Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prospective Teachers' Understanding of the Constant π and their Knowledge of How to Prove its Constant Nature through the Concept of Linearity

  • Leung, K.C. Issic (Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, Hong Kong Institute of Education)
  • Received : 2013.11.03
  • Accepted : 2014.03.16
  • Published : 2014.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

When taught the precise definition of ${\pi}$, students may be simply asked to memorize its approximate value without developing a rigorous understanding of the underlying reason of why it is a constant. Measuring the circumferences and diameters of various circles and calculating their ratios might just represent an attempt to verify that ${\pi}$ has an approximate value of 3.14, and will not necessarily result in an adequate understanding about the constant nor formally proves that it is a constant. In this study, we aim to investigate prospective teachers' conceptual understanding of ${\pi}$, and as a constant and whether they can provide a proof of its constant property. The findings show that prospective teachers lack a holistic understanding of the constant nature of ${\pi}$, and reveal how they teach students about this property in an inappropriate approach through a proving activity. We conclude our findings with a suggestion on how to improve the situation.

Keywords

References

  1. Balacheff, N. (1991). Treatment of refutations: Aspects of the complexity of a constructivist approach to mathematics learning. In: E. von Glasersfeld(Ed.),Radical constructivism in mathematics education(pp. 89-110). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. ME 1991h.02017
  2. Balacheff, N. (2010). Bridging knowing and proving in mathematics: A didactical perspective. In: G. Hanna, H.N. Janke& H. Pulte (Eds.),Explanation and proof in mathematics: Philosophical and educational perspectives. Based on the conference, Essen, Germany; November 2006 (pp. 115-135). Berlin:Springer. ME 2010e.00330
  3. Ball, D. (2005). Effects of Teachers Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal.42(2), 371-406. ME 2008e.00467 https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
  4. Ball, D.;Lubienski, S. T.&Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers' mathematical knowledge. In: V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433-456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. ME 2011d.00304
  5. Belfort, E. &Guimaraes, L. C. (2002). The influence of subject matter on teachers' practices: Two case studies. In: A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 73-80). Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
  6. Blum, W. & Kirsch, A. (1991).Preformal proving: Examples and reflections. Educ. Stud.Math.22(2), 183-203. ME 1992a.03688 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00555722
  7. Blomhoj, M., & Valero, P. (2007).The important and difficult task of improving mathematics teacher education [Editorial].Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education NOMAD, 12(2), 1-4.
  8. Curriculum Development Committee, Hong Kong (CDC) (1999).Syllabus for secondary schools: mathematics (secondary 1-5). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
  9. Curriculum Development Council, Hong Kong & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (CDC & HKEAA) (2007).Mathematics education key learning area: mathematics curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4-6), Hong Kong: Government Printer.
  10. Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny Can't Prove. Educ. Stud. Math.38(1-3), pp. 85-109. ME 2000d.02330 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003660018579
  11. Griffiths, P.A. (2000). Mathematics at the Turn of the Millennium.Am. Math. Mon. 107(1),1-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2589372
  12. Gruenwald, N. &Klymchuk, S. (2003). Using Counter-Examples in Teaching Calculus: Students' Attitudes.N. Z. Math. Mag.40(2), 22-41. ME 2003f.04832
  13. Hill, H.C.; Ball, D.L. & Schilling, S.G. (2008). Unpacking Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Conceptualizing and Measuring Teachers' Topic-Specific Knowledge of Students. J. Res. Math. Educ.39(4), 372-400. ME 2009d.00074
  14. Leung, K. C. I. (2013). Prospective Teachers' Understanding of the Constant ${\pi}$ andtheir Knowledge of How to Prove its Constant Nature through the Concept of Linearity. In: Y. Choe, O. N. Kwon&B. E. Suh(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013JointInternational Conference onMathematics Education held at SeoulNational University, Seoul151-742, Korea; November 1-2, 2013 (pp. 575-604). Seoul, Korea: Korean Society of Mathematical Education.
  15. Li, J.; Fan, X. & Zhu, Y. (2010).A framework on mathematical knowledge for teaching.In: Y. Shimizu, Y. Sekiguchi, & K. Hino (Eds.),Proceedings of the 5th East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (EARCOME 5)(Vol. 2, pp. 1-8). Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Mathematics Education.
  16. Li, Y. & Huang, R. (2008). Chinese elementary mathematics teachers' knowledge in mathematics and pedagogy for teaching: the case of fraction division. ZDM, Int. J. Math. Educ. 40(5), 845-859. ME 2009f.00128 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0134-8
  17. Li, Y. &Kulm, G. (2008). Knowledge and confidence of pre-service mathematics teachers: the case of fraction division. ZDM, Int. J. Math. Educ. 40(5), 833-843. ME 2009f.00116 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0148-2
  18. Meel, D. E. (1999). Prospective teachers' understandings: Function and composite function. Issues Undergrad.Math. Prep. Sch. Teach. J.1(1), 1-12. ME 2000a.00514
  19. Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the Transition to Formal Proof.Educ. Stud. Math.27(3), 249-226. ME 1999d.02259 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273731
  20. Park, K. (2005). Mathematics Teacher Education in East Asian Countries-From the Perspective of PedagogicalContent Knowledge.Paper presented at the 3rd East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (EARCOME 3),August 7-12, 2005; Shanghai, China.
  21. Schmidt, W.;Tatto, M.T.;Bankov, K.;Blomeke, S.;Cedillo, T.& Cogan, L. (2007).The preparation gap: teacher education for middle school mathematics in six countries (MT21 report).East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
  22. Sanchez, V. &Llineares, S. (2003). Four Student Teachers' Pedagogical Reasoning on Function.J. Math. Teach. Educ.6(1), 5-25. ME 2003c.02498 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022123615355
  23. Schwarz, B.; Leung, I. K. C.;Buchholtz, N.; Kaiser, G.;Stillman, G.; Brown, J. & Vale, C. (2008). Future teachers' professional knowledge on argumentation and proof: a case study from universities in threecountries. ZDM, Int. J. Math. Educ. 40(5), 791-811. ME 2009f.00114 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0150-8
  24. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher57(1), 1-22.
  25. Styliandes, G. J.;Styliandes, A. J. &Philippou, G. N. (2007).Preservice Teachers' Knowledge of Proof by Mathematical Induction.J. Math. Teach. Educ.10(3), 145-166. ME 2010b.00342 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9034-z
  26. Stylianides, A. J. & Ball, D. L. (2008). Understanding and describing mathematical knowledge for teaching: knowledge about proof for engaging students in the activity of proving. J. Math. Teach. Educ.11(4), 307-332. ME 2009c.00067 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9077-9
  27. Tall, D. (1999). The Cognitive Development of Proof: Is Mathematical Proof For All or For Some? In: Z. Usiskin (Ed.), Developments in School Mathematics Education around the World(Volume 4, pp. 117-136). Reston, VA: NCTM. ME 2000e.03103
  28. Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proof: The need for strategic knowledge. Educ. Stud. Math.48(1), 101-119. ME 2002e.04039 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015535614355
  29. Wong, N. Y.; Han, J. W. & Lee, P. Y. (2004). The mathematics curriculum: towards globalisation or Westernisation? In: L. Fan, N. Y. Wong, J. Cai& S. Li (Eds.), How Chinese learn mathematics: perspectives from insiders (pp. 27-70). Singapore: World Scientific. ME 2006c.01612
  30. Wu, H. (2011). The Mis-Education of Mathematics Teachers.Notices of the American Mathematical Society58(3), 372-384.
  31. Zandieh, M. & Rasmussen, C. (2010).Defining as a Mathematical Activity: A Framework for Characterizing Progress from Informal to More Formal Ways of Reasoning.J. Math. Behav. 29(2), 57-75. ME 2011f.00394 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2010.01.001