Prospective Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Abilities of Using Geometric Proofs in Teaching of Triangle

Yıl 2016, , 210 - 242, 30.12.2016

Pınar Güner , Beyda Topan

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.277730

Öz

– In this
study, it was aimed to reveal prospective elementary mathematics teachers’
abilities of using geometric proofs in triangle teaching. The data of this
study which was based on the techniques of qualitative research was obtained
from students attending third class of elementary mathematics teacher education
program at a public university in the north of Turkey, in 2013-2014 academic
year. As data colletion tool, five open-ended questions which were prepared by
the researchers taking the opinions of experts were used and the obtained data
was analyzed through content analysis. The results show that proving abilities
of prospective teachers are low. Three volunteer prospective teachers were made
a semi-structured interviews with the intent of examining their proofs in
detail. The obtained interview data have exposed that prospectice teachers
usually attempt to produce geometric proofs using elementary, concrete and
practical solution ways in terms of their own perpectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geometric proof, triangles, prospective teachers

İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Üçgenlerin Öğretiminde Geometrik İspatları Kullanabilme Becerileri

Öz

Bu çalışmada ilköğretim
matematik öğretmen adaylarının üçgenlerin öğretiminde geometrik ispatları
kullanabilme becerilerini ortaya koymak amaçlanmışır. Nitel araştırma
teknikleri temel alınarak desenlenen bu araştırmanın verileri 2013-2014
eğitim-öğretim bahar yarıyılında bir devlet üniversitesinin İlköğretim
Matematik Öğretmenliği Programı’ nda öğrenim gören üçüncü sınıf öğrencilerinden
elde edilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından
hazırlanan, uzman görüşleri alınarak son şekli verilen ispata yönelik 5 tane
açık uçlu soru kullanılmış ve veriler içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Elde
edilen sonuçlar öğretmen adaylarının ispat yapabilme becerilerinin düşük
olduğunu göstermektedir. Gönüllü olan 3 öğretmen adayı ile yaptıkları ispatları
daha detaylı biçimde incelemek amacıyla yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlar
yapılmıştır. Elde edilen mülakat verileri, öğretmen adaylarının genellikle
basit, somut ve kendileri açısından pratik olan çözüm yollarını kullanarak
ispat yapmaya çalıştıklarını göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geometrik ispat, üçgenler, öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

• Almeida, D. (2001). Pupils' proof potential. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(1), 53-60.
• Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, ve D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27-44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843-908). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.
• Bell, A. W. (1976). A study of pupils’ proofexplanations in mathematical situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23–40.
• Carpenter, T.P, Franke, M. & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating algebra and arithmetic in the elementary school. Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.
• Chazan, D. (1993a). High school students’ justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359–387.
• Chazan, D. (1993b) Instructional implications of students' understanding of the differences between empirical verification and mathematical proof, in Schwartz, J. L., Yerushalmy, M. & Wilson, B. (eds.), The geometric supposer: What is it a case of? Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Chen, Y. (2008). From Formal Proofs to Informal Proofs-Teaching Mathematical Proofs With the Help of Formal Proofs. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application, 4, 398-402.
• Clements, D. H. (1998). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
• Coe, R., & Ruthven, K. (1994). Proof practices and constructs of advanced mathematics students. British Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 41-53.
• Condradie, J. & Firth, J. (2000). Comprehension test in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(3), 225-235.
• Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• De Groot, C. (2001). From description to proof. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7, 244-248.
• Driscoll, M. (2007). Fostering geometric thinking a guide for teachers, grades 5-10. Porsmouth: Heinemann.
• Fischbein, E. & Kedem, I. (1982). Proof certitude in the development of mathematical thinking. In A. Vermandel (Ed.), Proceeding of the sixth annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 128–131). Antwerp, Belgium: Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen.
• Galindo, E. (1998). Assessing justification and proof in geometry classes taught using dynamic software. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(1), 76–82.
• Goulding, M., Rowland, T. & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher trainees' subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 689-704.
• Güven, B., Çelik, D. & Karataş, İ. (2005). Examination of proving ablities of secondary school students. Contemporary Educatıon Journal, 316, 35-45.
• Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5–23.
• Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students' proof schemes: results from exploratory studies. In A.H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, ve E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (pp. 234 - 283). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
• Harel, G. (2002). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory: Research in cognition and instruction (pp. 185–212). New Jersey: Ablex.
• Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.),Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A roject of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 805–842). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction, Part I: focus on proving. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 487–500.
• Hart, E. W. (1994). A conceptual analysis of the proof-writing performance of expert and novice students in elementary group theory, in J.J. Kaput & E. Dubinsky (eds.), Research Issues in Undergraduate Mathematics Learning: Preliminary Analyses and Results, MAA Notes 33, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, pp. 49–62.
• Healy, L. & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conceptions in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 396–428.
• Herbst, P. G. (2002). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 176–203.
• Hersh, R. (1993). Proving is convincing and explaining. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 389–399.
• Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• 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.
• Kahan, J. (1999). Relationships among mathematical proofs, high school students, and reform curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
• Kılıç, H. (2013). High school students’ geometric thinking, problem solving and proof skills. Journal of Necatibey Education Faculty Electronic Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 222-241.
• Knapp, J. (2005). Learning to prove in order to prove to learn. [Online]: Retrieved on April 2007, http://mathpost.asu.edu/~sjgm/issues/2005_spring/SJGM_knapp.pdf.
• Knuth, E. J. (2002). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379-405.
• Ko, Y. Y. (2010). Mathematics teachers’ conceptions of proof: implications for educational research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 1109-1129.
• Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
• Lin, F., L. & Yang, K. L. (2007). The reading comprehension of geometric proofs: the contribution of knowledge and reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 729-754.
• Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
• Maher, C. A. & Martino, A. M. (1996). The development of the idea of mathematical proof: A 5-year case study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27(2), 194–214.
• Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introducation to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 25-53.
• Martin, W. G. & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 41-51.
• Mason, M. (1997). The Van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. Professional Handbook for Teachers, Geometry, Explorations and Applications. McDougal Little Inc.
• McCrone, S. S. & Martin, T. S. (2004). The impact of teacher actions on student proof schemes in geometry. In D. McDougall (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 593-602). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
• Middleton, T. J. (2009). Development of scoring rubrics and pre-service teachers’ ability to validate mathematical proofs. Master Thesis. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013). 5-8 middle school mathematics curriculum. Retrieved Sepember 2014, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim programlari/icerik/151.
• Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 249-266.
• Morris, A. K. (2002). Mathematical reasoning: adults’ ability to make the inductive-deductive distinction. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 79–118. DOI:10.1207/S1532690XCI2001_4.
• Moutsios-Rentzos, A., & Spyrou, P. (2015, February). The genesis of proof in ancient Greece: The pedagogical implications of a Husserlian reading. In CERME 9-Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 164-170).
• Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993). The false coin problem, mathematical induction and knowledge fragility. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 253–268.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
• Pimm, D. & Wagner, D. (2003). Investigation, mathematics education and genre. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(2), 159-178.
• PISA (2009) Results: What students know and can do – Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450.
• Porteous, K. (1991). What do children really believe?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 589–598.
• Reid, D. A. (2002). Conjectures and refutations in grade 5 mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 1, 5–29.
• Riley, K. J. (2004). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers' conceptions of proof and its logical underpinnings. In D. McDougall & J. Ross (Ed.) Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Volume II, pp.729 - 735). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
• Salazar, D. A. (2012). Enhanced-group Moore method: Effects on Van Hiele levels of geometric understanding, proof-construction performance and beliefs. US-China Education Review, 6, 584-695.
• Sarı, M., Altun, A., & Aşkar, P. (2007). The mathematical proving processes of undergraduate students in analysis lesson: Case study. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal, 40(2), 295–319.
• Schoenfeld, A. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145–166.
• Senk, S. L. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs?. Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448–446.
• Simon, M. & Blume, G. (1996). Justification in the mathematics classroom: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 3–31.
• Sommer, B. & Sommer, R. (1991). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Soylu, Y. & Soylu, C. (2006). The role of problem solving in mathematics lessons for success. İnönü University Faculty of Education Journal, 7(11), 97-111.
• Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133–162. DOI:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017671.47700.0b
• Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 289–321.
• Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Preservice teachers’knowledge of proof by mathematical induction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 145–166. DOI:10.1007/s10857-007-9034 z.
• Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 307–332.
• Stylianides, A. J. & Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Proof constructions and evaluations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 237–253.
• Stylianou, D. A., Blanton, M. L., & Knuth, E. J. (2009). Introduction. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth (Eds.),Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Simsek, E., Simsek, A. & Dundar, S. (2013). The investigation of high school 12th grade students’ geometric proof process. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 2(4), 43-57.
• Usiskin, Z. (1987). In Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12. Resolving the continuing dilemmas in school geometry, (pp. 17 – 31). Reston VA: NCTM.
• Van de Walle, J. A. (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics. Fifth Edition, Virginia Common Wealth university.
• Vinner, S. (1983). The notion of proof: Some aspects of students’ views at the senior high level. In R. Hershkowitz (Ed.), Proceeding of the 7th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 289–294). Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
• Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proof: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 101–119.
• Wong, W. K., Yin, S. K., Yang,H. H., & Cheng, Y.-H. (2011). Using computer-assisted multiple representations in learning geometry proofs. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (3), 43–54.
• Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 171–191.
• Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.
• Yackel, E., & Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 227-236). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Yeşildere, S. (2006). The investigation of mathematical thinking and knowledge construction processes of primary 6, 7 and 8th grade students who have different mathematical power. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Education Sciences, İzmir.
• Yıldırım, A. & Simsek, H. (2005). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seckin Publication.
• Zack, V. (1997). You have to prove us wrong: Proof at the elementary school level. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 291–298). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki.