International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers
APA
In-text citation: (Ilhan & Akin, 2022)
Reference: Ilhan, A., & Akin, M. F. (2022). Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(1), em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Ilhan A, Akin MF. Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(1), em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470
Chicago
In-text citation: (Ilhan and Akin, 2022)
Reference: Ilhan, Aziz, and M. Faysal Akin. "Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2022 17 no. 1 (2022): em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470
Harvard
In-text citation: (Ilhan and Akin, 2022)
Reference: Ilhan, A., and Akin, M. F. (2022). Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(1), em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470
MLA
In-text citation: (Ilhan and Akin, 2022)
Reference: Ilhan, Aziz et al. "Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 17, no. 1, 2022, em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Ilhan A, Akin MF. Analysis of Contextual Problem Solutions, Mathematical Sentences, and Misconceptions of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2022;17(1):em0666. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11470

Abstract

The present study aimed to analyses the context-based problem solutions of pre-service mathematics teachers, their mathematical sentences formation skills and misconceptions. Thus, the participating pre-service mathematics teachers were asked to solve context-based problems, form mathematical sentences formation, predict misconceptions that they could experience in solving these problems and assess the related problems based on Benckert’s (1997) contextual learning principles. Furthermore, the views of pre-service mathematics teachers on contextual problems were also obtained. Thus, the study was designed as a mixed-method case study that included both quantitative and qualitative data. Context-Based Problem Evaluation Form and a structured interview form developed by the authors were used as data collection instruments. Study participants included 114 (82 females, 32 males) pre-service mathematics teachers. Analysis of the study data demonstrated that pre-service mathematics teachers were above-average in solving contextual problems and mathematical sentences formation, their misconceptions were below-average, and there were no significant differences between the above-mentioned study variables based on gender variable; however, there were significant differences based on student department, and mean participant score was above-average based on Benckert’s principles. Furthermore, the views of pre-service mathematics teachers on contextual problems were determined and the conceptual and structural differences between the questions were analyzed.

References

  • Abramovich, S., & Ehrlich, A. (2007). Computer as a medium for overcoming misconceptions in solving inequalities. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(3), 181-196.
  • Acar, B., & Yaman, M. (2011). The effects of context-based learning on students’ levels of knowledge and interest. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40(1), 1-10.
  • Almong, N., & Ilany, B. S. (2012). Absolute value inequalities: High school students’ solutions and misconceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(1), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9404-z
  • Anghileri, J. (2000). Teaching number sense. Cromwell Press.
  • Atilboz, N. G. (2004). 9th Grade students’ understanding levels and misconceptions about mitosis and meiosis. Gazi University Journal of Education, 24(3), 147-157.
  • Aydogan, S., & Gelbal, S. (2017). Examination of pre-service teachers’ misconceptions in measurement and evaluation concepts. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(4), 404-420. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.355275
  • Aylar, E. (2017). Inferences on the pedagogical content knowledge in the context of problem solving in the process of classroom teacher training. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 744-759. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.312232
  • Ayvacı, H. S., & Coruhlu, T. S. (2009). Effects of explanatory stories on elimination of students’ misconceptions about physical and chemical change. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 28(1), 93-104.
  • Bahar, M. (2003). Misconceptions and strategies of change in biology education. Journal of Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 3(1), 30-64.
  • Baki, A., & Bell, A. (1997). Secondary mathematics education (Volume I). YOK Publications.
  • Baltaci, S., & Baki, A. (2017). The role of GeoGebra software in constructing a contextual learning environment: The case of the ellipse. Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(1), 429-449.
  • Banoglu, K., & Bas, Y. (2012). An investigation of students’ perceptions of their sociology course in terms of the course’s ımportance, their social attainment and the learning environment. Journal of Education and Science, 37(164), 31-44.
  • Benckert, S. (1997). Context and conversation in physics education. Project Report 161-97, Swedish: Council fort he renewal of higher education.
  • Bennett J., Gräsel C., Parchmann I., & Waddington D. (2005b). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1521-1547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500153808
  • Bennett, J., Campbell, B., Hogarth, S., & Lubben, F. (2005a). A systematic review of the effects of context-based and STS approaches in science teaching. In C. Kasanda, L. Muhammed, S. Akpo, & E. Ngololo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (pp. 53-58). Windhoak, Namibia.
  • Berns, R. G., & Erickson, P. M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy. The Highlight Zone Research, 5(1), 1-8.
  • Bingham, A. (1998). Developing problem-solving skills in children (Translated by A. F. Oguzkan). Ministry of National Education(MoNE) Publications.
  • Binnie, A. (2004). Development of a senior physics syllabus in New South Wales. Journal of Physics Education, 39(6), 490-495. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/39/6/004
  • Buyukozturk, S., Kılıc-Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2016). Scientific research methods. Pegem Academy.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390310001595401
  • Cetin, A. (2014). Daily life subjects that can be used with context-based learning in high school physics lessons. Journal of Educatıon Sciences Research, 4(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.41.3
  • Cheany, J., & Ingebritsen T. S. (2005). Problem-based learning in an online course: A case study. Journal of International Review in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v6i3.267
  • Choi, H. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video ınstruction on learning and motivation in online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_3
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
  • Costu, B., Ayas, A., & Unal, S. (2007). Misconceptions about boiling and their possible reasons. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 123-136.
  • De-Jong, O. (2006). Context-based chemical education how to improve it? Paper based on the plenary lecture presented at the 19th ICCE, Seoul, Korea, 12-17 August 2006.
  • Derman, A., & Badeli, O. (2017). The investigation of the impact of the context-based teaching method supported by the 5e model in teaching 4th-grade students the “pure material and mixture” topic on the students’ conceptual perceptions and their attıtude towards scıence. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(4), 1860-1881. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363969
  • Dikmenli, M., Cardak, O., & Oztas, F. (2009). Conceptual problems in biology-related topics in primary science and technology textbooks in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(4), 429-440.
  • Elmas, R., & Geban, O. (2016). The effect of context based chemistry ınstruction on 9th grade students’ understanding of cleaning agents topic and their attitude toward environment. Education and Science, 41(185), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.5502
  • Ernest, J. B., Reinholz, D. L., & Shah, N. (2019). Hidden competence: women’s mathematical participation in public and private classroom spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09910-w
  • Eryilmaz, A., & Surmeli, E. (2002). Measuring students’ misconceptions about heat and temperature with three-step questions. V. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, 16-18 September, METU, Ankara.
  • Esen, A., & Ciftci, I. (2000). Determination of the knowledge of classroom teachers about learning disabilities. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 8(1), 1-6.
  • Fechner, S. (2009). Effects of context-oriented learning on student interest and achievement in chemistry education (Vol. 95). Logos Verlag.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (8th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
  • Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. J. (2005). The contextual teaching and learning instructional approach. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary Science: Best practices in professional development (pp.75-84). National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Gurbuz, R., & Guder, Y. (2016). The strategies mathematics teachers use in problem solving. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 17(2), 371-386.
  • Guven, B., & Karatas, I. (2009). The effect of Cabri’s dynamic geometry software on the success of elementary mathematics teachers in geometric ground problems. Ankara University Journal of the Faculty of Educational Sciences, 42(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001135
  • Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Schoenfeld’s problem-solving theory in a student controlled learning environment. Journal of Computers & Education, 49(1), 822-839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.024
  • Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17118
  • Hiebert, J. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ilyas, A., & Saeed, M. (2018). Exploring teachers’ understanding about misconceptions of secondary grade chemistry students. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 9(1), 3323-3328. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2018.0444
  • Keskin, B., & Ozay-Kose, E. (2017). Misconceptions of prospective biology teachers about theory of evolution. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 212-242. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.373344
  • Khumalo, L. T. N. (2009). A context-based problem solving approach in grade 8 Natural Science teaching and learning [Master's thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal].
  • King, D. (2012). New perspectives on context-based teaching: Using a dialectical sociocultural approach to view teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 48(1), 51-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2012.655037
  • Lubben, F., Campbell, B., & Dlamini, B. (1996). Contextualizing science teaching in Swazilanf: Some student reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180304
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
  • Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Mathematics course curriculum (Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in primary and secondary schools).
  • Noll, J., & Hancock, S. (2015). Proper and paradigmatic metonymy as a lens for characterizing student conceptions of distributions and sampling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 361-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9547-1
  • Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2009). Activity based mathematics education in primary education. Maya Academy.
  • Ozbellek, S. (2003). Confronted conceptions mistakes about angle, determination and elimination methods of deficient perceptions at 6th and 7th grades in primary education [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylul University].
  • Ozsoy G., & Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical problem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 67-82.
  • Passolunghi, M. C., Cargnelutti, E., & Pellizzoni, S. (2019). The relation between cognitive and emotional factors and arithmetic problem-solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(3), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9863-y
  • Posamentier, A. S., & Krulik S. (2008). Problem-solving strategies for efficient and elegant solutions, grades 6-12: A research for the mathematics teacher. SAGE.
  • Posamentier, A. S., & Krulik, S. (2016). Problem-solving in mathematics, grades 3-6, Powerful strategies to deepen understanding. Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.1142/9478
  • Programme for Internatıonal Student Assessment [PISA] (2018). Programme for Internatıonal Student Assessment Rapport.
  • Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem-solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(8), 236-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18026.x
  • Ryan, J., & Williams, J. (2000). Mathematical discussions with children: Exploring methods and misconceptions as a teaching strategy. Centre for Mathematics Education, University of Manchester.
  • Ryve, A., & Hemmi, K. (2019). Educational policy to improve mathematics instruction at scale: conceptualizing contextual factors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09887-6
  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 479–510). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Selvianiresa, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2017). Contextual teaching and learning approach of mathematics in primary schools. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE), IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 895, 012171. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012171
  • Senemoglu, N. (2018). Developmental learning and teaching. Ani Publishing House.
  • Sozbilir, M., Sadi, S., Kutu, H., & Yildirim, A. (2007). Content/linking in chemistry education context-based teaching approach and its applications around the world. National Chemistry Education Congress, 20-22 June 2007.
  • Stinner, A. (1980). Physics, and the bionic man. The Physics Teacher, 18(1), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340530
  • Tekbiyik, A., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2010). An investigation on the comparison of context based and traditional physics problems. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 123-140.
  • Toluk, Z., & Olkun, S. (2002). Problem solving in mathematics education in Turkey: 1.-5. Grades math textbooks. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 2(2), 563-581.
  • Ubuz, B. (1999). Mistakes and misconceptions of 10th and 11th grade students in basic geometry. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 17(17), 95-104.
  • Whitelegg, E., & Parry, M. (1999). Real-life contexts for learning physics: Meanings, issues and practice. Physics Education, 34(2), 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/2/014
  • Yagbasan, R., & Gulcicek, C. (2003). Describing the characteristics of misconceptions in science teaching. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 13(13), 102-120.
  • Yazici, T. (2014). Use and efficacy of problem-solving ability in beginner level piano education [PhD Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University].
  • Yenilmez, K., & Yasa, E. (2008). Primary school students’ misconceptions about geometry. Uludag University Faculty of Education Journal, XXI(2), 461-483.
  • Yesildere, S. (2006). The investigation of mathematical thinking and knowledge construction processes of primary 6, 7 and 8th grade students who have different mathematical power [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylul University].
  • Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seckin Publishing.
  • Yurdakul, B. (2021). New trends in education. In O. Demirel (Ed.), Constructivism (pp. 39-40). Pegem Academy Publishing.
  • Zhu, Y., Kaiser, G., & Cai, J. (2018). Gender equity in mathematical achievement: The case of China. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(1), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9846-z

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.