THE EFFECTS OF MATHEMATICAL DISCUSSION ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTED BY METACOGNITIVE PROBLEMS ON THE PROBLEM POSING SKILLS OF 3TH GRADE PRIMARY SCHOOL GRADE STUDENTS
Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine the effects of mathematical discussion envıronment supported by metacognitive problems on the problem posing skills of grade 3th primary school grade students. The study was carried out based on pre-test and post-test, control group model. Two experiment and one control group were formed from the students who participated in the research. The sample group consists of 52 students who are studying at the third grade level. According to the findings obtained from the research, it is seen that the discussion method supported by metacognitive questions applied in experiment-1 group, is especially effective in the dimensions of problem posing as “Realization of the Components of the Problem (RCP)”, “Identification of the relationship between concept and operation (IRCC)”, “Establishment of the problem requiring desired operation (EPRDO)” and “Posing problems based on the given visual and numerical data (PPGVN)”.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
References
Abu-Elwan, R. (1999). The development of mathematical problem posing skills for prospective middle school teachers. Paper presented at the proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematical Education into the 21st Century: Social Challenges, Issues anda, Cairo, Egypt.
Akay, H. (2006). The examination of the effect mathematics instruction with problem posing approach on students’ academics achievement, problem solving ability and creativity. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Cai, J. (2003). Singaporean students‟ mathematical thinking in problem solving and problem posing: an exploratory study. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34 (5), 719-737.
Cankoy, O. & Darbaz, S. (2010). Effect of a problem posing based problem solving instruction on understanding problem. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, 11-24.
Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis M., Pitta-Pantazi, D. & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing process. ZDM, 37 (3), 149-158.
Çelik, A. (2010). The Relationship between Elementary School Students’ Proportional Reasoning Skills and Problem Posing Skills Involving Ratio and Proportion. Unpublished Master Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysee, A. (2001). Metacognition and Mathematical Problem Solving in Grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435- 449.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Inc.Sci Ed., 84: 287–312.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping Into Argumentation: Developments in The Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 88
Ersoy, Y. (2004). Problem Kurma ve Çözme Yaklasımlı Matematik Ögretimi Yönünde Yenilik Hareketleri. (2016, Nov.)
Garrett, A. J., Mazzocco, M.M., & Baker, L. (2006). Development of the Metacognitive Skills of Prediction and Evaluation in Children with or 174 without Math Disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 77-88.
Gillies, R.M., & Khan, A. (2008). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during small-group work. Cambridge Journal of Education. Vol. 39, No. 1, March 2009, 7–27
Gür, H. & Korkmaz, E. (2003). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin problem ortaya atma becerilerinin belirlenmesi. Matematikçiler Derneği Matematik Köşesi Makaleleri. http://www.matder.org.tr (2016, Jan.)
Hacker, D.J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not All Metacognition Is Created Equal. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 73-79.
Huitt, W. (1997). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
Jimerez-Aleixadre, M., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing Practices across Epistemic Levels in the Chemistry Laboratory, Published online (2006): www.interscience.wiley.com
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld, (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education, (pp. 123-148). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Kramarski, B., Mavarech, Z.R., & Arami, M. (2002). The Effects of Metacognitive Instruction on Solving Mathematical Authentic Tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225-250.
Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and Metacognition: What is the Nature of Relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3, 121-139.
Mason, L., & Santi, M. (1994). Argumentation Structure and Metacognition in Constructign Shared Knowledge at School. ERIC: ED 371 041.
MEB (2009). Elementary Mathematics Lesson 1-5 Grades Curriculum. Ankara Devlet Kitapları Basımevi.
Mevarech, Z.R. & Kramarski, B. (1997) IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms, American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 365-395.
NCTM, (2000). Principles and Standarts for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 10, 994-1020.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science. Video, In-Service Training Manual and Resource Pack. London: King’s College London
Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, Mathematics, and Metacognition: Looking for Connections through Students’ Work in Mathematical Problem Solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236-245.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On Mathematical Problem Posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, February, Page: 19-28.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne J., (2006). Learning To Teach Argumentation: Research And Development In The Science Classroom, International Journal Of Science Education, 28, 2–3, 235–260.
Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What’s All the Fuss about Metacognition? In A.H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, 189-215. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schurter, W.A. (2001). Comprehension Monitoring and Polya’s Heuristics as Tools for Problem Solving by Developmental Mathematics Students. (Doctoral Thesis). San Antonio, TX: The University of the Incarnate Word.
Stoyanova, E. & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students' problem posing in school mathematics. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education (p.518–525). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press (Updated edition). New York.
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. and Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, Nj: Erlbaum.
Yerrick, K.R. (2000) Lower Track Science Students' Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction. Journal of Research in Scıence Teachıng, 37, 8, 807±838.
Yildirim, C. (2000). Matematiksel Düşünme. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.617
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Pusat Pilten, Necip Isik, M. Koray Serin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2015-2023. 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).
