Academia.eduAcademia.edu
European Journal of Education Studies ISSN: 2501 - 1111 ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111 Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu Volume 3 │Issue 10 │2017 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.999992 A SURVEY OF STUDENTS’ ABILITY OF IDENTIFYING ERRORS IN WRONG SOLUTIONS FOR THE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE MONOTONICITY OF FUNCTIONS Duong Huu Tong1i, Le Thai Bao Thien Trung2, Nguyen Phu Loc1, Nguyen Hoang Xinh1, Huynh Ngoc Toi3 School of Education, Can Tho University, Vietnam 1 Ho Chi Minh City University of Pedagogy, Vietnam 2 Le Quy Don High School, Vietnam 3 Abstract: The monotonicity of a function plays an important role in the general mathematics curriculum in Vietnam, because it is considered as an effective tool for solving mathematical problems involved with the monotonic intervals of functions, their extreme, absolute maximum value and absolute minimum value. Normally, students commit errors in solving these problems because of their complexity and difficulty. In addition, specific characteristics of knowledge also make children make mistakes. The sample consisted of 362 students, and they had the task of identifying errors in false assumptions. From the results of the survey, it was found that when dealing with the monotonicity of the functions, students were still misled. Keywords: monotonicity of a function, error, reason, mathematics education 1. Introduction 1.1 Errors in solving mathematical problems and their reasons Errors in solving mathematical problems are unavoidable for any student, so this also motivates many authors to study them. Indeed, they carried studies of students’ errors Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. © 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group 270 Duong Huu Tong, Le Thai Bao Thien Trung, Nguyen Phu Loc, Nguyen Hoang Xinh, Huynh Ngoc Toi A SURVEY OF STUDENTS’ ABILITY OF IDENTIFYING ERRORS IN WRONG SOLUTIONS FOR THE MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE MONOTONICITY OF FUNCTIONS on specific mathematical topics and gave reasons for those errors. The results showed that there were many different errors and their reasons were also varied. A Vietnamese mathematical educator, Thuc (2009) said that correcting errors was important in developing students' thinking, reinforcing their knowledge and skills. Furthermore, he argued that students' errors were due to various reasons such as: negligence, carelessness, lack of knowledge and limited mathematical language. The researcher, Loc , pointed out students’ errors in solving mathematical problems due to compliance with the Didactic contract, a theory in mathematics education in France. The author, Newman (1977) offered a model of error analysis regarding the five elements: reading, comprehension, transformation, skill processing, and coding. In addition, some students’ errors in solving mathematical problems were due to the difficulties, namely lack of understanding of the appropriate procedures, the complexity of the problem, and generalization of procedures (Ndalichako et al., 2013). Meantime, Nigerian authors, Ekwueme and Ali (2012) separated mathematical errors into four categories, such as arbitrary, structural, executive, and clerical errors. In their study of students’ errors in adding and subtracting fractions, Idris and Narayanan (2011) divided them into three kinds: careless errors, negligent errors, and accidental system errors. Meanwhile, Munasinghe (2013) stated that the students made errors because of wrong guidance from parents or family, teachers’ unawareness of the students or the social and economic conditions of parents. The two authors Brunei, Yusof and Malon did a specific study of students’ errors in doing operations of fractions. One of the reasons drawn was the impact of the knowledge about natural numbers students learnt before, in particular, students often applied rules of solution in natural number problems for solving fraction problems. For viewing / downloading the full article, please access the following link: https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/1087 European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 3 │ Issue 10 │ 2017 271