Reflections from the Application of Different Type of Activities: Special Training Methods Course

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the benefits gained from “Special Training Methods II” course and the problems prospective mathematics teachers encountered with it. The case study method was used in the study. The participants in the study were 34 prospective mathematics teachers studying at a Primary School Mathematics Education Department. The data collection tools were a form composed of open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews. Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data was carried out. In the “Special Teaching Methods II” course, beginning in the spring term of the 2015-2016 academic year, teaching activities on “multiple intelligences”, “discovery”, “group work”, “problem-solving”, “history of mathematics” and “computer-assisted teaching” were developed and implemented. It was concluded that these activities helped students like mathematics more, understand the importance of helping each other and cooperation and have more enjoyable lessons, as well as aiding their cognitive, social and emotional development. It was also found that through these activities participants improved their belief in themselves and increased their confidence regarding teaching mathematics. The participants also faced with some difficulties during the application process. They mostly mentioned that preparing worksheets was time-consuming, finding a school to perform the activity was hard and students were reluctant

Keywords

• Mathematics education, mathematics activities, special training methods, prospective teachers

Kaynakça

1. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23-38.
2. Arslan, S., & Ozpinar, I. (2009). Evaluation of 6th grade mathematics textbooks along with the teacher opinions. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, 12, 97-113.
3. Arslan, S., & Yildiz, C. (2010). Reflections from the Experiences of 11th graders during the stages of mathematical thinking. Education and Science, 35(156), 17-31.
4. Baki, A., & Gokcek, T. (2005). Comparison of the development of elementary mathematics curriculum studies in Turkey an the U.S.A. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 587-588.
5. Baki, A., Gurbuz R., Unal, S., & Atasoy, E. (2009). The effect of activities based on multiple intelligences theory on learning: the example of four operations with whole numbers, The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 7(2), 237-259.
6. Baki, A. (2008). Mathematics education: Theory and Practice (4th Edition). Ankara: Harf Egitim Publication.
7. Bal, A. P. (2008). The evaluation of new mathematic curriculum in term of teachers’ Perspectives. Cukurova University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17(1), 53-68.
8. Bozkurt, A. (2012). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of mathematical activities. Education and Science, 37(166), 101-115.

9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Bukova-Guzel, E., & Alkan, H. (2005). Evaluating pilot study of reconstructed Turkish elementary school curriculum. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 385-420.
11. Bulut, I. (2008). Teacher views on student-centered practices in the new primary education curriculum. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 56, 521-546.
12. Connolly, T., Arkes, H., & Hammond, K. (2000). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
13. Council of Higher Education [CoHE]. (2007). Council of higher education. faculty of education, teacher training undergraduate programs.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and Research design. Choosing among five approaches. (Second Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
15. Doolittle, P. E. (2002). Complex constructivism: A theoretical model of complexity and cognition. Downloaded from http://edpsychserver.ed.vt.edu/research/complex1.html on 12.01.2003.
16. Dreyfus, T., & Tsamir, P. (2004). Ben’s consolidation of knowledge structures about infinite sets. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(3), 271-300.
17. Duru, A., & Korkmaz, H. (2010). Teachers’ views about a new mathematics curriculum and difficulties encountering curriculum change. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38, 67-81.
18. Ekiz, D. (2013). Scientific research methods. (Extended 3rd edition). Ankara: Ani Publication.
19. Elbers, E. (2003). Classroom interaction as reflection: Learning and teaching mathematics in acommunity of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 77-99.
20. Epstein, M., & Tricia, R. (2002). Constructivism. Downloaded from http://tiger.towson.edu/~mepste1/researchpaper on 04.05.2003.
21. Eraslan, A. (2011). Prospective Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions on Model. Eliciting Activities and their Effects on Mathematics Learning. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), 364-377.
22. Ersoy, Y. (2006). Innovations in Mathematics Curricula of Elementary Schools-I: Objective, Content and Acquisition. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 30-44.
23. Fidan, Y. (2009). the geometric thinking levels of primary grade 5 students and the effect of geometry teaching with discovery learning on geometric thinking levels of students, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis), Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir.
24. Gomleksiz, M. N. (2005). An assessment of the implementation of new science and technology curriculum. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 339-384.
25. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549.
26. Herbst, P. (2008). The teacher and the task. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 125-131). Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
27. Horoks, J., & Robert, A. (2007). Task designed to highlight task-activity relationships. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 279-287.
28. Jones, I., & Pratt, D. (2006). Connecting the equals sign. International Journal Computer Mathematics Learning, 11, 301-325.
29. Kayaaslan, A. (2006). Believes of 4th and 5th grade students about the nature of mathematics and mathematics teaching, (Unpublished Master's Thesis), Gazi University, Ankara.
30. Kerpic, A., & Bozkurt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the 7th grade mathematics textbook tasks within the framework of principles of task design. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(16), 303-318.
31. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2009). Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Elementary School Mathematics Course: Grades 6 to 8. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
32. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2005a). Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Elementary School Mathematics Course: Grades 6 to 8. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
33. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2005b). Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Secondary School Mathematics: Grades 9 to 12. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
34. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2013). Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Elementary School Mathematics Course: Grades 5 to 8. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
35. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2013). Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Secondary School Mathematics Course: Grades 9, 10, 11 and 12 - 4 hours per week) and Teaching Syllabus and Curriculum Guidebook for Secondary School Mathematics Course: Grades 10, 11 and 12 - 2 hours per week. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM Publications.
37. Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2003). Activity-based mathematics teaching in elementary education. Ankara: Ani Publication.
38. Orton, A., & Frobisher, L. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London: Cassell Wellington House.
39. Ozmantar, M. F., & Bingolbali, E. (2009). In Task design and basic design principles. Bingolbali, E., Ozmantar, M.F. (Ed), Mathematical difficulties encountered in elementary education and suggested solutions. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
40. Ozmantar, M. F., Bozkurt, A, Demir, S., Bingolbali, E., & Acil E. (2010). Perceptions of form teachers related to the concept of task. Selcuk University Ahmet Kelesoglu Education Faculty Journal, 30, 379-398.
41. Ozpolat, A. R., Sezer, F., Isgor, I. Y., & Sezer, M. (2007). Investigation of form teachers’ opinions on the elementary school curriculum. National Education Journal, 174, 206-213.
42. Saglik, N. (2007). Effects of activities based on the elementary education curriculum in pilot application phase on teaching of certain geometry subjects (Unpublished Master's Thesis), Yuzuncu Yil University, Van.
43. Saunders, W. L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.
44. Simon, M., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 91-104.
45. Swan, M. (2007). The impact of the task-based professional development on teachers' practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 217-237.
46. Sisman, M., Acat, M. B., Aypay, A., & Karadag, E. (2011). TIMMS 2007 National Mathematics and Science Report: 8th Grade. Ankara: MNE Turkish Education Board.
47. Taskin, D., Yildiz, C., Kanbolat, O., & Baki, A. (2013). Reflections of problem solving environment based on group work: Example of fibonacci problem. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14a, 170-175.
48. Watson, A. (2008). Task transformation is the teacher's responsibility. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, 147-153). Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
49. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research, contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.
50. Yalvac, E. (2010). Effects of activities included in the mathematics curriculum at the second stage of primary school on teaching of certain algebra subjects, (Unpublished Master's Thesis), Yuzuncu Yil University, Van.
51. Yeo, J. B. W. (2007). Mathematical tasks: Clarification, classification and choice of suitable tasks for different types of learning and assessment. Technical report me2007-01, mathematics and mathematics education national institute of education, Singapore.
52. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seckin Publication.
53. Yildiz, C. (2016). Comparing the mathematical thinking experiences of students at faculty of education and faculty of arts and sciences. International Conference on New Horizons in Education (INTE-2016), Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
54. Yildiz, C., & Baki, A. (2016a). Teachers’ views about factors which affect history of mathematics usage in lesson. Ahi Evran University, Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 17(2), 451-472.
55. Yildiz, C., & Baki, A. (2016b). Opinions of teachers on life stories of ancient mathematicians and teachers’ situation of including those stories in classes. Karadeniz, 31, 43-62.