Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Origami-based Mathematics Lesson Plans

Abstract

Origami became an increasingly used instructional tool in mathematics education and its successful use depends on developing effective origami-based mathematics lesson plans. Therefore, this study investigated origami-based mathematics lesson plans developed by preservice teachers who were trained for the effective use of origami in mathematics education in two courses in their teacher education program. Preservice teachers in one of these courses received origami-based mathematics education training for four weeks whereas preservice teachers in the other course received training for twelve weeks. Descriptive analyses revealed that preservice teachers were able to develop effective origami-based lesson plans after receiving training in these courses. Furthermore, it was revealed that they preferred to develop lesson plans mostly in the geometry and measurement content area. In order to test whether the effectiveness of lesson plans differs based on the training length of preservice teachers, one-way ANCOVA was performed. Analysis results indicated that preservice teachers who received longer training developed significantly more effective origami-based mathematics lesson plans. All the findings were discussed and some implications based on these findings were explained.

Keywords

• lesson plan
• origami
• mathematics
• preservice teachers

Öğretmen Adaylarının Origami Temelli Matematik Ders Planlarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Origami matematik eğitiminde giderek artan şekilde kullanılan bir öğretim aracı haline gelmiştir ve origaminin başarılı bir şekilde kullanımında etkili bir ders planı hazırlamanın önemli bir rolü bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada öğretmen adayları tarafından geliştirilen origami temelli matematik ders planları incelenmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarından bir grup dört hafta süresince origami temelli matematik eğitimi hakkında bir eğitim alırken, diğer grup oniki haftalık bir eğitim almışlardır. Betimsel analiz sonuçları her iki gruptaki öğretmen adaylarının etkili origami temelli matematik ders planı geliştirebildiklerini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, ders planlarının içeriği incelendiğinde çoğunlukla geometri ve ölçme öğrenme alanına yönelik ders planlarının geliştirildiği görülmüştür. Eğitim süresi ile ders planının etkililiği arasındaki ilişkiyi test etmek üzere tek yönlü ANCOVA analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları daha uzun süre eğitim alan öğretmen adaylarının istatistiksel olarak daha etkili ders planı geliştirdikleri göstermiştir. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen tüm bulgular tartışılmış ve bulgular ışığında çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ders planı
• origami
• matematik
• öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

1. Backfish, I., Lachner, A., Hische, C., Loose, F., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans. Learning and Instruction, 66, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300
2. Baicker, K. (2004). Origami math: Grades 2–3. Teaching Resources.
3. Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Houang, R. T., Hsieh, F., Schmidt, W. H., Tatto, M. T., Bankov, K., Cedillo, T., Cogan, L., Han, S., Santillan, M., & Schwille, J. (2008). Future teachers’ competence to plan a lesson: first results of a six-country study on the efficiency of teacher education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 749-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0123-y
4. Boakes, N. (2008). Origami-mathematics lessons: Paper folding as a teaching tool. Mathidues, 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.fau.edu/education/centersandprograms/mathitudes/documents/20080901bMathitudesOct08revisionFinalVersionforpublicationOct242008.pdf
5. Boakes, N. (2009). Origami instruction in the middle school mathematics classroom: Its impact on spatial visualization and geometry knowledge of students. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32(7), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2009.11462060
6. Boz, B. (2015). A journey from two-dimensional papers to three-dimensional origami cube. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(1), 20-33. Retrieved from https://www.ated.info.tr/ojs-3.2.1-3/index.php/ated/article/view/58
7. Budinski, N., Lavicza, Z. & Fenyvesi, K. (2018). Ideas for using GeoGebra and Origami in teaching regular polyhedrons lessons. K-12 STEM Education, 4(1), 297-303. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/209555/
8. Canadas, M., Molina, M., Gallardo, S., Martinez-Santaolalla, M., & Penas, M. (2010). Let’s teach geometry. Mathematics Teaching, 218, 32-37. Retrieved from http://funes.uniandes.edu.co/861/

9. Cipoletti, B., & Wilson, N. (2004). Turning origami into the language of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.10.1.0026
10. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside.
12. Çakmak, S., Işıksal, M., & Koç, Y. (2014). Investigating effect of origami based mathematics instruction on elementary students’ spatial skills and perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753861
13. Çaylan, B., Takunyacı, M., Masal, M., Masal, E., & Ergene, Ö. (2017). Investigating the relationship between prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ Van Hiele geometric thinking levels and beliefs towards using origami in mathematics education in mathematics with origami course. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 1(1), 24-35. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jmse/issue/35452/409806
14. DeYoung, M. J. (2009). Math in the box. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(3), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.15.3.0134
15. Fiol, M. L., Dasquens, N., & Prat, M. (2011). Student teachers introduce origami in kindergarten and primary schools: Froebel revisited. In P. Wang-Iverson, R. J. Lang, & M. Yim (Eds.), Origami 5: Fifth international meeting of origami science, mathematics and education (pp. 151-165). CRC Press.
16. Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). McGraw Hill.
17. Georgeson, J. (2011). Fold in origami and unfold math. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 16(6), 354-361. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.16.6.0354
18. Golan, M., & Jackson, P. (2010). Origametria: A program to teach geometry and to develop learning skills using the art of origami. Retrieved from http://www.emotive.co.il/origami/db/pdf/996_golan_article.pdf
19. Golan, M. (2011). Origametria and the Van Hiele Theory of teaching geometry. In P. Wang-Iverson, R. J. Lang, & M. Yim (Eds.), Origami 5: Fifth international meeting of origami science, mathematics and education (pp. 141-151). CRC Press.
20. Hartzler, S. (2003). Ratios of linear, area, and volume measures in similar solids. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8(5), 228-232. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.8.5.0228
21. Haynes, A. (2010). The complete guide to lesson planning and preparation. Continuum International Publishing Group.
22. Hemmi, K., Krzywacki, H., & Koljonen, T. (2017). Investigating Finnish teacher guides as a resource for mathematics teaching. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(6), 911-928. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00313831.2017.1307278
23. Higginson, W., & Colgan, L. (2001). Algebraic thinking through origami. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(6), 343-349. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.6.6.0343
24. Kandil, S., & Işıksal-Bostan, M. (2019). Effect of inquiry-based instruction enriched with origami activities on achievement, and self-efficacy in geometry. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(4), 557-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1527407
25. Li, Y., Chen, X., & Kulm, G. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ practices and thinking in lesson plan development: a case of teaching fraction division. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0174-8
26. Li, Y., Qi, C., & Wang, R. (2013). Lesson planning through collaborations fro improving classroom instruction and teacher expertise. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 83–98). Routledge.
27. Masal, M., Ergene, Ö., Takunyacı, M., & Masal, E. (2018). Prospective teachers’ views about using origami in mathematics lessons. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 5(2), 56-65. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijesim/issue/37405/411700
28. Mastin, M. (2007). Storytelling + origami = storigami mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(4), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.14.4.0206
29. Melville, M. D., & Corey, D. L. (2021). Kyouzaikenkyuu: an exploration of Japanese mathematics teachers’ daily planning practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09493-5
30. Milkova, S. (2012). Strategies for effective lesson planning. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 1-4. Retrieved from https://crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/instructor_resources/strategies_for_effective_lesson_planning.pdf Mishra, R. C. (2009). Lesson planning. APH Publishing Corporation.
31. Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2001). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(10), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.7275/q7rm-gg74
32. Olejnik, S. F., & Algina, J. (1984). Parametric ANCOVA and the rans transform ANCOVA when the data are conditionally non-normal and heteroscedastic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 9(2), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986009002129
33. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
34. Robichaux, R. R., & Rodrigue, P. R. (2003). Using origami to promote geometric communication. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(4), 222-229. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.9.4.0222
35. Serra, M. (1994). Patty paper geometry. Key Curriculum Press.
36. Shimizu, Y. (2008). Exploring Japanese teachers’ conception of mathematics lesson structure: similarities and differences between preservice and inservice teachers’ lesson plans. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 941-950. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11858-008-0152-6
37. Sze, S. (2005). An analysis of constructivism and the ancient art of origami. Dunleavy: Niagara University. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED490350.pdf
38. Tuğrul, B., & Kavici, M. (2002). Kağıt katlama sanatı ve öğrenme [The art of paper folding and learning]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(11), 1-17. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/114843
39. Uygun, T. (2019). Implementation of middle school mathematics teachers’ origami-based lessons and their views about student learning. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(2), 154-171. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/omuefd/issue/50852/496646
40. Wares, A., & Elstak, I. (2017). Origami, geometry and art. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(2), 317-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1238521
41. Wares, A. (2019). Paper folding and trigonometric ratios. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(4), 636-641. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1500655
42. Wares, A., & Valori, G. (2020). Origami at the intersection of algebra, geometry, and calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1819576
43. Yang, Y., & Ricks, T. E. (2013). Chinese lesson study: Developing classroom instruction through collaborations in school-based teaching research group activities. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 51–65). Routledge.
44. Yuzawa, M., & Bart, W. M. (2002). Young children’s learning of size comparison strategies: Effect of origami exercises. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(4), 459-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320209598696