Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

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

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Components of Reasoning Process according to the Levels of Cognitive Demands of the Reasoning Tasks -Focused on the Highschool level Mathematical Sequence-

추론 과제의 인지적 난이도 수준에 따른 추론 과정 구성요소 분석 -고등학교 수준 수열 단원을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2019.08.30
  • Accepted : 2019.09.24
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to analyze the levels of cognitive demands and components of the reasoning process presented in the mathematical sequence section of three high school mathematics textbooks in order to provide implications for the development of reasoning tasks in the future mathematics textbooks. The results of the study have revealed that most of the reasoning tasks presented in the mathematical sequence section of the three high school mathematics textbooks seemed to require low-level cognitive demands and that low-level cognitive demands reasoning tasks required only a component of one reasoning process. On the other hand, only a portion of the reasoning tasks appeared to require high-level of cognitive demands, and high-level cognitive demands reasoning tasks required various components of reasoning process. Considering the results of the study, it seems to suggest that we need more high-level cognitive demands reasoning tasks to develop high-level cognitive reasoning that would provide students with learning opportunities for various processes of reasoning, and that would provide a deeper understanding of the nature of reasoning.

본 연구의 목적은 향후 수학교과서의 추론 과제 개발에 대한 시사점을 제공하기 위하여, 고등학교 수준 수학교과서 3종을 연구 대상으로 수열 단원에 제시된 추론 과제의 인지적 난이도 수준과 추론 과정 구성요소를 분석하는 것이다. 연구 결과, 3종의 수학교과서의 수열 단원에 제시된 추론 과제의 대부분이 인지적 난이도 수준이 낮은 것으로 나타났으며, 인지적 난이도 수준이 낮은 추론 과제는 하나의 추론 과정 구성요소만을 요구하는 것으로 나타났다. 반면에 추론 과제의 일부만이 인지적 난이도 수준이 높은 것으로 나타났으며, 인지적 난이도 수준이 높은 추론 과제는 다양한 추론 과정 구성요소를 요구하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과를 바탕으로 인지적 난이도 수준이 낮은 추론 과제보다는 학생들에게 다양한 추론 과정의 학습기회를 제공하고 추론의 본질을 심도있게 이해시킬 수 있는 인지적 난이도 수준이 높은 추론 과제 개발에 대한 필요성을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. The Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics curriculum, Se Jong: The Ministry of Education.
  2. Kim, S. & Kim, K. (2004). Analysis on types and roles of reasoning used in the mathematical modeling process. School Mathematics, 6(3), 283-299.
  3. Kim, S. & Lee, C. (2002). Abduction as a mathematical reasoning. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 12(2), 275-290.
  4. Kim, Y. (1997). The method and process of qualitative research for inquiry of educational phenomena in schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 135-170.
  5. Kim, W., et al. (2019). High school mathematics I. Seoul: Visang.
  6. Do, J. (2007). How to pose an open problem?: Two cases of posing na open-ended problem by reorganizing given closed problems. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 10(2), 221-235.
  7. Ryu, H. et al. (2019). High school mathematics I. Seoul: Chunjae.
  8. Park, K. et al. (2019). High school mathematics I . Seoul: Dong-A.
  9. Baek, D. & Lee, K. (2018). Role and significance of abductive reasoning in mathematical modeling. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 28(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2018.05.28.2.221
  10. Son, H. (2017). Understanding and application of qualitative content analysis. Korean Association for Qualitative Research, 2(2), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.48000/KAQRKR.2017.2.56
  11. Woo, J. (2007). The educational foundation of school mathematics (2rd enl. ed.). Seoul: Snupress.
  12. Woo, J. (2010). Principles and methods of mathematical learning-teaching (2rd. rev. ed.). Seoul: Snupress.
  13. Lee, M. & Oh. Y. (2007). The influence of mathematical tasks on mathematical communication. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 17(4), 395-418.
  14. Lee, Y. (2017). Charles Sanders Peirce. Seoul: Communicationbooks.
  15. Lee, C., Kim, S., Kim, B. & Kim, K. (2017). Math reasoning. Seoul: Kyowoo.
  16. Jung, H. & Lee, K. (2016). A comparative study of the mathematics textbooks' tasks of korea and the usa: Focused on conditions for parallelograms. School Mathematics, 18(4). 749-771.
  17. Cho, S. (2006). The nature of proof and a study on the teaching method of proofs: focused on the middle school geometry(Master Thesis), Department of Mathematics Education, Graduate School of Education Chung-Ang University.
  18. Choi, S., Jung, J. & Jung, S. (2016). Concept and procedures of qualitative content analysis. Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 2(1). 127-155.
  19. Hwang, S. et al. (2019). High school mathematics I. Seoul: Mirae-N.
  20. Hwang, U. (2013). Analysis of the deductive inference in engineering education through the experiment of elliptical trainers. Korean Institute for Practical Engineering Education, 5(1), 1-13.
  21. Blum, W., & Ferri, R. B. (2016). Advancing the teaching of mathematical modeling: Research-based concepts and examples. In C. R. Hirsch & A. R. McDuffie (Eds.), Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 65-76). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  22. Cirillo, M., Pelesko, J. A., Felton-Koestler, M. D., & Rubel, L. (2016). Perspectives on modeling in school mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch & A. R. McDuffie (Eds.), Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 3-16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  23. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 135-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273661
  24. de Waal, C. (2013). Peirce: A guide for the perplexed. London.New Deli.New York.Sydney: Bloomsbury.
  25. English, L. D. (1993). Reasoning by analogy in constructing mathematical ideas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370 766).
  26. English, L. D. (1997). Analogies, Metaphors, and Images: Vehicles for Mathematical Reasoning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical Reasoning Analogies, Metaphors, and Images (pp. 3-18). New York: Routledge.
  27. English, L. D. (1999). Reasoning by analogy: A fundamental process in children's mathematical learning. In L. V. Stiff (Ed.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning in Grades K-12 (pp. 22-36). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  28. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
  29. Gentner, D. (1989). The Mechanisms of analogical learning. In S, Vosniadou & A Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  31. Lannin, J., Ellis, A. B., & Elliott, R. (2011). Developing essential understanding of mathematical reasoning for teaching mathematics in prekindergarten-grade 8. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  32. Liszka, J. J. (1996). A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  33. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  34. NCTM. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: Author.
  35. Pehkonen, E. (1997). Introduction to the concept "open-ended problems". In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Use of open-ended problems in mathematics classroom (pp.7-11). Helsinki University.
  36. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12(November), 1-15.
  37. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12(January), 286-302.
  38. Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1-6(C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss Eds.), Vols. 7-8(A. W. Burks, Ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  39. Poincare, H. (1952). Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover Publications.
  40. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics (Vol. 1). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  41. Reasoning. (1902). In J. M. Baldwin (Ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Macmillan.
  42. Smith, M. S. Stein, M. K., Arbaugh, F., Brown C. A., & Mossgrove, J. (2004). Characterizing the cognitive demands of mathematical tasks: A sorting activity. Professional Development Guidebook for Perspectives on the Teaching of Mathematics (Companion to 2004 yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 45-72). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  43. Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 268-275. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.3.4.0268
  44. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematical instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.