Are 9th grade students ready to engage in the theoretical discursive process in geometry?
Tipo de documento
Autores
Lista de autores
Karpuz, Yavuz y Güven, Bülent
Resumen
This study was conducted to examine whether newly enrolled 9th grade students were ready to directly engage in the theoretical discursive process from the perspective of Duval’s Cognitive Model. The sample of the study was comprised of 51 newly enrolled 9th grade students between the ages of 14 and 15, who had not received any prior geometry instruction. These 51 students were posed two open-ended questions that would enable them to make a transition between perceptual and discursive apprehension. According to the findings obtained from the study, many of the students could not display the necessary behaviors for theoretical discursive process. Students were mostly unsuccessful in converting discursive information into perceptual information, in writing discursive information based on perceptual information, and making inferences based on discursive information. These findings indicate that recent graduates of secondary school are not ready enough to directly engage in theoretical discursive process and, thus, they could experience difficulties in such high order skills as providing proof requiring the theoretical discursive process.
Fecha
2022
Tipo de fecha
Estado publicación
Términos clave
Dificultades | Otro (marcos) | Reflexión sobre la enseñanza | Unidimensional
Enfoque
Nivel educativo
Idioma
Revisado por pares
Formato del archivo
Referencias
Coşkun, F. (2009). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin Van Hiele geometri anlama seviyeleri ile ispat yazma becerilerinin ilişkisi [Correlation between secondary school pupils Van Hiele levels of understanding of geometry and their proof writing skill] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon, Turkey. Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P. & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,15(4), 375-402. Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Ed.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57771-0_10 Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Ed.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 37–52). Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED466379) Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational studies in mathematics, 24(2), 139-162. Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50 Fischbein, E. & Nachlieli, T. (1998). Concepts and figures in geometrical reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1193- 1211. Fischbein, E., & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof and certitude in the development of mathematics thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 128-131). Antwerp, Belgium: Universitaire Installing Antwerpen Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The Van Hiele Model of Thinking in Geometry among Adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 3, I-196. doi:10.2307/749957 Goldin, G., A. (1997). Chapter 4: Observing Mathematical Problem Solving through Task-Based Interviews. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 9, 40-177. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/749946 doi:1 Güven, B. (2006). Öğretmen adaylarının küresel geometri anlama düzeylerinin karakterize edilmesi. [Characterizing student mathematics teachers’ levels of understanding of spherical geometry.] Unpublished doctoral thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey Güven, B., Karataş, İ. (2009). The effect of dynamic geometry software (cabri) on pre-service elementary mathematics teachers' achievement about locus problems. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey, 42(1), 1-31. Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. Research in collegiate mathematics education III, 7, 234-282. Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics: Technical report on the nationwide survey. London, United Kingdom: Institute of Education, University of London. Jones, K. (1998). Theoretical frameworks for the learning of geometrical reasoning. In Proceedings of the british society for research into learning mathematics (Vol. 18, pp. 29–34). Retrieved from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip18-12/BSRLM-IP-18-12-5.pdf Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational studies in mathematics, 44(1), 55-85. Llinares, S. & Clemente, F. (2014) Characteristics of Pre- Service Primary School Teachers’ Configural Reasoning, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(3), 234-250, DOI: 10.1080/10986065.2014.921133 Mason, M. M. (1998): The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. In: The Professional Handbook for Teachers Geometry: Boston: McDougal-Littell/Houghton-Mifflin, p. 4–8. McCrone, S. M., & Martin, T. S. (2004). Assessing high school students’ understanding of geometric proof. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 4(2), 223-242. Meyer, M. (2010). Abduction—A logical view for investigating and initiating processes of discovering mathematical coherences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 185-205. Michael, P. (2013). Geometrical figure apprehension: cognitive processes and structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Cyprus, Cyprus. Michael, P., Gagatsis, A., Avgerinos, E., & Kuzniak, A. (2011). Middle and High school students’ operative apprehension of geometrical figures. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae–Mathematics, 11, 45-55. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Özlem, D. (1994). Mantık [Logic]. İstanbul, Turkey: Ara Yayıncılık. Ramatlapana K. and Berger M. (2018). Prospective mathematics teachers’ perceptual and discursive apprehensions when making geometric connections. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1466495 Senk, S. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry Proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309- 321. Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs?Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456. Sriraman, B. (2004). Gifted ninth graders' notions of proof: Investigating parallels in approaches of mathematically gifted students and professional mathematicians. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(4), 267-292. Stylianides, G. J. & Stylianides, A. J. (2008). Proof in school mathematics: Insights from psychological research into students' ability for deductive reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(2), 103-133. Torregrosa, G. & Quesada, H. (2008). The coordination of cognitive processes in solving geometric problems requiring proof. In Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME (Vol. 32, pp. 321-328). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MoNE]. (2013a). Ortaöğretim Matematik Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education secondary school mathematics curriculum (9, 10, 11 and 12. grades], Ankara, Turkey. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MoNE]. (2013b). Ortaokul Matematik Dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education primary school mathematics curriculum (5, 6, 7 and 8. grades], Ankara, Turkey. Ubuz, B. (1999). 10. ve 11. sınıf öğrencilerinin temel geometri konularındaki hataları ve kavram yanılgıları [10th and 11th grade students’ basic geometry errors and misconceptions on the subject]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,17(17).