Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 10 May 2021

Examining the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes of Associate-Degree Vocational School Students in a CAS-Supported Environment: Limit-Continuous Sample

Elif Ertem Akbaş

Van Yuzuncu Yıl University, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.04.02.282

Pages: 312-328

Keywords: Vocational School Associate-Degree Students, CAS, SOLO, Limit-Continuity

Abstract

This study aimed to learn the learning outcomes of associate-degree students attending a Vocational School (VS) in a CAS-supported learning environment within the scope of the limit-continuity subject. The study was conducted using the action research method, and the worksheets prepared by Ertem Akbaş (2016) were used. While evaluating and interpreting the VS students’ learning outcomes, the SOLO taxonomy was preferred. The study group included 32 VS associate-degree students in Turkey. Within the framework of the research problem, detailed information was provided about what level of the SOLO taxonomy the students’ learning outcomes corresponded to. The learning outcomes of the VS students were found to be below the relational structure level according to SOLO taxonomy in the environment where the CAS software was used. Thanks to the CAS software, the quality of the pre-structure level and uni-structure level learning outcomes of VS students increased to and over the multi-structure level.

References

  1. Artigue, M. (2000). Teaching and learning calculus: What can be learnt from education research and curricular changes in France? CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 8, 1-15.

  2. Aygün, M., Durukan, S., Aydın, İ., & Diril, H. Z. (2015). Meslek yüksekokulu matematik müfredatı ile DGS soruları arasındaki korelasyon. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(3), 289-292.

  3. Aztekin, S. (2012). Determining the understandings about the limit subject in mathematics by using repertory grid technique. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 659-671.

  4. Baki, A. (1994). Breaking with tradition: A study of Turkish student teachers’ experiences within a Logo-based mathematical environment. (Doctoral dissertation). University of London, London.

  5. Baştürk, S., & Dönmez, G. (2011). Mathematics student teachers’ misconceptions on the limit and continuity concepts. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(1), 225-249.

  6. Biber, A. Ç., & Argün, Z. (2015). The relations between concept knowledge related to the limits concepts in one and two variables functions of mathematics teachers candidates. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(2), 501-515.

  7. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluation the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New Jersey: Academic Press.

  8. Camacho, M., Depool, R., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2010). Students' use of Derive software in comprehending and making sense of definite integral and area concepts. Issues in Mathematics Education, 16, 29-61.

  9. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwinngendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process schema. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167-192.

  10. Çeziktürk Kipel, Ö. (2013). Meslek yüksekokulunda limit, türev, integral konuları üzerine bir vaka araştırması. Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice, 4(7), 13-26.

  11. Dane, A., Çetin, Ö. F., Bas, F., & Sağırlı, M. Ö. (2016). A conceptual and procedural research on the hierarchical structure of mathematics emerging in the minds of university students: An example of limit-continuity-ıntegral-derivative. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 82.

  12. Davis, R. B., & Vinner, S. (1986). The notion of limit: Some seemingly unavoidable misconception stages. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5(3), 281-303.

  13. Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Panaoura, A., Zachariades, T., & Zoulinaki, F. (2009). Geometric and algebraic approaches in the concept of “limit” and the impact of the “didactic contract”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(4), 765-790.

  14. Ertem Akbaş, E. (2016). Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin bilgisayar destekli ortamda “limit-süreklilik” konusundaki öğrenmelerinin SOLO taksonomisine göre değerlendirilmesi (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.

  15. Ertem Akbaş, E. (2019). The impact of EBA (Educational Informatics Network) assisted mathematics teaching in 5th grade fractions on students’ achievements. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(13), 120-145.

  16. Hazzan, O., & Goldenberg, E. P. (1997). Students' understanding of the notion of function in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(3), 263-291.

  17. Hutkemri, E. Z. (2014). Impact of using GeoGebra on students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of limit function. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 873.

  18. İlhan, A., & Aslaner, R. (2020). Cabri ve GeoGebra yazılımları kullanımının, matematik öğretmen adaylarının geometrik şekiller üzerine akıl yürütme becerisine etkisi. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(16), 386-403.

  19. Johnson, A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research(2nd edition). Boston: Pearson Education.

  20. Juter, K. (2006). Students’ attitudes to mathematics and performance in limits of functions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 91-110.

  21. Kabaca, T., & Musan, M. S. (2014). The effect of dynamic mathematics learning environment on the SOLO understanding levels for equations and ınequalities of 8th graders. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(26), 195-207.

  22. Karadeniz, M. H., & Kelleci, D. (2015). Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin matematik dersine ilişkin tutumlarının başarıya etkisi. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(14), 1-16.

  23. Karakuş, C. (2013). Meslek yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin yaşam boyu öğrenme yeterlikleri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 26-35.

  24. Laborde, C. (2001). Intergration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283-317.

  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

  26. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research a guide for the teacher researcher. (2nd. edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

  27. Mooney, E. S. (2002). A framework for characterizing middle school students' statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(1), 23-63.

  28. Oktaviyanthi, R., & Dahlan, J. A. (2018). Developing guided worksheet for cognitive apprenticeship approach in teaching formal definition of the limit of a function. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 335, 1-5.

  29. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, USA: Basic Books, Inc.

  30. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. London: Sage Publication.

  31. Philips, K. D., & Carr, K. (2009). Dilemmas of trustworthiness in preservice teacher action research. Action Research, 7(2), 207-226.

  32. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. C. (2002). Algebraic insight: The algebra needed to use computer algebra systems. The Mathematics Teacher, 95(8), 622-627.

  33. Powers, R., & Blubaugh, W. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Preparing teachers for the future. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3), 254-270.

  34. Przenioslo, M. (2004). Images of the limit of function formed in the course of mathematical studies at the university. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 103-132.

  35. Renshaw, C. E., & Taylor, H. A. (2000). The educational effectiveness of computer-based instruction. Computers & Geosciences, 26(6), 677-682.

  36. Sevimli, E., & Delice, A. (2015). Can technology-assisted instruction improve theoretical awareness? The case of fundamental theorem of calculus. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 68-92.

  37. Sierpińska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(4), 371-397.

  38. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  39. Swinyard, C., & Larsen, S. (2012). Coming to understand the formal definition of limit: Insights gained from engaging students in reinvention. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 465-493.

  40. Szydlik. J. (2000). Mathematics beliefs and conceptual understanding of limit of function. Journal Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 258-276.

  41. Tabuk, M. (2019). Lisansüstü tezlerde bilgisayar destekli matematik öğretimi uygulamaları: Meta-sentez çalışması. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 12(2), 656-677.

  42. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.

  43. Turan, S. B., & Erdoğan, A. (2017). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının “süreklilik” ile ilgili kavramsal yapıları. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 6(1), 397-410.

  44. Vallecillos, A., & Moreno, A. (2002). Framework for instruction and assessment on elementary inferential statistics thinking. Teaching of Mathematics,7, 1-6.

  45. Wiest, L. R. (2001). The role of computers in mathematics teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 17(1-2), 41-55.

  46. Winarso, W., & Toheri, T. (2017). A case study of misconceptions students in the learning of mathematics: The concept limit function in high school. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(1), 120-127.

  47. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Genişletilmiş 9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

  48. Yıldız, Z., & Aktaş, M. (2015). The effect of computer assisted instruction on achievement and attitude of primary school students. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 97-109.

  49. Yorgancı, S. (2019). Bilgisayar destekli soyut cebir öğretiminin başarıya ve matematiğe karşı tutuma etkisi: ISETL Örneği. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(1), 260-289.