KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Fonksiyonların Cebirsel ve Grafiksel Temsillerinin Anlamlandırılması Sürecinde Öğretmen Adaylarının Enstrümanlı Eylem Şemalarının İncelenmesi

Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Instrumented Action Schemes in the Conceptualization of Algebraic and Graphical Representations of Functions

Naz Mardani, Menekşe Seden Tapan Broutin

Sayfa
1501–1528
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Özet

Bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının fonksiyonları teknolojik bir ortamda nasıl temsil ettiklerini ve bu süreçlerde ortaya çıkan enstrümantal oluşum süreçlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, öğretmen adaylarının fonksiyonları cebirsel ve grafiksel olarak temsil etme ve fonksiyon grafiklerini çizmesüreçlerinde geliştirdikleri enstrümanlı eylem şemalarına odaklanmakta ve teknolojik araçların matematik öğretimine katkısını değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmaya, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinde ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği programının ikinci sınıfında öğrenim gören altı öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veriler, çalışma yaprakları, görüşmeler ile ekran ve ses kayıtları aracılığıyla toplanmış ve içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiştir. Elde edilen ses kayıtları yazılı yanıtlarla karşılaştırılarak çözümlenmiştir. Veriler kodlanmış, kategorilere ayrılmış ve enstrümantal yaklaşım çerçevesinde temalar hâline getirilerek araştırma amacı doğrultusunda yorumlanmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğretmen adaylarının geliştirdiği enstrümanlı eylem şemalarının, yalnızca kullandıkları dijital veya geleneksel araçlardan değil, bu araçlarla kurdukları etkileşimden beslendiğini; bu etkileşimin ardında yatan dinamikleri kavramada ise enstrümantal oluşum teorisinin, öğrenme süreçlerini anlamak için güçlü bir kuramsal çerçeve olduğunu açıkça ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

This study investigates how preservice teachers represent functions in a technological environment and examines the instrumental genesis processes involved. It focuses on instrumented action schemes for representing functions algebraically and graphicallyand drawing the graphs of functions in paper-and-pencil and dynamic geometry environments, evaluating the contribution of technological tools to mathematics teaching. Six second-year preservice teachers in an elementary mathematics teacher education program at a public university in Türkiye participated. Data were collected through worksheets, interviews, screen and audio recordings and analyzed using content analysis. Recordings were transcribed and checked with written responses. Data were coded, categorized, and organized into themes within the instrumental approach and interpreted according to the research objectives. Findings indicate that instrumented action schemes remained procedural in the paper-and-pencil environment, whereas in the dynamic geometry environment they developed conceptual and interactive schemes. The dynamic environment’s visual and interactive features facilitated preservice teachers’ understanding of functions and their algebraic and graphical representations. This study clearly demonstrates that preservice teachers’ instrumented action schemes are shaped not only by the digital or traditional tools they use but also by their interactions with these tools; understanding the dynamics underlying these interactions highlights that the instrumental approach provides an essential theoretical framework for comprehending the learning process.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Mardani, N., Broutin, M. S. T. (2026). Fonksiyonların Cebirsel ve Grafiksel Temsillerinin Anlamlandırılması Sürecinde Öğretmen Adaylarının Enstrümanlı Eylem Şemalarının İncelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 1501–1528. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2026..-1829407

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (49)

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
  2. Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Antonini, S. (2016). From conjecture generation by maintaining dragging to proof. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.02583.
  3. Bach, C. C., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2022, May). When a digital tool guides mathematical communication. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT (p. 224). Aarhus University.
  4. Barabash, M. (2019). Dragging as a geometric construction tool: Continuity considerations inspired by students’ attempts. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 5(2), 124-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-019-0050-2
  5. Bautista, A., Cañadas, M. C., Brizuela, B. M., & Schliemann, A. D. (2015). Examining How Teachers Use Graphs to Teach Mathematics during a Professional Development Program. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(2), 91-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i2.676
  6. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012) Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010
  7. Brating, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2021). Exploring the intersection of algebraic and computational thinking. Mathematical thinking and learning, 23(2), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1779012
  8. Chen, Y. (2025). Comparing Students’ Reasoning With Function Composition Using a Dynamic Graphical Representation to Traditional Representations (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University).
  9. Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.
  10. Çetin, H. (2017). Çoklu temsiller destekli tasarlanan manipülatiflerin “Tam Sayı” öğretiminde öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11, 55–69.
  11. Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Gerard, L. F., & Linn, M. C. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers & Education, 146, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748
  12. Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 135-151). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_8
  13. Drijvers, P. (2019, February). Embodied instrumentation: Combining different views on using digital technology in mathematics education. In Eleventh congress of the European society for research in mathematics education (No. 1). Freudenthal Group; Freudenthal Institute; ERME. https://hal.science/hal-02436279/
  14. Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 363–392)., Cases and perspectives Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  15. Eroğlu, D. (2020). Ortaokul matematik öğretmen adaylarının sözel-sembolik temsil dönüşümlerinin ve süreçte yaptıkları hataların incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 10(3), 438-450.
  16. Frankel, R. M., & Devers, K. J. (2000). Study design in qualitative research-1: Developing questions and assessing resource needs. Education for Health, 13(2), 251–261. https://journals.lww.com/edhe/abstract/2000/13020/study_design_in_qualitative_research_1__developing.14.aspx
  17. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastering by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: Necessity of instrumental orchestrations. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 34(5), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02652810
  18. Gürbüz, R., & Şahin, S. (2015). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin çoklu temsiller arasındaki geçiş becerileri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(4), 1869-1888.
  19. Haspekian, M., & Artigue, M. (2007). L’intégration d’artefacts informatiques professionnels à l’enseignement dans une perspective instrumentale: le cas des tableurs. Environnements informatisés et ressources numériques pour l’apprentissage, 37-63.
  20. Haspekian, M. (2005). An “instrumental approach” to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: the case of spreadsheets. International journal of computers for mathematical learning, 10, 109-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-005-0395-z
  21. Haspekian, M., Kieran, C., Drijvers, P., Bråting, K., & Tabach, M. (2024). Algebra Education and Digital Resources: A Long-Distance Relationship?. In Handbook of digital resources in mathematics education (pp. 439-470). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45667-1_16
  22. Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for research in mathematics education, 38(2), 164-192. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034955
  23. İlhan, A., & Aslaner, R. (2020). Analysis of the correlations between visual mathematics literacy perceptions, reasoning skills on geometric shapes and geometry performances of pre-service mathematics teachers. Participatory Educational Research, 8(1), 90-108. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.5.8.1
  24. İpek, A. S., & Baran, D. (2011). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji destekli temsillerle ilgili düşünceleri. In 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
  25. Kaplan, M. (2010). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ views about using graphing calculators in elementary school algebra: The case of using Classpad (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)).
  26. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80062-7
  27. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 390–419). Macmillan Publishing Company.
  28. Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of CAS use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 205–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-006-0006-7
  29. Kirsten, K., Greefrath, G., & Emmrich, R. (2026). Technology-based versus paper-pencil: sources of mode effects in large-scale assessment. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2584340
  30. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students’ formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/749214
  31. Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012776425693
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  33. Nwabueze, K. K. (2006). Technology class format versus traditional class format in undergraduatealgebra. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(1), 79-93.
  34. Pittalis, M., & Drijvers, P. (2023). Embodied instrumentation in a dynamic geometry environment: eleven-year-old students’ dragging schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3
  35. Steffe, L. P., & Ulrich, C. (2014). Constructivist teaching experiment. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 102-109). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_32
  36. Tapan, M. S. (2006). Différents types de savoirs mis en œuvre dans la formation initiale d'enseignants de mathématiques à l'intégration de technologies de géométrie dynamique (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Université Joseph-Fourier – Grenoble I.
  37. Tapan-Broutin, M. S. (2015). Computer-interactive geometry teaching (2nd ed.). Bursa, Turkey: Ezgi Kitabevi Publishing.
  38. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-004-3468-5
  39. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators: Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 197–230). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3042-1_9
  40. Trouche, L. (2020). De l’approche instrumentale a l’approche documentaire du didactique: une histoire d’appropriations croisees et d’hybridations theoriques. Actes du séminaire national de didactique des mathématiques, 5.
  41. Turgut, M., & Drijvers, P. (2021). Instrumentation schemes for solving systems of linear equations with dynamic geometry software. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 65-80.
  42. Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artefacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172796
  43. Wei, H., Bos, R., & Drijvers, P. (2023). An embodied approach to abstract functional thinking using digital technology: A systematic literature review. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v30.2.2
  44. Weigand, H. G., Trgalova, J., & Tabach, M. (2024). Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(4), 525-541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01612-9
  45. Xu, C. (2025). Improving Mathematical Skills of Mathematics Education Students Through Integrated Use of Graphing Software and Programming Techniques. https://doi.org/10.58557/(ijeh).v5i1.277
  46. Yenmez, A. A. (2022). Teaching experiment as professional development activity: interpretation of student thinking. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(11), 3066-3091. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1954252
  47. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Mobile environments for learning mathematics: Designing systems and curricula. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.2190/7Q02-52B7-8PBK-4T62
  48. Zbiek, R. M., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Mathematics Technology Into Classroom Practice By In-Service And Prospective Teachers. Volume 1: Research Syntheses, 287.
  49. Zhang, Y., Wang, P., Jia, W., Zhang, A., & Chen, G. (2025). Dynamic visualization by GeoGebra for mathematics learning: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(2), 437-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2250886