MATHEMATICAL ACTIVITY DESIGNS CONDUCTED WITH E-PORTFOLIO BY SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF REALISTIC MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

Autor/innen

  • Elif Bahadır Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey
  • Eda Nur Güner Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejae.v6i2.3777

Schlagwörter:

design thinking, e-portfolio, mathematical thinking, realistic mathematics education, real life math questions

Abstract

Design thinking skill is perhaps the most directly related thinking skill of mathematical thinking skill, because design thinking contains a strong problem-solving process in itself. In this study, it was aimed to provide students to avoid thinking about mathematics only procedurally or instrumentally and to introduce them to mathematical studying methods and mental habits. Therefore, tasks were chosen that would encourage students to think and design using real-life mathematical elements and thus encourage effective mathematical thinking. According to Freudenthal, the theorist of the Realistic Mathematics Education, mathematics should be related to the social life of students, close to their experiences, relevant to the society they live in, and compatible with human values. The research is designed as “action research” which is one of the qualitative research methods. Participants were selected using the convenience sampling method. Edmodo software was used as an electronic portfolio. Activities were prepared within the framework of RME approach. The responses are given by the students to those activities distributed when examined under 5 main headings: designing products, expressing the mathematical opinions clearly, using the mathematical knowledge, the research skills and the originality. These criteria generated after taking an expert opinion, subjected to qualitative analysis and interpreted. Consequently, it can be concluded that the educational process which is carried out with design-based activities provides learning, and is relevant to daily life, is interesting and is motivating. The integration of face-to-face teaching with technology and online approaches also help teachers manage design-based activities in a more effective way.

Autor/innen-Biografien

  • Elif Bahadır, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Yıldız Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey
    Elif Bahadır is an associate professor at Yildiz Technical University, in faculty of education, department of mathematics and science education. She conducts research in the fields of mathematics education, teacher education, mathematics literacy, realistic mathematics education. orcid.org/0000-0002-1154-5853
  • Eda Nur Güner, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey
    Eda Nur Güner is a research assistant at Medipol University. She is a PhD Student in Mathematics Teaching at Marmara University. Graduated from Boğazici University in 2015. She conducts research in the fields of realistic mathematics education, STEM education, mathematical modeling. orcid.org/0000-0002-5456-6304

Literaturhinweise

Altan, E. B., & Karahan, E., 2019. Tasarım temelli fen eğitimine yönelik öğrenci ve öğretmen değerlendirmeleri. Elementary Education Online, 18(3). (Student and teacher evaluations on designbased science education. Elementary Education Online, 18 (3).)

Anwar, L., Budayasa, I. K., Amin, S. M., ve de Haan, D., 2012. Eliciting mathematical thinking of students through realistic mathematics education. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 3(1), 55-70.

Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D., 1998. Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.

Boesen, J., J. Lithner, and T. Palm., 2010. The relation between types of assessment tasks and the mathematical reasoning students use. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 75: 89–105.

Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C., 2008. Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.

Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez‐Bryant, N., 2006. The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301-309.

Dillon, P., & Howe, T., 2007. An epistemology of presence and reconceptualization in design education. Interchange, 38(1), 69.

Ellis, J., Hanson, K., Nuñez, G., & Rasmussen, C., 2015. Beyond plug and chug: An analysis of Calculus I homework. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(2), 268-287.

Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R., 2005. Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.

Freudenthal, H., 1968. Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1-2), 3-8.

Gokuladas, V. K., 2020. Influence of demotivators on acceptance of technology: challenges of expatriate schoolteachers while imparting online teaching. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8).

Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M., 1999. Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational studies in mathematics, 39(1), 111-129.

Gülhan, F., & Şahin, F., 2016. The effects of science-technology-engineering-math (STEM) integration on 5th grade students’ perceptions and attitudes towards these areas. (Fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik entegrasyonunun (STEM) 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bu alanlarla ilgili algı ve tutumlarına etkisi.) Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 602-620.

Hough, S., & Gough, S., 2007. Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Micromath, 203, 34-38.

Kolodner, J. L., 2002. Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.

Mac an Bhaird, C., Nolan, B. C., O’Shea, A., & Pfeiffer, K., 2017. A study of creative reasoning opportunities in assessments in undergraduate calculus courses. Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 147-162.

Roberts, D. A. (1995). Junior high school science transformed: Analysing a science curriculum policy change. International Journal of Science Education, 17(4), 493-504.

Sangwin, C. J., 2003. New opportunities for encouraging higher level mathematical learning by creative use of emerging computer aided assessment. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(6), 813-829.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M., 1996. Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.

Stemn, B. S., 2017. Rethinking Mathematics Teaching in Liberia: Realistic Mathematics Education. Childhood Education, 93(5), 388-393.

Swan, M., 2008. Designing a multiple representation learning experience in secondary algebra. Educational Designer, 1(1), 1-17.

Treffers, A., 1993. Wiskobas and Freudenthal realistic mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25(1), 89-108.

Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., 2003. The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9-35.

Van Putten, C. M., Van den Brom-Snijders, P. A., & Beishuizen, M., 2005. Progressive mathematization of long division strategies in Dutch primary schools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(1), 44-73.

Downloads

Veröffentlicht

2021-06-07

Ausgabe

Bd. 6 Nr. 2 (2021)

Rubrik

Articles

Lizenz

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).