Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2014.18.1.1

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)
Publication Information
Research in Mathematical Education / v.18, no.1, 2014 , pp. 1-29 More about this Journal
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
teachers' professional knowledge; proofs and proving tasks; mathematical constants; linearity;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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
2 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.
3 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.
4 Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the Transition to Formal Proof.Educ. Stud. Math.27(3), 249-226. ME 1999d.02259   DOI
5 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.
6 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.
7 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   DOI
8 Sanchez, V. &Llineares, S. (2003). Four Student Teachers' Pedagogical Reasoning on Function.J. Math. Teach. Educ.6(1), 5-25. ME 2003c.02498   DOI
9 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   DOI
10 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher57(1), 1-22.
11 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   DOI
12 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
13 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.
14 Wu, H. (2011). The Mis-Education of Mathematics Teachers.Notices of the American Mathematical Society58(3), 372-384.
15 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   DOI
16 Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proof: The need for strategic knowledge. Educ. Stud. Math.48(1), 101-119. ME 2002e.04039   DOI
17 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
18 Ball, D. (2005). Effects of Teachers Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching on Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal.42(2), 371-406. ME 2008e.00467   DOI   ScienceOn
19 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
20 Blum, W. & Kirsch, A. (1991).Preformal proving: Examples and reflections. Educ. Stud.Math.22(2), 183-203. ME 1992a.03688   DOI
21 Curriculum Development Committee, Hong Kong (CDC) (1999).Syllabus for secondary schools: mathematics (secondary 1-5). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
22 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
23 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
24 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.
25 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.
26 Dreyfus, T. (1999). Why Johnny Can't Prove. Educ. Stud. Math.38(1-3), pp. 85-109. ME 2000d.02330   DOI
27 Griffiths, P.A. (2000). Mathematics at the Turn of the Millennium.Am. Math. Mon. 107(1),1-14.   DOI
28 Gruenwald, N. &Klymchuk, S. (2003). Using Counter-Examples in Teaching Calculus: Students' Attitudes.N. Z. Math. Mag.40(2), 22-41. ME 2003f.04832
29 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
30 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   DOI
31 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   DOI