• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.158-170
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to understand the characteristics of Aristotle's view of nature that is, the static view of the universe, and find implications for education. Plato sought to interpret the natural world using a rational approach rather than an incomplete observation, in terms of from the perspective of geometry and mathematical regularity, as the best way to understand the world. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that we could understand the world by observing what we see. This world is a static worldview full of the purpose of the individual with a sense of purposive legitimacy. In addition, the natural motion of earthly objects and celestial bodies, which are natural movements towards the world of order, are the original actions. Aristotle thought that, given the opportunity, all natural things would carry out some movement, that is, their natural movement. Above all, the world that Plato and Aristotle built is a static universe. It is possible to fully grasp the world by approaching the objective nature that exists independently of human being with human reason and observation. After all, for Aristotle, like Plato, their belief that the natural world was subject to regular and orderly laws of nature, despite the complexity of what seemed to be an embarrassingly continual change, became the basis of Western thought. Since the universe, the metaphysical perspective of ancient Greece and modern philosophy, relies on the development of a dichotomy of understanding (cutting branches) into what has already been completed or planned, ideal and inevitable, so it is the basis of traditional teaching-learning that does not value learner's opinions.

• Education of Primary School Mathematics
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.123-145
• /
• 2013

This study was expected to yield the meaningful conclusions from the experimental group who took lessons based on inductive activities using GeoGebra at the beginning of proof learning and the comparison one who took traditional expository lessons based on deductive activities. The purpose of this study is to give some helpful suggestions for teaching proof to mathematically gifted elementary students. To attain the purpose, two research questions are established as follows. 1. Is there a significant difference in proof abilities between the experimental group who took inductive lessons using GeoGebra and comparison one who took traditional expository lessons? 2. Is there a significant difference in proof attitudes between the experimental group who took inductive lessons using GeoGebra and comparison one who took traditional expository lessons? To solve the above two research questions, they were divided into two groups, an experimental group of 10 students and a comparison group of 10 students, considering the results of gift and aptitude test, and the computer literacy among 20 elementary students that took lessons at some education institute for the gifted students located in K province after being selected in the mathematics. Special lesson based on the researcher's own lesson plan was treated to the experimental group while explanation-centered class based on the usual 8th grader's textbook was put into the comparison one. Four kinds of tests were used such as previous proof ability test, previous proof attitude test, subsequent proof ability test, and subsequent proof attitude test. One questionnaire survey was used only for experimental group. In the case of attitude toward proof test, the score of questions was calculated by 5-point Likert scale, and in the case of proof ability test was calculated by proper rating standard. The analysis of materials were performed with t-test using the SPSS V.18 statistical program. The following results have been drawn. First, experimental group who took proof lessons of inductive activities using GeoGebra as precedent activity before proving had better achievement in proof ability than the comparison group who took traditional proof lessons. Second, experimental group who took proof lessons of inductive activities using GeoGebra as precedent activity before proving had better achievement in the belief and attitude toward proof than the comparison group who took traditional proof lessons. Third, the survey about 'the effect of inductive activities using GeoGebra on the proof' shows that 100% of the students said that the activities were helpful for proof learning and that 60% of the reasons were 'because GeoGebra can help verify processes visually'. That means it gives positive effects on proof learning that students research constant character and make proposition by themselves justifying assumption and conclusion by changing figures through the function of estimation and drag in investigative software GeoGebra. In conclusion, this study may provide helpful suggestions in improving geometry education, through leading students to learn positive and active proof, connecting the learning processes such as induction based on activity using GeoGebra, simple deduction from induction(i.e. creating a proposition to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions), and formal deduction(i.e. proving).