Education of Primary School Mathematics (한국수학교육학회지시리즈C:초등수학교육)

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

DOI QR Code

The Influences of Experiences of Productive Failures on Mathematical Problem Solving Abilities and Mathematical Dispositions

문제해결에서 생산적 실패의 경험이 초등학생의 수학적 문제해결력 및 수학적 성향에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2015.06.15
  • Accepted : 2015.08.29
  • Published : 2015.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the experiences of productive failures on students' mathematical problem solving abilities and mathematical dispositions. The experiment was conducted with two groups. The treatment group was applied with the productive mathematics failure program, and the comparative group was taught with traditional mathematics lessons. In this study, for quantitative analysis, the students were tested their understanding of mathematical concepts, mathematical reasoning abilities, students' various strategies and mathematical dispositions before and after using the program. For qualitative analysis, the researchers analyzed the discussion processes of the students, students's activity worksheets, and conducted interviews with selected students. The results showed the followings. First, use of productive failures showed students' enhancement in problem solving abilities. Second, the students who experienced productive failures positively affected the changes in students' mathematical dispositions. Along with the more detailed research on productive mathematical failures, the research results should be included in the development of mathematics textbooks and teaching and learning mathematics.

본 연구의 목적은 수학 수업에서 생산적 실패를 한 경험이 초등학생들의 수학적 문제해결력과 수학적 성향에 미치는 영향을 알아보는 것이다. 이를 위해 선행 연구를 바탕으로 생산적 실패를 경험할 수 있도록 수업 과정을 고안하였다. 연구대상으로 서울 은평구 Y초등학교 4학년 2개 학급을 선정하여 실험반은 생산적 실패를 활용한 수업을 진행하였으며, 비교반은 전통적인 강의식 수업을 진행하였다. 사전 사후 검사로 수학 개념이해 검사, 다양한 수학적 문제해결력 검사, 수학적 성향 검사를 실시하여 각각 t-검정하였으며, 학생들의 토의과정 및 활동지, 면담 등을 활용하여 수학적 문제해결력과 성향을 질적으로 분석하였다. 그 결과 생산적 실패를 경험한 학생들의 문제해결력과 수학적 성향에 유의미하게 개선되는 효과를 보였다. 이는 학생들이 실패를 통해 수학 개념을 스스로 구성하면서 보다 명확한 이해를 하는 과정에서 긍정적인 효과를 가져 온 것으로 보인다. 심층적인 추후 연구로 수학교과서 개발 및 수업 방법 개선에서 이를 활용해야 함을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강석진․박지애․최숙영․노태희 (2008). 학습자의 인지적 특성이 개념 변화에 미치는 영향. 대한화학회지, 52(5), 561-568. Kang, S., Park, J., Choi, S., & Noh, N. (2008). The influences of students' cognitive characteristics on conceptual change. Journal of the Korean Chemical Society, 52(5), 561-568. https://doi.org/10.5012/JKCS.2008.52.5.561
  2. 강완․김상미․박만구․백석윤․오영열․장혜원 (2014). 초등수학교육론. 서울: 경문사. Kang, W., Kim, S., Paek, S., Park, M., Oh, Y., & Chang, H. (1998). Theory of teaching elementary mathematics. Seoul: Kyungminsa.
  3. 김민경․허지연․박은정 (2014). 초등 수학에서의 비구조화된 문제해결 모형 설계. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 18(2), 189-209. Kim, M., Heo, J., & Park, E. (2008). Design, application and its educational implication of ill-structured problem solving in elementary mathematics education. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 18(2), 189-209.
  4. 김부미 (2009). 수학적 오류를 활용한 개념 성장 학습활동의 실제 적용가능성 탐색. 교과교육학연구, 13(2), 393-415. Kim, B. M. (2009). An analysis of applicability of the conceptional growth learning of students' mathematical errors. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 13(2), 393-415.
  5. 김아영 (1994). 구성주의에 입각한 수학과 수학교육에 관한 고찰. 이화여자대학교 석사 논문. Kim, A. (2009). The study of mathematics and mathematic education from constructivism. Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Woman's University.
  6. 배숙희․박만구 (2008). 초등수학에서 상호글쓰기를 통한 학습이 수학적 의사소통 능력 및 수학적 성향에 미치는 영향. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 12(2), 165-183. Bae, S. & Park, M. (2008). An influence of exchange writings on the mathematical communication skill and mathematical disposition in the elementary mathematics. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 12(2), 165-183.
  7. 백석윤 (2003). 구성주의적 초등수학 수업 모형 연구. 한국초등교육, 14(2), 191-217. Bae, S. & Park, M. (2008). A study of the model for the constructivist elementary mathematics classroom. The Journal of Korea Elementary Education, 14(2), 191-217.
  8. 유연자․방정숙 (2008). 초등학교 5학년 평면도형의 넓이 구하기 수업에서 나타난 학생들의 해결방법 분석. 학교수학, 10(3), 443-461. Yu, Y. & Pang, J. (2008). An analysis of fifth graders' solution methods in finding the area of plane figure. School Mathematics, 10(3), 443-461.
  9. 윤정은․김도연․권오남 (2015). 학습자 중심 수업에서 교사의 역할 탐색-국내 수학교육연구를 중심으로. 학습자중심교과교육연구, 15(1), 45-68. Yu, Y. & Pang, J. (2015). Teachers' roles of learner-centered classes in domestic mathematics education research. Journal of Learner-centered Curriculum and Instruction, 15(1), 45-68.
  10. 이정연․이경화 (2010). Simpson의 패러독스를 활용한 영재교육에서 창의성 발현 사례 분석. 수학교육학연구, 20(3), 203-219. Lee, J. & Lee, K. (2010). A case study of creativity development using Simpson's Paradox for mathematically gifted students. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 20(3), 203-219.
  11. 이현숙․송미영 (2015). PISA 2012 수학 성취도를 설명하는 학생의 정의적 특성 및 교사 특성 분석을 위한 다층 구조방정식모형의 적용. 교과교육학연구, 19(1), 137-158. Lee, J. & Lee, K. (2010). A multi-level SEM approach for the analysis of relationships between math-related educational context variables and math literacy of PISA 2012. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 19(1), 137-158.
  12. 한국교육개발원 (1992). 교육의 본질추구를 위한 수학교육 평가 체제 연구. 연구자료 RM92-5-2. Korea Educational Development Institute (1992). The framework for mathematics assessments for pursuing fundamental education. Research report RM92-5-2.
  13. Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
  14. Brehem, J. & Hamilton. J. T. (1996). Noncompliance in environmental reporting: Are violators ignorant, or evasive of the law? American Journal of Political Science,. 40(2), 444-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111632
  15. Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure. Educational Psychologist. 19(2), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529286
  16. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
  17. Kapur, M. & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
  18. Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x
  19. Kapur, M. (2011). A Further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving:Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561-579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3
  20. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651-672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6
  21. Kapur, M. & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science,. 40(4), 645-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4
  22. Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning mathematics. Cognitive Science,. 38, 1008-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107
  23. Kaur, B., Har, Y. B., & Kapur, M. (2011). 수학 문제해결 교육 어떻게 할 것인가?. 서울: 양서원. (원저 2009년 출판)
  24. Kaur, B., Har, Y. B., & Kapur, M. (Eds.) (2011). Mathematical problem solving. Yearbook 2009. Singapore: World Scientific.
  25. Marton, F. (2007). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499-535. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_3
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  27. Pathak, S. A., Beaumie, K., Jacobson, M. J., & Zhang, B. (2011). Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative process involved in productive failure. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9099-z
  28. Schwartz, D. L. & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
  29. Schwartz, D. L. & Matin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
  30. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction. 4, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
  31. Truman, R. J. (2013). Productive failure in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(3), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.42.3.b
  32. Vanlehn, D., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209-249. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2103_01
  33. Westermann, K. & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8
  34. Wiedmann, M., Leach, R., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40(4), 711-730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y
  35. Wortman, C. B. & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Response to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 8, pp.277-336). New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

  1. 초등수학영재를 위한 교수학습 자료 개발 및 적용 vol.37, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7858/eamj.2021.028