Advertisement

Investigation of Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Opinions About Problem Concept

  • Danyal SoybaşEmail author
  • Sevim Sevgi
Conference paper
  • 51 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 307)

Abstract

This study aims to not only determine the views of prospective elementary teacher about Polya’s four-step problem-solving process used in mathematics teaching, the problem concept and characteristics of nonroutine problems and their solutions, but also to investigate the level of knowledge about some important points concerning these concepts that prospective elementary teacher need to sufficiently know. The research sample consists of 43 prospective elementary teachers from an education faculty of a state university in Turkey. The data were obtained from the answers the prospective elementary teachers wrote on the working papers that include various styles (multiple choice, true–false judgments selection, and open-ended) of questions. Both quantitative and qualitative assessment tools were employed in the analysis of the data.

Keywords

Problem concept Polya’s problem-solving processes Nonroutine problems The prospective elementary teacher 

References

  1. 1.
    P.D. Artut, K. Tarım, İlköğretim öğrencilerinin rutin olmayan sözel problemleri çözme düzeylerinin çözüm stratejilerinin ve hata türlerinin incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 15(2), 39–50 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Altun, İlköğretimde problem çözme. Milli Eğitim Dergisi. Sayı 147. Sayfa 27 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Altun, İlköğretim ikinci kademede matematik öğretimi (Alfa Yayıncılık, Bursa, 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Baki, Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi (Derya Kitabevi, Trabzon, 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    İ. Bayazit, Y. Aksoy, Matematiksel problemlerin öğrenimi ve öğretimi. İlköğretimde karşılaşılan matematiksel zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri içinde (Pegem Akademi, Ankara, 2009), pp. 287–312Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    İ. Bayazit, Y. Aksoy, Matematiksel zorluklar ve çözüm önerileri (Pegem Akademi, Ankara, 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    İ. Bayazit, N. Koçyiğit, Üstün zekâlı ve normal zekâlı öğrencilerin rutin olmayan problemler konusundaki başarılarının karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 17(3), 1172–1200 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Baykul, P. Aşkar, Problem ve problem çözme, matematik öğretimi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları No: 193. Açık öğretim Fakültesi Yayınları No: 94 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Chapman, In-service teacher development in mathematical problem solving. J. Math. Teacher Educ. 2(2), 121–142 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Gelbal, Problem çözme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 6, 167–173 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Gök, İ. Sılay, Problem çözme stratejilerinin öğrenilmesinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin etkileri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, Sayı 1, Sayfa 58–76 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Işık, T. Kar, Pre-service elementary teachers’ problem posing skills. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 23, 190–214 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Kaya, Z. Kablan, The analysis of the studies on non-routine problems. Necatibey Fac. Educ. Electron. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12(1), 25–44 (2018). ISSN: 1307-6086Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y.H. Leong, J. Dindyal, T.L. Toh, K.S. Quek, E.G. Tay, S.T. Lou, Teacher education for a problem-solving curriculum in Singapore. ZDM: Int. J. Math. Educ. 43(6–7), 819–831 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Marchis, Non-routine problems in primary mathematics workbooks from Romania. Acta Didactica Napocensia 5(3), 49–56 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Olkun, Z. Toluk, İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi (Anı Yayıncılık, Ertem Matbaacılık, Ankara, 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Özsoy, Problem çözme ve üstbiliş. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Kongresi Bildirileri, Cilt-II, Ankara-Gazi Üniversitesi (Kök Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Özyıldırım Gümüş, Y. Şahiner, The effects of teaching problem solving strategies on pre-service teachers’ views about problem solving. Elem. Educ. Online 14(1), 323–332 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Polya, How to solve it? (Çev, Feryal Halatçı, New York, 1997) (1957)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Soylu, C. Soylu, Matematik derslerinde başarıya giden yolda problem çözmenin rolü. İnönü Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 7, Sayı 11, Sayfa: 97–111 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S.K. Teong, J.G. Hedberg, K.F. Ho, L.T. Lioe, Y.S.J. Tiong, K.Y. Wong, Y.P. Fang, Developing the repertoire of heuristics for mathematical problem solving: project 1. Final Technical Report for Project CRP1/04 JH (Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T.L. Toh, Q.K. Seng, K.S. Guan, L.Y. Hoong, T.P. Choon, H.F. Him, J. Dindyal, Infusing problem solving into mathematics content course for pre-service secondary school mathematics teachers. Math. Educ. 15(1), 98–120 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Xie, J.O. Masingila, Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with prospective primary teachers: a case of using fractions. Educ. Stud. Math. 96, 101–118 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9760-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Math Education Department, Faculty of EducationErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations