Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi

Year 2016, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 7 - 27, 30.11.2016

Abstract

Öğretim deneyi çalışmaları, nitel araştırma yöntemleri içerisinde ayrı bir sınıfta yer almakta ve 2000’li yıllardan itibaren matematik eğitimi araştırmalarında gün geçtikçe daha çok kullanılmaktadır. Öğretim deneyi yöntemi araştırmacıların öğrencilerin zihinsel süreçlerine dahil olmalarını sağladığı için kullanışlı ve yararlıdır. Bu araştırmada, bir matematik eğitimi doktora çalışması kapsamında öğretim deneyi yöntemine ilişkin araştırmacıların deneyimlerinin paylaşılması amaçlanmıştır. Öncelikle araştırma kapsamında öğretim deneyi yönteminin özellikleri, bileşenleri ve matematik eğitimi araştırmaları açısından önemi konuları ele alınmıştır. Daha sonra öğretim deneyi sürecinin başından sonuna kadar araştırmacıların doğal ortamda okul yöneticileri, öğretmenler, öğrenciler ve veliler ile olan etkileşimi ile birlikte öğretim deneyi sürecinde öğrencilerin ön yargıları ve duyuşsal deneyimlerine yer verilmiştir. Son olarak araştırmacılar öğretim deneyi sürecinde deneyimlerinden yola çıkılarak bazı çıkarımlar ve öneriler yapmışlardır. Bu nedenle bu araştırmadaki araştırmacıların öğretim deneyi sürecindeki deneyimlerinin, öğretim deneyi yöntemini kullanarak çalışma yapacak matematik eğitimi araştırmacılarına ortaokul öğrencilerini tanımada, öğretim deneyi sürecini başından sonuna kadar etkili bir şekilde yönetmede ve beklenmeyen durumlara karşı önlem almada yararlı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

References

  • Ballamingie, P., ve Johnson, S. (2011). The vulnerable researcher: Some unanticipated challenges of doctoral fieldwork. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 711-729.
  • Czarnocha, B. (2008). Handbook of mathematics teaching-research: Teaching experiment- a tool for teacher-researchers. University of Rzeszow.
  • Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundation and model viability. In A. E. Kelly ve R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cobb, P. ve Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83-94.
  • Daymon, C. ve Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge.
  • Doiron, R. ve Asselin, M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas for researchers working in international contexts. School Libraries Worldwide, 21(2), 1-10.
  • Engelhardt, P. V., Corpuz, E. G., Ozimek D. J. ve Rebello, N. S. (2004). The teaching Experiment –What it is and what it isn’t? Proceedings of Physics Education Conference-AIP Conference (pp. 157-160). Madison, WI.
  • Fraenkel, J. R. ve Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Glesne, C. ve Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers an introduction. London: Longman Group Ltd.
  • Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structures, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly ve R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kabael, T. Ve Akın, A. (2016b). Investigating pre-service middle school mathematics teachers’ quantitative reasoning and their support for students’ quantitative reasoning in the problem solving process. In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A. and Szitányi, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 305). Szeged, Hungary: PME.
  • Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
  • Knuth, E. ve Elliott, R. (1997). Preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ interpretations of mathematical proof. In J. Dossey, J. Swafford, M. Parmantie, ve A. Dossey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 545–551). Bloomington, IL.
  • Lempp, H. ve Kingsley, G. (2007). Qualitative assessments. Best Practice and Research Clinical Rheumatology, 21(5), 857-869.
  • Mayall, B. (2002). Towards sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Open University Press, Buckingham. Mayer, R. E.,
  • Lewis, A. B. ve Hegarty, M. (1992). Mathematical misunderstandings: Qualitative reasoning about quantitative problems. Advances in psychology, 91, 137-153.
  • Moore, K. C. (2011). Relationships between quantitative reasoning and students’ problem solving behaviours. In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle ve M. Oehtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 298-313). Portland, OR: Portland State University.
  • Roberts, P. ve Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
  • Smith, J. ve Thompson, P. (2008). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. Kaput ve D. Carraher (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95-132). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Implication and illustrations. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (s. 177-194). Dordercht, Hollanda: Kluver.
  • Steffe, L.P. ve Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh ve A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Steffe, L.P., Thompson, P.W. ve Glasersfeld, V. E. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A.E. Kelly ve R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Şimşek, H. ve Yıldırım, A. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Thompson, P. W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational studies in Mathematics, 25(3), 165-208.
  • Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In L. L. Hatfield, S. Chamberlain ve S. Belbase (Eds.), New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education. WISDOMe Mongraphs (Vol. 1, pp. 33-57). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
Year 2016, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 7 - 27, 30.11.2016

Abstract

References

  • Ballamingie, P., ve Johnson, S. (2011). The vulnerable researcher: Some unanticipated challenges of doctoral fieldwork. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 711-729.
  • Czarnocha, B. (2008). Handbook of mathematics teaching-research: Teaching experiment- a tool for teacher-researchers. University of Rzeszow.
  • Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundation and model viability. In A. E. Kelly ve R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cobb, P. ve Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83-94.
  • Daymon, C. ve Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge.
  • Doiron, R. ve Asselin, M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas for researchers working in international contexts. School Libraries Worldwide, 21(2), 1-10.
  • Engelhardt, P. V., Corpuz, E. G., Ozimek D. J. ve Rebello, N. S. (2004). The teaching Experiment –What it is and what it isn’t? Proceedings of Physics Education Conference-AIP Conference (pp. 157-160). Madison, WI.
  • Fraenkel, J. R. ve Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Glesne, C. ve Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers an introduction. London: Longman Group Ltd.
  • Goldin, G. (2000). A scientific perspective on structures, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly ve R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Kabael, T. Ve Akın, A. (2016b). Investigating pre-service middle school mathematics teachers’ quantitative reasoning and their support for students’ quantitative reasoning in the problem solving process. In Csíkos, C., Rausch, A. and Szitányi, J. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 305). Szeged, Hungary: PME.
  • Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
  • Knuth, E. ve Elliott, R. (1997). Preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ interpretations of mathematical proof. In J. Dossey, J. Swafford, M. Parmantie, ve A. Dossey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 545–551). Bloomington, IL.
  • Lempp, H. ve Kingsley, G. (2007). Qualitative assessments. Best Practice and Research Clinical Rheumatology, 21(5), 857-869.
  • Mayall, B. (2002). Towards sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Open University Press, Buckingham. Mayer, R. E.,
  • Lewis, A. B. ve Hegarty, M. (1992). Mathematical misunderstandings: Qualitative reasoning about quantitative problems. Advances in psychology, 91, 137-153.
  • Moore, K. C. (2011). Relationships between quantitative reasoning and students’ problem solving behaviours. In S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle ve M. Oehtman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 298-313). Portland, OR: Portland State University.
  • Roberts, P. ve Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
  • Smith, J. ve Thompson, P. (2008). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. Kaput ve D. Carraher (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95-132). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Implication and illustrations. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (s. 177-194). Dordercht, Hollanda: Kluver.
  • Steffe, L.P. ve Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh ve A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Steffe, L.P., Thompson, P.W. ve Glasersfeld, V. E. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A.E. Kelly ve R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Şimşek, H. ve Yıldırım, A. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Thompson, P. W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational studies in Mathematics, 25(3), 165-208.
  • Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In L. L. Hatfield, S. Chamberlain ve S. Belbase (Eds.), New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education. WISDOMe Mongraphs (Vol. 1, pp. 33-57). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ayça Akın

Tangül Kabael

Publication Date November 30, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Volume: 4 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Akın, A., & Kabael, T. (2016). Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(3), 7-27.
AMA Akın A, Kabael T. Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. November 2016;4(3):7-27.
Chicago Akın, Ayça, and Tangül Kabael. “Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 4, no. 3 (November 2016): 7-27.
EndNote Akın A, Kabael T (November 1, 2016) Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 4 3 7–27.
IEEE A. Akın and T. Kabael, “Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi”, Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 7–27, 2016.
ISNAD Akın, Ayça - Kabael, Tangül. “Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 4/3 (November 2016), 7-27.
JAMA Akın A, Kabael T. Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2016;4:7–27.
MLA Akın, Ayça and Tangül Kabael. “Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, vol. 4, no. 3, 2016, pp. 7-27.
Vancouver Akın A, Kabael T. Bir Matematik Egitimi Arastirmasina Dayali Ögretim Deneyi Deneyimi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2016;4(3):7-27.