• Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.47-70
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this research was to confirm one of constructivists' assumptions that even children 조o are with low reasoning ability can make reflective abstracting ability and cognitive structures by this ability can make generation ability of new knowledge by themselves. To investigate the assumption, learner-centered instruction were implemented to 2nd grade classroom located in Suseong Gu, DaeGu City and with lesson plans which initially were developed by Burns and corrected by the researchers. Recordings videoed using 2 video cameras, observations, instructions, children's activity worksheets, instruction journals were analyzed using multiple tests for qualitative analysis. Some conclusions are drawn from the results. First, even children with low reasoning ability can construct mathematical knowledge on multiplication in their own. ways, Thus, teachers should not compel them to learn a learning lesson's goals which is demanded in traditional instruction, with having belief they have reasoning ability. Second, teachers need to have the perspectives of respects out of each child in their classroom and provide some materials which can provoke children's cognitive conflict and promote thinking with the recognition of effectiveness of learner-centered instruction. Third, students try to develop their ability of reflective and therefore establish cognitive structures such as webs, not isolated and fragmental ones.

• Communications of Mathematical Education
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.235-257
• /
• 2010

Contemporary belief is that the creative talented can create new knowledge and lead national development, so lots of countries in the world have interest in Gifted Education. As we well know, U.S.A., England, Russia, Germany, Australia, Israel, and Singapore enforce related laws in Gifted Education to offer Gifted Classes, and our government has also created an Improvement Act in January, 2000 and Enforcement Ordinance for Gifted Improvement Act was also announced in April, 2002. Through this initiation Gifted Education can be possible. Enforcement Ordinance was revised in October, 2008. The main purpose of this revision was to expand the opportunity of Gifted Education to students with special education needs. One of these programs is, the opportunity of Gifted Education to be offered to lots of the Gifted by establishing Special Classes at each school. Also, it is important that the quality of Gifted Education should be combined with the expansion of opportunity for the Gifted. Social opinion is that it will be reckless only to expand the opportunity for the Gifted Education, therefore, assessment on the Teaching and Learning Program for the Gifted is indispensible. In this study, 3 middle schools were selected for the Teaching and Learning Programs in mathematics. Each 1st Grade was reviewed and analyzed through comparative tables between Regular and Gifted Education Programs. Also reviewed was the content of what should be taught, and programs were evaluated on assessment standards which were revised and modified from the present teaching and learning programs in mathematics. Below, research issues were set up to assess the formation of content areas and appropriateness for Teaching and Learning Programs for the Gifted in mathematics. A. Is the formation of special class content areas complying with the 7th national curriculum? 1. Which content areas of regular curriculum is applied in this program? 2. Among Enrichment and Selection in Curriculum for the Gifted, which one is applied in this programs? 3. Are the content areas organized and performed properly? B. Are the Programs for the Gifted appropriate? 1. Are the Educational goals of the Programs aligned with that of Gifted Education in mathematics? 2. Does the content of each program reflect characteristics of mathematical Gifted students and express their mathematical talents? 3. Are Teaching and Learning models and methods diverse enough to express their talents? 4. Can the assessment on each program reflect the Learning goals and content, and enhance Gifted students' thinking ability? The conclusions are as follows: First, the best contents to be taught to the mathematical Gifted were found to be the Numeration, Arithmetic, Geometry, Measurement, Probability, Statistics, Letter and Expression. Also, Enrichment area and Selection area within the curriculum for the Gifted were offered in many ways so that their Giftedness could be fully enhanced. Second, the educational goals of Teaching and Learning Programs for the mathematical Gifted students were in accordance with the directions of mathematical education and philosophy. Also, it reflected that their research ability was successful in reaching the educational goals of improving creativity, thinking ability, problem-solving ability, all of which are required in the set curriculum. In order to accomplish the goals, visualization, symbolization, phasing and exploring strategies were used effectively. Many different of lecturing types, cooperative learning, discovery learning were applied to accomplish the Teaching and Learning model goals. For Teaching and Learning activities, various strategies and models were used to express the students' talents. These activities included experiments, exploration, application, estimation, guess, discussion (conjecture and refutation) reconsideration and so on. There were no mention to the students about evaluation and paper exams. While the program activities were being performed, educational goals and assessment methods were reflected, that is, products, performance assessment, and portfolio were mainly used rather than just paper assessment.

• 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).