Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.30807/ksms.2020.23.1.007

Students' Problem Solving Based on their Construction of Image about Problem Contexts  

Koo, Dae Hwa (Daejeon Science High School for the Gifted)
Shin, Jaehong (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society / v.23, no.1, 2020 , pp. 129-158 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, we presented two geometric tasks to three 11th grade students to identify the characteristics of the images that the students had at the beginning of problem-solving in the problem situations and investigated how their images changed during problem-solving and effected their problem-solving behaviors. In the first task, student A had a static image (type 1) at the beginning of his problem-solving process, but later developed into a dynamic image of type 3 and recognized the invariant relationship between the quantities in the problem situation. Student B and student C were observed as type 3 students throughout their problem-solving process. No differences were found in student B's and student C's images of the problem context in the first task, but apparent differences appeared in the second task. In the second task, both student B and student C demonstrated a dynamic image of the problem context. However, student B did not recognize the invariant relationship between the related quantities. In contrast, student C constructed a robust quantitative structure, which seemed to support him to perceive the invariant relationship. The results of this study also show that the success of solving the task 1 was determined by whether the students had reached the level of theoretical generalization with a dynamic image of the related quantities in the problem situation. In the case of task 2, the level of covariational reasoning with the two varying quantities in the problem situation was brought forth differences between the two students.
Keywords
image of a problem's context; empirical generalization; theoretical generalization; covariational reasoning;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Duval, R. (2002). Representation, vision, and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical Thinking. Basic Issues for Learning. In F. Hitt (Ed.), Representations and mathematics visualization (pp. 311-336). Mexico: PME-NA-Cinvestav-IPN.
2 Ellis, A. B. (2011). Algebra in the middle school: Developing functional relationship through quantitative reasoning. In J. Cai, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization (pp. 215-238): Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
3 Mitchelmore, M. C., & White P. (1999). Learning mathematics: A new look at generalisation and abstraction. Referred paper at the combined conference of the Australian and New Zealand Associations for Research in Education, Australia.
4 Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2012). Students’ images of problem contexts when solving applied problems. The journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 48-59.   DOI
5 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
6 Saldanha, L. A., & Thompson, P. W. (1998). Re-thinking co-variation from a quantitative perspective: Simultaneous continuous variatin. In S. B. Berensen &, K. R. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. N. Coulombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff(Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 298-303). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
7 Schoenfeld, A. H. & Arcavi, A. (1988). On the meaning of variable. Mathematics Teacher, 81, 420-427.
8 Smith, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2007). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95-132). New York: Erlbaum.
9 Steffe, L., & Izsak, A. (2002). Pre-service middle-school teachers' construction of linear equation concepts through quantitative reasoning. In D. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. White, H. Wiegel, R. Bryant, & K. Noony (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1163-1172). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
10 교육부(2015). 수학과 교육과정. 교육과학기술부 고시 제2015-74호 [별책 8].
11 김남희, 나귀수, 박경미, 이경화, 정영옥, 홍진곤(2011). 수학교육과정과 교재연구. 서울: 경문사.
12 우정호(1999). 학교수학의 교육적 기초. 서울: 서울대학교출판부.
13 우정호, 정영옥, 박경미, 이경화, 김남희, 나귀수, 임재훈(2006). 수학교육학 연구방법론. 서울: 경문사.
14 김희, 김선희(2010). 기하 증명에서 기호의 역할과 기호 중재에 의한 직관의 형성. 수학교육학연구, 20(4), 511-528.
15 권영인, 서보억(2007). 고등학교 도형의 방정식 단원에서 논증기하의 활용에 대한 연구. 한국수학교육학회 시리즈 E. 수학교육논문집, 21(3), 451-466.
16 김근배, 최옥환, 박달원(2018). 유추와 분석적 방법을 활용한 타원 초점 작도. 한국학교수학회논문집, 21(4), 401-418.
17 김성준(2002). 대수적 사고와 대수 기호에 관한 고찰. 수학교육학회, 12(2), 229-245.
18 나귀수(1997). 기하 개념의 이해와 적용에 관한 소고. 수학교육학연구, 7(2), 349-358.
19 도정철, 손홍찬(2015). GSP를 사용한 기하수업에서 수준별 학생의 논증기하와 해석기하의 연결에 관한 연구. 한국학교수학회논문집, 18(4), 411-429.
20 나귀수(2009). 분석법을 중심으로 한 기하 증명 지도에 대한 연구. 수학교육학연구, 19(2), 185-206.
21 마민영, 신재홍(2016). 대수 문장제의 해결에서 드러나는 중등 영재 학생간의 공변 추론 수준 비교 및 분석. 학교수학, 18(1), 43-59.
22 박종희, 신재홍, 이수진, 마민영(2017). 그래프 유형에 따른 두 공변 추론 수준 이론의 적용 및 비교. 수학교육학연구, 27(1), 23-49.
23 반은섭, 신재홍, 류희찬(2016). 오마르 카얌(Omar Khayyam)이 제시한 삼차방정식의 기하학적 해법의 교육적 활용. 학교수학, 18(3), 589-608.
24 반은섭, 류희찬(2017). 동적 기하 환경을 활용한 문제 해결 과정에서 변수 이해 및 일반화 수준 향상에 관한 사례연구. 수학교육학연구, 27(1), 89-112.
25 손홍찬(2011). GSP를 활용한 역동적 기하 환경에서 기하적 성질의 추측. 학교수학, 13(1), 107-125.
26 양은경, 신재홍(2014). 개방형 기하 문제에서 학생의 드래깅 활동을 통해 나타난 수학적 추론 분석. 수학교육학연구, 24(1), 1-27.
27 양은경, 신재홍(2015). 역동적 기하 환경에서 중등 영재학생들의 합동변환 활동에 대한 발생적 분해. 수학교육학연구, 25(4), 499-524.
28 장혜원(2013). Byrne의 'Euclid 원론'에 기초한 증명 지도에 대한 연구. 수학교육학연구, 23(2), 173-192.
29 Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352-378.   DOI
30 Boyer, C. B. (1946). Proportion, equation, function: Three steps in the development of a concept. Scripta Mathematica, 12, 5-13.
31 Dindyal, J. (2004). Algebraic thinking in geometry at high school level: Students' use of variables and unknowns. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Townsville) (pp. 183-190). Sydney: MERGA, Inc.
32 Carlson, M. P., Smith, N., & Persson, J. (2003). Developing and connecting calculus students' notions of rate of change and accumulation: The fundamental theorem of calculus. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 2, pp. 165-172). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai'i.
33 Confrey, J. & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rate of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 135-164.   DOI
34 Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalisation in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula (Soviet studies in mathematics education, Vol. 2; J. Kilpatrick, Ed., J. Teller, Trans.).Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Original work published 1972)
35 Dindyal, J. (2007). The need for an inclusive framework for students' thinking in school geometry. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(1), 73-83.
36 정영우, 김부윤(2015). 기하 증명에서의 대표성에 관한 연구. 수학교육학연구, 25(2), 225-240.
37 Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Selected Lectures (pp. 271-286). S.A.E.M. THALES.
38 Herbert, K., & Brown, R. (1999). Patterns as tools for algebraic thinking. In B. Moses (Ed.), Algebraic thinking: Grades K - 12 (pp. 123-128). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
39 Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry in more than proof. Mathematics Teacher, 74, 11-18.
40 Kaput, J. (1995). Long term algebra reform: Democratizing access to big ideas. In C. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium (pp. 33-52). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
41 Mason, J. H. (2002). Generalisation and algebra: Exploiting children's powers. In L. Haggerty (Ed.), Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics: Perspectives on practice (pp.105-120). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
42 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43 Mitchelmore, M. (1993). Abstraction, generalization and conceptual change in mathematics. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 45-57.
44 Mitchelmore, M. C., & White P. (1995). Abstraction in mathematics: Conflict, resolution and application. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7, 50-68.   DOI
45 Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variable. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12 (1988 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 8-19). Reston, VA: NCTM.
46 Thompson, P. W. (1989). A cognitive model of quantity-based algebraic reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
47 Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 181-234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
48 Thompson, P. W. (2016). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In English, L., & Kirshner, D. (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 435-461). London: Taylor and Francis.
49 Thompson, P. W., Hatfield, N., Joshua, S., Yoon, H., & Byerley, C. (2017). Covariational reasoning among U.S. and South Korean secondary mathematics teachers. The Journal of Mathematical behavior, 48, 95-111.   DOI
50 Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. P. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421-456). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.