Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2014.28.1.97

A case study on inquiry activities of synthetic division through analogies  

Jung, Milin (Graduate school of Dept. of Math. Education, Korea University)
Whang, Woo Hyung (Dept. of Math. Education, Korea University)
Publication Information
Communications of Mathematical Education / v.28, no.1, 2014 , pp. 97-130 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to investigate the aspects of analogy of high school student's thinking process revealed in the inquiry activity with synthetic division. The case study method of qualitative research was conducted with two high school 10th grade students. Structure-mapping model(SMM) of Gentner and similarity frames which were proposed by other researchers were utilized to analyze the data. Two students used analogy as a tool and they could discover synthetic division of more than 2 degrees, but they revealed different levels of mathematics discovery depending on the different degree of analogical thinking. Surface similarity in the process of inquiry activity played a vital role in analogical thinking. We asked students to explore and discover analogy based on structure similarity. Analogy based on the systematic approach made it possible to predict upper domain. Analogy based on the procedure similarity induced internalization. We could conclude that analogy has instrumental, heuristic and reflective characteristics.
Keywords
Analogies; Similarities; Structure-mapping; Structure-mapping Model; Long division; Synthetic division;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 7  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Spradly, J. P. (1988). 참여관찰방법. (이희봉 역). 서울: 대한교과서주식회사, (원저 Participant observation은 1980년 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston에서 출판).
2 Sternberg, R. J. (1977a). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84, 353-378.   DOI
3 Sternberg, R. J. (1977b). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4 VanLehn, K. A. (1983). Felicity conditions for human skill acquisition : validating an AI-based theory. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
5 Wharton, C. M., Holyoak, K. J., Downing, P. E., Lange, T. E., Wickens, T. D., & Melz, E. R. (1994). Below the surface: Analogical similarity and retrieval competition in reminding. Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 64-101.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 김용태․신봉숙․최대욱․이순희 (2005). 유추를 통한 분수 연산에 관한 연구, 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집>, 19(4), 715-731.   과학기술학회마을
7 김진호 (2005). 수학자가 수학을 탐구하듯이 학습자도 수학을 탐구할 수 있는 방안 모색, 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 A <수학교육>, 44(1), 87-101.   과학기술학회마을
8 박미미․이동환․이경화․고은성 (2012). 유추에 의한 문제제기 활동을 통해 본 통계적 개념 이해, 대한수학교육학회지 수학교육학연구, 22(1), 101-115.   과학기술학회마을
9 박현정․이종희 (2006). 중학생들이 수학 문장제 해결 과정에서 구성하는 유사성 분석, 대한수학교육학회지 수학교육학연구, 16(2), 115-138.   과학기술학회마을
10 신은아 (2004). 귀납적 추론과 유추의 교과서 사례분석. 경북대학교 석사학위논문.
11 고상숙․김규상 (2003). 분수 학습에서 정신모델 구성을 위한 유추의 역할, 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 E <수학교육 논문집>, 15(1), 105-111.   과학기술학회마을
12 김연수 (1999). 기저유추원의 두 처리방식이 아동의 유추적 문제해결에 미치는 연령별 효과. 서울대학교 석사학위 논문.
13 양기열․이의진 (2011). 수학영재학생들의 유추를 통한 이차곡면의 탐구활동 분석, 영재교육연구, 21(2), 269-286.   과학기술학회마을   DOI
14 이경화 (2009). 영재아들의 세 유형의 유추 과제 해결, 대한수학교육학회지 수학교육학연구, 19(1), 45-61.   과학기술학회마을
15 이승우 (2001). 학교 수학에서의 유추와 은유. 서울대학교 석사학위 논문.
16 이종희․김선희 (2002). 인수분해 문제 해결과 유추, 대한수학교육학회지 <학교수학>, 4(4), 281-599.   과학기술학회마을
17 조성남․이현주․주영주․김나영 (2011). 질적연구방법과 실제. 서울: 그린.
18 조용환 (1999). 질적 연구: 방법과 사례. 서울: 교육과학사.
19 한인기․이상근 (2000). "유추"를 활용한 기하학습 자료 개발, 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 F <수학교육 학술지지>, 5, 165-174.
20 최남광․유희찬 (2009). 영재교육에서 유추를 통한 데카르트 정리의 도입가능성 고찰, 대한수학교육학회지 수학교육학연구, 19(4), 479-491.   과학기술학회마을
21 Alexander, P. A., White, C. S., & Daugherty, M. (1997). Children's use of analogical reasoning in early mathematics learning. In Lyn D. English(Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images(pp. 117-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22 Bassok, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(3), 522-533.   DOI
23 Bassok, M., Wu, L. & Olseth, K. L. (1995). Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of content on problem-solving transfer. Memory & Cognition, 23(3), 354-367.   DOI
24 Bourbaki, N. (1950). The architecture of mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 57(4), 221-232.   DOI
25 Carpenter, P. A., Just M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). When one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological review, 97, 404-431.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Chen, Z. (1995). Analogical transfer: From schematic pictures to problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 23(2), 255-269.   DOI
27 Chen, Z. (2002). Analogical problem solving: A hierarchical analysis of procedural similarity, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 81-98.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.
29 Chen, Z., Yanowitz, K. L., & Daehler, M. W. (1995). Constraints on accessing abstract source information:Instantiation of principles facilitates children's analogical transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 445-454.   DOI
30 Hunt, E. B. (1974). Quote the raven? Nevermore! In Lee W. Greg(Ed.), Knowledge and cognition(pp. 129-157). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31 Keane, M. T., & Costello, F. (2001). Setting limits on analogy: Why conceptual combinations is not structural alignment. In Dedre Gentner, Keith J. Holyoak, & Boicho N. Kokinov(Eds), The analogical mind : perspectives from cognitive science(pp. 287-312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32 Ma, L. (2002). 초등학교 수학 이렇게 가르쳐라. (신현용, 승영조 역). 서울: 승산, (원저 Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teacher's understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States는 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates에서 출판).
33 Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparison. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 431-467.
34 Markman, A. B. & Gentner, D. (1997). The effects of alignment on memory. Psychological Science, 8, 363-367.   DOI
35 Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In Stella Vosniadou & Andrew Ortony(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning(pp.179-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36 Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education(2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
37 Miles M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods(2nd ed.). Sage Publications, CA: Thousand Oaks.
38 Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and thought: An information-processing approach. New York: Wiley.
39 Novic, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 398-415.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Vol. I: Induction and analogy in mathematics. London: Oxford University Press.
41 Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and instruction, 22, 37-60.   DOI
42 Ross, B. H. & Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of Principle Explanation and Superficial Similarity on Analogical Mapping in Problem Solving. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 427-440.   DOI
43 Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press..
44 Smith, L. B. (1989). A model of perceptual classification in children and adults. Psychological Review, 96, 125-144.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Spearman, C. (1923). The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition. London: MacMillian.
46 Creswell, J. W. (2005). 질적 연구방법론: 다섯 가지 전통. (조흥식, 정선욱, 김진숙, 권지성 역). 서울: 학지사. (원저 Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions은 1998년 CA: Sage Publication에서 출판).
47 Denney, N. W. (1972). A developmental study of free classification in children. Child Development, 43, 221-232.   DOI
48 Gholson, B., Smither, D., Buhrman, A., Duncan, M. K., & Pierce, K. A. (1997). Children's development of analogical problem-solving skill. In Lyn D. English(Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images(pp. 149-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49 English, L. D. (1997). Analogies, metaphors, and images: Vehicles for mathematical reasoning. In Lyn D. English(Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images(pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50 Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
51 Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science, 7, 155-170.   DOI   ScienceOn
52 Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanism of analogical learning. In Stella Vosniadou & Andrew Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. 199-241.
53 Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52, 45-56.   DOI   ScienceOn
54 Grick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.   DOI
55 Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295-355.   DOI   ScienceOn
56 Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G.(Eds.), The cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning(pp. 117-141). New York: Cambridge University Press.
57 Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58 Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalizayion. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.   DOI
59 Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Indirect analogical mapping. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society(pp. 516-521). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60 Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466.   DOI
61 Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 332-340.   DOI   ScienceOn
62 Vygosky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63 서보억 (2009). 유추를 활용한 진법의 확장에 대한 수학탐구활동, 국제수학영재교육세미나프로시딩, 14, 39-42.
64 Pierce, K. A. & Gholson, B. (1994). Surface Similarity and Relational Similarity in the Development of Analogical Problem Solving: Isomorphic and Nonisomorphic Transfer. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 724-737.   DOI
65 Grick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.   DOI
66 Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In David S. Miall(Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives(pp. 106-132). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.