proof method of formulas in trigonometry, instead of memorizing them, is beneficial in ensuring both meaningful and permanent learning. In light of the findings of these studies, more sensible suggestions can be made to improve pre-service teachers' knowledge systems and classroom teaching on proof. By determining which topics and theorems students have difficulty in proving in addition to trigonometry, additional learning on these subjects can be recommended.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Dinçer, B., Kaya, D. (2023). Subject, functionality and level of proofs preferred by pre-service elementary mathematics teachers. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, Volume: 11 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1365213

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (47)

  1. Almeida, D. (2000). A survey of mathematics undergraduates’ interaction with proof: Some implications form mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(6), 869-890. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390050203360
  2. Angelides, M. C., & Agius, H. V. (2002). An interactive multimedia learning environment for VLSI built with Cosmos. Computers & Education, 39, 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00028-3
  3. Arsac, G. (2007). Origin of mathematical proof: History and epistemology. In P. Boero (Ed.), Theorems in schools: From history, epistemology and cognition to classroom practice (pp. 27-42). Sense Publishing.
  4. Arslan, Ç. (2007). İlköğretim öğrencilerinde muhakeme etme ve ispatlama düşüncesinin gelişimi [The development of elementary school students on their reasoning and proof ideas] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uludağ University, Türkiye.
  5. Balacheff, N. (1998). Aspects of proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics. In D. Pimm (Ed.), Mathematics, teachers and children (pp. 216-235). Hodder and Stoughton Publishing.
  6. Bell, A. (1976). A study of pupils’ proof-explanations in mathematical situations. Education Studies in Mathematics 7(1-2), 23-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3481809
  7. Bieda, K. N., Ji, X., Drwencke, J., & Picard, A. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving opportunities in elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.005
  8. Botana, F., & Valcarce, J. L. (2002). A dynamic-symbolic interface for geometric theorem discovery. Computers & Education, 38, 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00089-6
  9. Cai, J., & Howson, G. (2012). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In: Clements, M., Bishop, A., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., Leung, F. (Eds.) Third international handbook of mathematics education. Springer international handbooks of education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_29
  10. Çalışkan, Ç. (2012). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik başarılarıyla ispat yapabilme seviyelerinin ilişkilendirilmesi [The interrelations between 8th grade class students' mathematics success and proving levels] (Unpublished master's thesis). Uludağ University, Türkiye.
  11. de Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of proof in mathematics. Pythagoras 24, 17-24.
  12. Demircioğlu, H. (2023). Preservice mathematics teachers’ proving skills in an incorrect statement: Sums of triangular numbers. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(1), 326-333. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.01.36
  13. Doruk, M., & Kaplan, A. (2017). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının analiz alanında yaptıkları ispatların özellikleri [The characteristics of proofs produced by preservice primary mathematics teachers in calculus]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 44, 467-498. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.305605
  14. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01809605
  15. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1-2), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012737223465
  16. Hanna, G., & Barbeau, E. (2002). What is a proof. History of Modern Science and Mathematics, 1, 36-48.
  17. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Types of students justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.91.8.0670
  18. Hartter, B. J. (1995). Concept image and concept definition for the topic of the derivative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University, USA.
  19. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/749651
  20. Jones, K. (1997). Student teachers’ conceptions of mathematical proof. Mathematics Education Review, 9, 21-32.
  21. Jones, K. (2000). The student experience of mathematical proof at university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/002073900287381
  22. Knuth, E. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 61-88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013838713648
  23. Knuth, E. J., Choppin, J. M., & Bieda, K. N. (2009). Proof: Examples and beyond. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(4), 206-211. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.15.4.0206
  24. Kotelawala, U. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about proving in the mathematics classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, USA.
  25. Lesseig, K. (2016). Investigating mathematical knowledge for teaching proof in Professional development. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 253-270.
  26. Martin, G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41-51. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.20.1.0041
  27. Miyazaki, M. (2000). Levels of proof in lover secondary school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 47-68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003956532587
  28. Moralı, S., Uğurel, İ., Türnüklü, E., & Yeşildere, S. (2006). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının ispat yapmaya yönelik görüşleri [The views of the mathematics teachers on proving]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(1), 147-160.
  29. Morris, A. K. (2002). Mathematical reasoning: Adults' ability to make the inductive-deductive distinction. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 79-118. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2001_4
  30. Polat, K., & Akgün, L. (2023). High school students’ and their teacher’s experiences with visual proofs. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 25(1), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1092716
  31. Quinn, A. L. (2009). Count on number theory to inspire proof. Mathematics Teacher, 103(4), 298-304. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.103.4.0298
  32. Raman, M. (2003). Key ideas: What are they and how can they help us understand how people view proof? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 319-325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024360204239
  33. Saeed, R., M. (1996). An exploratory study of college student’s understanding of mathematical proof and the relationship of this understanding to their attitude toward mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University, USA.
  34. Sarı Uzun, M., & Bülbül, A. (2013). A teaching experiment on development of pre-service mathematics teachers’ proving skills. Education and Science, 38(169), 372-390.
  35. Schabel, C. (2005). An instructional model for teaching proof writing in the number theory classroom. Primus: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 15(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970508984105
  36. Schoenfeld, A. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-3123(94)90035-3
  37. Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2003). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004
  38. Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2023). Preservice teachers' ways of addressing challenges when teaching reasoning-and-proving in their mentor teachers' mathematics classrooms. In practical theorising in teacher education (pp. 97-112). Routledge Publishing.
  39. Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Philippou. (2007). Preservice teachers’ knowledge of proof by mathematical induction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 145-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9034-z
  40. Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, A. E. (2001). Content analysis and application examples for verbal, written and other materials. Epsilon Publishing.
  41. Urhan, S., & Bülbül, A. (2016). The relationship is between argumentation and mathematical proof processes. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 351-373. https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.00387
  42. Weber, K (2006). Investigating and teaching the processes used to construct proofs. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 6, 197-232.
  43. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proof: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015535614355
  44. Weber, K., Maher, C., Powell, A. & Lee, H. S. (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: warrants become the objects of debate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9114-8
  45. Wheeler, D. (1990). Aspects of mathematical proof. Interchange, 21(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01809604
  46. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Seçkin Publishing,
  47. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing.