Analysis of the Problems Posed by Pre-Service Primary School Teachers with the Context of Environment

Abstract

The current study is an interdisciplinary study in which the problems posed by pre-service primary school teachers were analyzed within the context of both environment and mathematical processes. A total of 75 pre-service primary school teachers participated in the current study designed according to the case study design, one of the qualitative research methods. The data were collected through the math problems posed by the pre-service teachers with the context of the environment. The environmental contexts were analyzed by using the content analysis method while the problem posing processes were analyzed through the descriptive analysis approach. The results of the analyses have revealed that the pre-service teachers generally preferred to include more than one environmental context in the problems they posed and from among these contexts, the waste, garbage, forestation and air pollution contexts came to the fore. It was found that the problems posed were solvable to a great extent and were mostly real life problems in accordance with the structure of the context. However, it was observed that more than 30% of pre-service teachers could not correctly express the grade level of primary school in terms of both mathematical processes and the environmental context.

Keywords

• Environment,real life,context,problem posing

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Elwan, R. (2002). Effectiveness of problem posing strategies on prospective mathematics teachers’ problem solving performance. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 25(1), 56-69.
2. Beane, J. (1996). On the shoulders of giants! The case for curriculum integration. Middle School Journal, 25, 6-11.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4. Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word prob-lems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 211–230.
5. Choi, H. & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning and motivation in online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215–227.
6. Christensen, L., Johnson, R. & Turner, L. (2013). Research methods, design, and analysis (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
7. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D. & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149-158.
8. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 243-270.

9. Çelik, H. C., Akın, M. F. & İlhan, A. (2018). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarının bağlam temelli olan ve olmayan problemlere ilişkin başarı düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler açısından karşılaştırılması. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27), 433-460.
10. De Jong, O. (2008). Context-based chemical education: How to improve it? Online Chemical Education International, 8(1), 1-7.
11. Didiş-Kabar, M. G. & İnan, M. (2018). Ortaokul yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematikselleştirme süreçleri ve matematiksel modellerinin incelenmesi: Çim biçme problemi. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 339-366.
12. Doğan, Y. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin çevre kavramına ilişkin sezgisel algıları: Bir metafor analizi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 721-740.
13. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
14. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W. & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.
15. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83-106.
16. Karahan, E. & Bozkurt, G. (2017). STEM eğitiminde matematik odaklı gerçek dünya problemleri ve matematiksel modelleme. S. Çepni (Ed.) içinde, Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM+A+E Eğitimi (ss. 353-372). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
17. Le Roux, K. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of a real-world problem in mathematics: Looking for signs of change. Language and Education, 22(5), 307-326.
18. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
19. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. Ankara.
20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standard for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21. Özgeldi, M. & Osmanoğlu, A. (2017). Matematiğin gerçek hayatla ilişkilendirilmesi: Ortaokul matematik öğretmeni adaylarının nasıl ilişkilendirme kurduklarına yönelik bir inceleme. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 438-458.
22. Serin, M.K. (2019). Analysis of the problems posed by pre-service primary school teachers in terms of type, cognitive structure and content knowledge. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(4), 577-590.
23. Silver, E. A. & Cai, J. (2005). Assessing students’ mathematical problem posing. Teaching children mathematics, 12(3), 129-135.
24. Stoyanova, E. (1998). Problem posing in mathematics classrooms. In A. McIntosh, & N. Ellerton (Eds.), Research in mathematics education: A contemporary perspective (pp.164 185). Perth: MASTEC Publication.
25. Stoyanova, E. & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing in school mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education (pp. 518-525). Melbourne, Victoria: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
26. Stylianides, A. J. & Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Studying the implementation of tasks in classroom settings: High-level mathematics tasks embedded in “real-life” contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 859-875.
27. Tekin Sitrava, R. & Işık, A. (2018). An investigation into prospective primary school teachers’ free problem posing skills. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 38(3), 919-947.
28. Uzun, N. & Sağlam, N. (2006). Ortaöğretim öğrencileri için çevresel tutum ölçeği geliştirme ve geçerliliği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 240-250.
29. Ülger, B. B. & Güler, H. K. (2019). PISA ve TIMSS sınavlarının temel aldığı ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımları. S. Çepni (Ed.) içinde, PISA ve TIMSS mantığını ve sorularını anlama (ss. 155-187). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
30. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2-23.
31. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B. & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
32. Yücel, E. Ö. & Özkan, M. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik çevresel tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 27-48.