فصلنامه علمی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده علوم پایه، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی،تهران،ایران

2 دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی،تهران،ایران

3 گروه ریاضی ،سقز،کردستان،ایران

10.22061/tej.2010.314

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزیابی دانش معلمان و دانشجویان ریاضی برای تدریس هندسه دبیرستان با استفاده از نظریه­ ون هیلی و با شرکت 12 نفر از معلمان شاغل به تحصیل در مقطع کارشناسی ارشد آموزش ریاضی و 38 نفر از دانشجویان سال آخرکارشناسی دبیری ریاضی انجام گرفت. روش تحقیقی پژوهش، علّی- مقایسه­ای می­باشد. محققین جهت ارزیابی دانش شرکت کنندگان در درس هندسه، آزمون هندسی ون­هیلی را به­کار گرفتند و به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات، از آزمون t استیودنت تک نمونه ای با 01/  α = استفاده کردند. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که شرکت کنندگان پژوهش از سطح سوم ون هیلی (استنتاج غیر رسمی) عبور کرده­اند، ولی به سطح چهارم (استنتاج رسمی) نرسیده­اند. به روشنی واضح است که این نتایج، سطح چهارم ون هیلی، یعنی سطح  مورد انتظار معلمان و دانشجویان دبیری ریاضی را نشان نمی­دهد. بنابراین درس­های جاری هندسه در برنامه دوره کارشناسی دبیری ریاضی، صلاحیت دانشی کافی را برای تدریس هندسه دبیرستان به دانشجویان دبیری ریاضی ارائه نمی­دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing mathematics teachers’ knowledge of geometry based on Van Hiele Model of Geometric Thought

نویسندگان [English]

  • E. Reyhani 1
  • S.M. Emam jome 2
  • B. Saleh Sedghpour 2
  • A. Moradi 3

1 Faculty of Sciences, Shahid Rajaei Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Humanities, Shahid Rajaei Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

3 Mathematics Department,Saqqez,Kurdestan,Iran

چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study is to assess the mathematics teachers’ knowledge of geometry based on Van Hiele Model of Geometric Thought. 38 pre-service and 12 in-service mathematics teachers participated in this study. In this research, a test was devised according to Van Hiele Model. T-test with  was deployed in order to analyze data. The research method is causal-comparative method. Finding show that the participants have passed through third level of thinking but have not achieved fourth level of thinking. While researches indicate that teachers should at least acquire the fourth level of thinking. Hence the geometric course in the current program for preparing mathematics teachers, have not offered sufficient professional knowledge for pre-service and in-service mathematics teachers.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Mathematics Teachers’ knowledge
  • Preservice Teachers
  • Van Hiele
  • Geometric Thought

[1] Usiskin Z., What should not be in the algebra and geometry curricula of average college bound students? The Mathematics Teacher, Vol.100, 1980, pp.68-77. [2] Brown C.A. and Baird J., Inside the teacher: Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes, In P.S. Wilson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics, New York: Macmillan, 1993, pp. 245–259. [3] Chinnappan M. and Lawson M.J., A Framework for analysis of teachers geometric content knowledge and geometric knowledge for teaching, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, DOI10.1007/s10857-005-0852- 6,Vol.8, 2005, pp.197–221. [4] Kovarik K., Mathematics educators' and teachers' perceptions of pedagogical content knowledge, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 2008. [5] Turnuklu E. and Yesildere S., the Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Mathematics: Preserves Primary Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives in Turkey, IUMPST: The Journal, Vol.1 (Content Knowledge), 2007. [6] Niess M.L, Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.21, 2005, pp. 509-523. [7] Swafford J.O., Jones G.A. and Thornton C.A., Increased Knowledge in Geometry and Instructional Practice, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol.28, No.4, 1997, pp. 467-483. [8] Conference Board for the Mathematical Sciences, Mathematical Education of Teachers Project, Washington D.C., CBMS, 2000. [9] Grover B.W. and Connor J., Characteristics of the College Geometry Course for Preserves Secondary Teachers, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands, Vol.3, 1999, pp.47–67 [10] Niss M., Teacher Qualification and the Education of Teacher, In Mammana C. and Villani V. (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century, and An ICMI study Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. [11] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: NCTM, 2000. ارزیابی دانش معلمان و دانشجویان ریاضی ... نشریه علمی پژوهشی فناوری آموزش، سال پنجم، جلد 5 ،شماره 2 ،زمستان 9831 955 [12] Duatepe A. and Ersoy Y., Effects of Using Calculators (TI-92) on Learning Transformational Geometry, Second International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics (at the undergraduate level), 2002. [13] Jones K., Research on the Use of Dynamic Software: Implications for the Classroom, Integrating ICT into the Mathematics Classroom, Derby: Association of Teachers of Mathematics, 2005, pp. 27-29. [14] Jasso J., Training with Cabri Geometre, University of Perugia, Italy, 2003. [15] Wu H., What Is So Difficult About the Preparation of Mathematics Teachers? http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/pspd3d.pdf, 2002. ]61 ]ریحانی ابراهیم، معرفی نظریه پیاژه و نظریه فن هیلی- فنهیلی در مورد یادگیری هندسه، رشد آموزش ریاضی، سازمان پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، شماره .22 الی 92 صفحههای، 1334 ،22 دوره، 31 [17] Mason M., The van Hiele Levels of Geometric Understanding, Professional Handbook for Teachers, Geometry Explorations and Applications, 2002, pp.4-8. [18] Halat E., In-Service Middle and High School Mathematics Teachers: Geometric Reasoning Stages and Gender, The Mathematics Educator, Vol.18, No.1, 2008, pp.8–14. [19] Burger W. and Shaughnessy J.M., Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol.17, 1986,pp.31- 48. [20] Cabral B., The Van Hiele’s Model and Cognitive Visualization in Learning Geometry at Secondary School, Unpublished Masters of Arts in Teaching Thesis, The University of Texas at Elpasco, 2004. [21] Fuys D., Geddes D., Lovett C.J. and Tischler R., The Van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education [monograph number 3], Reston, VA: NCTM, 1988. [22] Holmes E.E., New directions in elementary school maths: Interactive teaching and learning, ublisher unknown, 1995. [23] Mayberry J., An investigation of the van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teacher’s unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 1981. [24] Knight K.C., An investigation into the change in the van hiele level of understanding geometry of preserves elementary and secondary mathematics teachers, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Main, 2006.