SEMI-STRUCTURED PROBLEM POSING ABILITIES OF PROSPECTIVE PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS: A CASE OF TURKEY

Reyhan Tekin Sitrava, Ahmet Işık

Abstract


The purpose of this case study is to examine the problems that prospective primary school teachers posed related to the basic mathematical operations with whole numbers and to determine their problem posing abilities. The data was collected from seventy-two prospective primary school teachers through the Semi-Structured Problem Posing Questionnaire consisting of two questions. The descriptive analysis approach was used to analyze the data. According to the findings of the study, some prospective primary school teachers posed problems, which are not suitable to the learning outcomes. Additionally, some of them posed problems with lack of information due to having difficulty in analyzing and discovering the mathematical situation in the problem posing situation. On the other hand, the types of solvable problems were join and separate problems, especially, result unknown problems. State differently, prospective teachers had a tendency towards posing easiest and low level problems.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


basic mathematical operations, join problems, prospective primary school teachers, semi-structured problem posing situations, separate problems, whole numbers

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abu-Elwan, R. (1999). The development of mathematical problem posing abilities for prospective middle school teachers. In proceedings of the International conference on Mathematical Education into the 21st Century: Social challenges, Issues and approaches (Vol. 2, pp. 1-8).

Australian Education Council, Curriculum Corporation (Australia). (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools: A joint project of the states, territories and the Commonwealth of Australia/initiated by the Australian Education Council. Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation for the Australian Education Council.

Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.

Basturk, S., & Donmez, G. (2011). Examining pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge with regard to curriculum knowledge. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 743-775.

Cankoy, O. (2003). Perceptions of pre-service elementary teachers in Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus about difficulty level of mathematical problems. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25(25), 26-30.

Carpenter, T. P., Carey, D. A., & Kouba, V. (1990). A problem solving approach to the operations. In J. Payne (Ed.), Mathematics for the young child (pp. 111-132). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of students' problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for research in mathematics education, 385-401.

Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15 (3), 179-202.

Chapman, O. (2002). Belief structure and in-service high school mathematics teacher growth. In Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 177-193). Springer, Dordrecht.

Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149-158. Doi: 10.1007/s11858-005-0004-6.

Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270. Doi: 10.1023/A:1024364304664.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

English, L. D. (1998). Children's problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1) 83-106. Doi: 10.2307/749719.

Kar, T., & Isik, C. (2015). The investigation of middle school mathematics teachers' views on the difficulty levels of posed problems. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 16(2), 63-81.

Kilic, C. (2013). Prospective primary teachers’ free problem-posing performances in the context of fractions: An example from Turkey. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 677-686. Doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0073-1.

Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from. In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed.) Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123-147). Hillsdalc, NJ: Erlbaum.

Korkmaz, E., & Gur, H. (2006). Determining of prospective teachers’ problem posing abilities. Journal of Balikesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 8(1), 64–74.

Lin, P. J. (2004). Supporting teachers on designing problem-posing tasks as a tool of assessment to understand students' mathematical learning. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 3, pp. 257-2644). Norway: Bergen.

Luo, F. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness and insights of pre-service elementary teachers’ abilities to construct word problems for fraction multiplication. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(1), 83–98.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.

Mayer, R. E., Lewis, A. B., & Hegarty, M. (1992). Mathematical misunderstandings: Qualitative reasoning about quantitative problems. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical abilities (pp.137–154). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Maxedon SJ 2003. Early childhood teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge of geometry. Unpublished PhD Thesis,. USA: The University of Arizona

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Doi: 10.1016/S1098-2140(99)80125-8

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education] (MoNE) (2009). İlköğretim matematik dersi 1–5. sınıflar öğretim programı. [Primary school mathematics curriculum grades 1 to 5]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education] (MoNE) (2017). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Primary and middle school grades 1 to 8]. Ankara, Turkey: Author.

Rizvi, N. F. (2004). Prospective teachers’ ability to pose word problems. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 12, 1–22.

Saribas, S., & Arnas, Y. A. (2017). Which type of verbal problems do the teachers and education materials present to children in preschool period?. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(1), 81-100.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.

Silver, E. A., ve Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27(5), 521-539. Doi: 10.2307/749846

Stoyanova, E. (2003). Extending students' understanding of mathematics via problem posing. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 59(2), 32-40.

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.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Tertemiz, N. I., & Sulak, S. E. (2013). The examination of the fifth-grade students’ problem posing abilities. Elementary Education Online, 12(3),713-729.

Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2009, January). Problem posing and development of pedagogical content knowledge in prospective teacher training. In meeting of CERME (Vol. 6, pp. 1941-1950). Doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_21.

Van de Walle, J. A. (2003). Elementary and middle school mathematics. New York

Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 117-132. Doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9456-0

Van Harpen, X. Y., & Sriraman, B. (2012). Creativity and mathematical problem posing: An analysis of high school students’ mathematical problem posing in China and the USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 201-221. Doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9419-5.

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu [Higher Education Institution (HEI)]. (YÖK) (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları. [Education faculty teacher education degree programs]. Ankara, Turkey: HEI.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Reyhan Tekin Sitrava, Ahmet Işık

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).