Cognitive adaptation of pre-service mathematics teachers in construction and reconstruction of quadrilateral relations

Abstract

This is qualitative research aimed at exploring cognitive adaptation in the construction and reconstruction of quadrilateral relations. The participants were chosen using the Quadrilateral Relations Construction Test given to 20 pre-service mathematics teachers. Based on the test results, 4 types of quadrilateral relations are obtained, namely type 1, type 2, type 3, and type 4. Next, 1 pre-service mathematics teachers with type 1 (P1) and 1 pre-service mathematics teachers with type 2 (P2) are chosen as participants. Next, participants were given a Quadrilateral Relations Reconstruction Test then an in-depth interview was conducted. The data in this study were analyzed through data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing. This result illustrated that having a scheme is not enough to successfully solve problems. One of the important factors that determine the success of problem solving is the success of cognitive adaptation process. Cognitive adaptation in the process of construction and reconstruction quadrilateral relations takes place through assimilation and accommodation. When the information obtained is in accordance with the scheme that is owned, the cognitive adaptation that occurs is called assimilation. Meanwhile, when the information obtained is not in accordance with the scheme owned, the adaptation that occurs is called accommodation. Thus, pre-service mathematics teachers must be trained to make cognitive adaptations in problem solving process.

Keywords

• Cognitive adaptation
• concept construction
• concept reconstruction
• Mathematics education
• Quadrilateral relations

References

1. Aljohani, M. (2017). Principles of “constructivism” in foreign language teaching. Journal of Literature and Art Studies, 7(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2017.01.013
2. An, S. (2013). Schema theory in reading. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.130-134
3. Bächtold, M. (2013). What do students “ construct ” according to constructivism in science education ? Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2477–2496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9369-7
4. Badie, F. (2016). Towards concept understanding relying on conceptualisation in constructivist. In International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 292–296).
5. Bjorklund, D. F. (2015). Developing adaptations. Developmental Review, 38, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.002
6. Blake, B., & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental Psychology : Incorporating Piaget ’ s and Vygotsky ’ s Theories in Classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/25/2/R01
7. Budiarto, M. T., Khabibah, S., & Setianingsih, R. (2017). Construction of high school students ’ abstraction levels in understanding the concept of quadrilaterals. International Education Studies, 10(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n2p148
8. Budiarto, M. T., Rahaju, E. B., & Hartono, S. (2017). Students abstraction in re-cognizing, building with and constructing a quadrilateral. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(7), 394–402. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2977

9. Čadež, T. H., & Kolar, V. M. (2015). Comparison of types of generalizations and problem-solving schemas used to solve a mathematical problem. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(2), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9598-y
10. Castillo, M., Heredia, Y., & Gallardo, K. (2017). Collaborative work competency in online postgraduate students and its prevalence on academic achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.328949
11. Di Paolo, E. A., Barandiaran, X. E., Beaton, M., & Buhrmann, T. (2014). Learning to perceive in the sensorimotor approach: Piaget’s theory of equilibration interpreted dynamically. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(July). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00551
12. Dyankova, G. (2018). Research of cognitive exchange specifics in teachers academic training. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 6(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5937/ijcrsee1803001D
13. Heo, J. C., Han, S., Koch, C., & Ayidin, H. (2011). Piaget‟s egocentrism and language learning: Language Egocentrism (LE) and Language Differentiation (LD). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 733–739. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.733-739
14. Kaasila, R., Pehkonen, E., & Hellinen, A. (2010). Finnish pre-service teachers’ and upper secondary students' understanding of division and reasoning strategies used. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-009-9213-1
15. Mattar, J. (2018). Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated, authentic, experiential, and anchored learning. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 21(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.2.20055
16. Milles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis A Methods Sourcebook. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
17. Moll, V. F., Trigueros, M., Badillo, E., & Rubio, N. (2015). Mathematical objects through the lens of two different theoretical perspectives : APOS and OSA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9639-6
18. Norton, A. (2018). Frameworks for modeling students ’ mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 52, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.03.001
19. Olusegun, B. S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory : A Paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05616670
20. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New York.
21. Rohaeti, E. E., Bernard, M., & Primandhika, R. B. (2019). Developing interactive learning media for school level mathematics through open-ended approach aided by visual basic application for excel. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 59–68.
22. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing problem-posing tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9422-x
23. Singh, S., & Yaduvanshi, S. (2015). Constructivism in science classroom : Why and how. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(3).
24. Slavin, R. E. (2017). Educational psychology theory and practice (Twelfth). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
25. Tasheva, Z. N. (2018). A Relationship between cognitive information processing in learning theory and machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference (pp. 465–474). https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2018vol1.3191
26. Trigueros, M. (2019). The development of a linear algebra schema : learning as result of the use of a cognitive theory and models. ZDM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01064-6
27. Weber, E., Walkington, C., & Mcgalliard, W. (2015). Expanding notions of “Learning Trajectories” in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning ISSN:, 17, 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2015.1083836
28. Zhiqing, Z. (2015). Assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration: A Schema-Based perspective on translation as process and as product. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 11(1-2), 84–89. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41a2/bee7642597871e79b84fba3e7e8d25de1851.pdf