Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Oluşturdukları Tanımların ve Tanım Oluşturma Sürecinde Kullandıkları Stratejilerin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, matematik öğretmen adaylarının özel dörtgenlere yönelik oluşturdukları tanımları ve tanım oluştururken kullandıkları stratejileri incelemektir. Öğretmen adaylarının her özel dörtgen için gerekli ve yeterli koşulları ne ölçüde ayırt edebildiklerinin ve bu süreçte kullandıkları stratejilerin incelenmesinin, tanım oluşturma sürecinin karmaşık yapısının anlaşılmasında önemli olduğu düşünülmektedir. Bu amaç kapsamında Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim görmekte olan son sınıftaki tüm matematik öğretmen adaylarına her özel dörtgene yönelik iki farklı tanım oluşturmaları istenen bir form uygulanmıştır. Tanım oluşturma sürecinde farklı stratejiler kullandığı öngörülen yedi öğretmen adayı ile bireysel görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan yedi öğretmen adayının formda yer alan özel dörtgenlere yönelik oluşturdukları tanımlar ve bu öğretmen adayları ile yapılan bireysel görüşme kayıtları çalışmanın veri kaynaklarını oluşturmuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları, bireysel görüşmelere katılan öğretmen adaylarının özel dörtgenler için genellikle doğru tanımlar üretebildiklerini ancak, deltoid ve ikizkenar yamuk için birden fazla doğru tanım oluşturmakta zorlandıklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının tanım oluşturma sürecinde benimsedikleri stratejilerin oluşturdukları tanımların özelliklerini etkilediği de çalışmanın bulguları arasında yer almıştır.

Keywords

• dörtgenler
• dörtgen tanımları
• geometri
• öğretmen adayları
• stratejiler

Investigating the Definitions Generated by Prospective Mathematics Teachers and the Strategies They Employ during Definition Generation Process

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the definitions generated by prospective mathematics teachers and the strategies that they employed during definition generation processes. Investigating to what extent prospective teachers could distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions for each special quadrilateral and analyzing the strategies employed by prospective mathematics teachers were thought to be important to comprehend the complex defining process. Within the scope of this purpose, a questionnaire was administered to all senior prospective mathematics teachers who were studying at a public university in Turkey and individual interviews were conducted with seven prospective teachers who were predicted to employ different strategies while generating definitions based on their responses to the questionnaire questions. Thus, the data sources of the study consisted of responses to the questionnaire questions and individual interview records of the seven prospective teachers. The findings of the study demonstrated that the prospective teachers could generally generate valid definitions for special quadrilaterals, but they had difficulty in generating more than one correct definition for kites and isosceles trapezoids. Moreover, it was observed that the strategies employed by the prospective teachers in the definition generation process influenced the characteristics of the definitions that they generated.

Keywords

• geometry
• prospective teachers
• quadrilaterals
• quadrilateral definitions
• strategies

References

1. Avcu, R. (2022). Pre service middle school mathematics teachers’ personal concept definitions of special quadrilaterals. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35, 743–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00412-2
2. Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 117–125. Bieswanger, M. ve Becker, A. (2017). Introduction to English linguistics. Tübingen, Germany: A. Francke Verlag; UTB.
3. Cansız Aktaş, M. (2016). Turkish high school students’ definitions for parallelograms: Appropriate or inappropriate? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4), 583–596.
4. Clements, D. H. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin ve D. Schifter (Eds.), Research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (ss. 15–78). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
5. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics [CCSSM]. (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. VA: Author.
6. Çakıroğlu, E. (2013). Matematik kavramlarının tanımlanması. İ. Ö. Zembat, M. F. Özmantar, E. Bingölbali, H. Şandır, & A. Delice (Eds.) Tanımları ve tarihsel gelişimleriyle matematiksel kavramlar (ss. 2-12). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. De Villiers, M. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics,14(1), 11–18.
8. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Reidel.

9. Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.08.003
10. Fujita, T. ve Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 3–20.
11. Haj-Yahya, A. (2019). Can classification criteria constitute a correct mathematical definition? Preservice and In-service teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Research in Education & Science, 5(1), 88–101. Haj-Yahya, A. (2021). Students’ conceptions of the definitions of congruent and similar triangles. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(10), 2703–2727. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1902008
12. Haj-Yahya, A., Hershkowitz, R. ve Dreyfus, T. (2023). Investigating students’ geometrical proofs through the lens of students’ definitions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 35, 607-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00406-6
13. Haj-Yahya, A., Mahameed, A. ve Haj-Yahya, H. A. (2024). Does the use of concept maps affect the defining and the understanding of inclusion relationships? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 27(2), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2024.2310038
14. Halas, D., Robová, J., Moravcová, V. ve Hromadová, J. (2019). Students’ concepts of the trapezoid at the end of lower secondary level education. Open Education Studies, 1, 184–197.
15. Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction, Part I: focus on proving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 487–500. DOI 10.1007/s11858-008-0104-1
16. Harel, G. ve Tall, D. (1991). The general, the abstract, and the generic in advanced mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11 (1), 38-42.
17. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. P. Nesher ve J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (ss. 70–95). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013499.006
18. Johnson, H.L., Blume, G. W., Shimizu, J. K., Graysay, D. ve Konnova, S. (2014). A teacher’s conception of definition and use of examples when doing and teaching mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16 (4), 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.953018
19. Leikin, R. ve Winicki-Landman, G. (2000). On equivalent and non-equivalent definitions: Part 2.For the Learning of Mathematics, 20 (2), 24-29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248323
20. Leikin, R. ve Winicki-Landman, G. (2001). Defining as a vehicle for professional development of secondary school mathematics teachers. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 3, 62–73.
21. Martin, S. A. ve Bassok, M. (2005). Effects of semantic cues on mathematical modeling: Evidence from word-problem solving and equation construction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 33(3), 471– 478. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193064
22. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2024). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. Ankara: MEB. https://www.meb.gov.tr
23. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24. Miller, S. M. (2018). An analysis of the form and content of quadrilateral definitions composed by novice pre-service teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 142–154.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. VA: Author.
26. Otten, S. ve Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2009). Multiple meanings in mathematics: Beneath the surface of area. Swars, S. L., Stinson, D. W. ve Lemons-Smith, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (ss. 296-303). GA: Georgia State University.
27. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Pickreign, J. (2007). Rectangles and rhombi: How well do preservice teachers know them? Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1–7.
29. Planas, N. (2014). One speaker, two languages: Learning opportunities in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(1), 51–66.
30. Planas, N. ve Setati-Phakeng, M. (2014). On the process of gaining language as a resource in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 883–893. DOI 10.1007/s11858-014-0610-2
31. Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M. ve Fries, K. M. (2015) The Language of Mathematics: The Importance of Teaching and Learning Mathematical Vocabulary, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
32. Schleppegrell, M. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 139-159.
33. Seah, R. (2018). Choosing the right resources to support the learning of polygons. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 23(1), 3–8.
34. Selden, A. ve Selden, J. (2008). Overcoming students’ difficulties in learning to understand and construct proofs. M. Carlson ve C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics (ss. 95–110). The Mathematical Association of America.
35. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Inc.
36. Stylianides, A. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034869
37. Tall, D. ve Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.
38. Thompson, D. R. ve Rubenstein, R. N. (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary: Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. Mathematics Teacher, 93, 568-574.
39. Türnüklü, E. (2014). Construction of inclusion relations of quadrilaterals: Analysis of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ lesson plans. Education and Science, 39(173), 198–208.
40. Türnüklü, E., Gündoğdu Alaylı, F. ve Akkaş, E. N. (2013). Investigation of prospective primary mathematics teachers’ perceptions and images for quadrilaterals. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1225–1232.
41. Usiskin, Z., Griffin, J., Witonsky, D. ve Willmore, E. (2008). The classification of quadrilaterals: A study of definition. Information Age Publishing.
42. Van Dormolen, J., & Zaslavsky, 0. (2003). The many facets of a definition: The case of periodicity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 91-106.
43. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. bs.) Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
44. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
45. Zazkis, R. ve Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: A case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 131–148.
46. Zeybek Şimşek, Z. (2019). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının dörtgenler ve geometrik cisimleri hiyerarşik sınıflandırma düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 680-710.
47. Zeybek, Z. (2018). Understanding inclusion relations between quadrilaterals. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 4(2), 595-612. DOI:10.21890/ijres.428968