Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Zakaria, Effandi
- The Effect of Geogebra on Students'conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Function
Abstract Views :602 |
PDF Views:138
Authors
Hutkemri
1,
Effandi Zakaria
2
Affiliations
1 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, MY
2 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi & Institute of Space Science, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, MY
1 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, MY
2 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi & Institute of Space Science, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, MY
Source
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 5, No 12 (2012), Pagination: 3802-3808Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the conceptual and procedural knowledge on the topic of function based on types of group and gender. This research involved 284 students from two upper-secondary schools in Rokan Hulu, Riau, Indonesia. Among these students, 138 were placed in the experimental group (use of GeoGebra software) while the remaining 146 students were in the control group. Data were collected using the conceptual and procedural test on the topic of function. T-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and two-way ANOVA, were employed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 19.0). The findings of the study showed that there were significant differences in the conceptual and procedural knowledge of students based on the type of group. However, there was no significant difference in students' conceptual and procedural knowledge based on their gender. The findings of the study give implications to the use of GeoGebra in learning mathematics. More support is needed to promote the use of GeoGebra in Indonesia.Keywords
Conceptual Knowledge, Procedural Knowledge, Function, Gender, GeoGebraFull Text
References
- Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, Tengku Mohd Tengku Sembok & Wong Su Luan. (2009). The use of computer in teaching and learning of Mathematical calculus among diploma students: Evaluation on the TEMACC package. University Putra Malaysia.
- Antohe, V. (2009). Limits of Educational Soft “GeoGebra” in a Critical Constructive Review. Annals. Computer Science Series. 7th Tome 1st Fasc. Anale. Seria Informatica. Vol. VII :1 – 2009.
- Azlina Mohd Kosnin & Suhaila Abdullah. (2008). Effects of teaching methods aided by Geometer’s Sketchpad on student achievement in transformation topic. National Science and Mathematics Education Conference. October 11-12, Association of Science and Mathematics Education.
- Bell, C.J. (2001). Conceptual understanding of function in a multi-representational learningenvironment. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
- Carbo, M. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students trough their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades. New York: Springler Verlog.
- Furner, J.M., & Marinas, C.A. (2007). Geometry Sketching Software for Elementary Children: Easy as 1,2,3. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1): 83-91.
- Haclomeroglu, E.S., Bu, L., Schoen, R.C., & Hohenwarter, M. (2009). Learning to Develop Mathematics Lessons with GeoGebra. MSOR Connections Vol 9 No 2 May – July 2009.
- Hiebert, J. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Hibert, J & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analyis. In J. Hibert (Ed), Conceptual and procedural knowledge; The case of mathematics (pp.1-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Jensen, T.A., (2009). A study of the relationship between introductory calculus students’ understanding of function and their understanding of limit. Doctoral Dissertation. Montana State University.
- Johnson, B., & Christensen, L.(2000). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Company.
- Karno To. (1996). Getting to know the test analysis. (An introduction to ANATES computer program). Bandung: Education and Guidance Psychology Course FIP IKIP.
- Lim, C.H. (2007). Educational Research: Quantitative and Qualitative approach. Kuala Lumpur: McGraw Hilll Education.
- Mullis, I.V.S, Martin, M.O., & Foy, P. (2007). Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eight Grades. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS & PIRLS: International Study Center Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
- Oldknow, A., & Taylor, R. (2000). Teaching Mathematics with ICT. London: Continuum.
- Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS Third Edition. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
- Rincon, Luis F. (2009). Designing Dynamic and Interactive Applications Using Geogebra Software. Kean University. ERIC Full text and Thesis. [8 October 2009].
- Sekaran, Uma. (1992). Research Methods For Business: A Skill-Building Approach 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
- Slameto. (2003). Learning and the factors affecting it. Jakarta. Rhineka Cipta.
- Stojanovska, L.F., & Stojanovski, V. (2009). GeoGebra-Freedom to explore and learn. Teaching Mathematics and its Application. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
- Tall, D. (2003). Using Technology to Support an Embodied Approach to Learning Concepts in Mathematics. In L.M. Carvalho and L.C. Guimarães História e Tecnologia no Ensino da Matemática, vol. 1, pp. 1-28, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2003a-rio-plenary.pdf
- Tall, D., & Ramos, M. J. P. (2004). Reflecting on post-calculus-reform. University of Warwick CV4 7AL, UK http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot 2004b - tall -meija-icme.pdf
- Teachy, A.L. (2003). Investigation in conceptual understanding of polynomial function and the impact of mathematical beliefs systems on achievement in an accelerated summer program for gifted students. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina.
- Teguh Wahyono. (2004). Read the results analysis with SPSS. Computer training with Biology Faculty. UKS
- Wiersma, W. (2000). Research Method in education: an introduction. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
- Enhancing Students' Level of Geometric Thinking through Van Hiele's Phase-based Learning
Abstract Views :606 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Sciences and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, MY
2 Department of Educational Methodology and Practice, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, MY
1 Department of Sciences and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, MY
2 Department of Educational Methodology and Practice, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, MY
Source
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 6, No 5 (2013), Pagination: 4432-4446Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of Van Hiele's phase-based learning on students' levels of geometric thinking. Quasi-experimental design was used in this study. The six-week study was conducted in a secondary school involving 94 students and two teachers. The students were divided into two groups, with 47 in a control group and the other 47 in a treatment group. Van Hiele's Geometry Test (VHGT) was given to both groups before and after the treatment. Ten students were randomly selected to further determine their initial and final levels of geometric thinking. Wilcoxon-t tests were conducted to test the developed hypotheses. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the initial levels of geometric thinking in both groups. However, the analysis showed significant difference between the final levels of geometric thinking in both groups. Furthermore, qualitative analysis revealed that, in initial levels of geometric thinking, the majority of students in both groups obtained the first Van Hiele levels with complete acquisition, a low acquisition of level two and no acquisition of level three. In the post interview, most of the students in the control group showed an increment of geometric thinking from level one to level two, but no one in this group achieved level three. In contrast, all the students in the treatment group showed a complete acquisition of Van Hiele level one and almost all of them indicated a complete acquisition of level two. As for level three, only one student did not achieve this level, whereas the rest showed a complete and high level of acquisition. This demonstrates that Van Hiele's phase-based learning can be applied in classrooms in order to help students achieve better level of geometric thinking.Keywords
Van Hiele's Phase-based Learning, Students' Levels of Geometric Thinking, Van Hiele Model, Learning GeometryFull Text
References
- Atebe H U (2008). Students’ Van Hiele levels of geometric thought and conception in plane geometry: a collective case study of Nigeria and South Africa. Rhodes University, vol 1, 1-346.
- Battista M T (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment, Teaching Children Mathematics, vol 8(6), 333-339.
- Burger W F, and Shaughnessy J M (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol 17, No. 1, 31-48.
- Chew C M (2009). Assessing pre-service secondary mathematics teachers’ geometric thinking, Proceedings of the 5th Asian Mathematical Conference, Malaysia.
- Choi-Koh S S (2000). The Activities Based on van Hiele Model using Computer as a Tool, Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, vol 4(2), 63-77.
- Chong L H (2001). Pembelajaran geometri menggunakan perisian GSP dan kaitannya dengan tahap pemikiran Van Hiele dalam geometri, Universiti Malaya.
- Craft A (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice, Routledge, London.
- Crowley, M. (1987). The van Hiele model of development of geometric thought, Lindquist M M (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry K-12, 1-16, Reston, VA: NCTM.
- Curriculum Develoment Centre (2000). Huraian sukatan pelajaran matematik KBSM. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
- Curriculum Develoment Centre (2002). Spesifikasi Kurikulum Matematik KBSM Tingkatan 2. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
- Curriculum Develoment Centre (2010). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
- Curriculum Develoment Centre (2011). Spesifikasi Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menengah Matematik Tingkatan 2. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
- Dindyal J (2007). The need for an inclusive framework for students’ thinking in school geometry, The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, vol 4(1), 73-83.
- Gutierrez A, Jaime A et al. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol 22(3),237-251.
- Halat E (2008). In-Service Middle and High School Mathematics Teachers: Geometric Reasoning Stages and Gender, The Mathematics Educator, vol 18(1), 8-14.
- Husnaeni (2006). Penerapan Model Pembelajaran Van Hiele Dalam Membantu Siswa Kelas IV SD Membangun Konsep Segi Tiga, Jurnal Pendidikan, vol 7(2), 67-78.
- Lee C L, Rohani A T et al. (2009). Pelaksanaan pengajaran pembelajaran secara kontekstual bagi matematik menengah: tinjauan di sekolah menengah teknik, Wilayah Persekutuan, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub & Aida Suraya Md. Yunus (Eds.). Pendidikan Matematik & Aplikasi Teknologi, 67-118, Serdang: Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia.
- Liu K W (2005). The effectiveness of van Hiele-based instruction, The University of Hong Kong.
- Mason M (1998). The Van Hiele levels of geometric understanding, Professional handbook for teachers, geometry: Explorations and applications, Boston: McDougal Inc.
- Matthews N F (2005). A comparison of Mira phase-based instruction, textbook instruction and no instruction on the Van Hiele levels of fifth-grade students, Tennessee State University.
- Mullis I V S , Martin M O et al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report, Boston: Boston College, International Study Center.
- Mullis I V S , Martin M O et al. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Boston: Boston College, International Study Center.
- Mullis I V S, Martin MO et al. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report. Boston: Boston College, International Study Center.
- Noraini I (2005). Pedagogy in Mathematics Education, 2nd Edn., Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publication Sdn. Bhd.
- Noraini I (2006). Exploring the effects of T1-84 plus on achievement and anxiety in mathematics, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol 2(3), 66-78.
- Noraini I (2007). The Effect of Geometers’ Sketchpad on the Performance in Geometry of Malaysian Students’ Achievement and van Hiele Geometric Thinking, Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, vol 1(2), 169-180.
- Razananadiah J (2006). Penilaian tahap pemikiran geometri Van Hiele pelajar tingkatan dua, Universiti Malaya.
- Saifulnizan C I (2007). Pembinaan modul pembelajaran menggunakan perisian geometri interaktif, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
- Senk S (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol 20(3), 309-321.
- Serow P (2008). Investigating a Phase Approach to Using Technology as a Teaching Tool, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
- Shi-Pui K, and Ka-Luen C (2009). The van Hiele Phases of Learning in studying, 358-363, Available from http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/Kwan358-363.pdf.
- Tay B L (2003). A Van Hiele-based instruction and its impact on the geometry achievement on form one students, Universiti Malaya.
- Teppo A (1991). Van Hiele levels of geometric thought revisited, Mathematics Teacher, vol 84, No. 3, 210-221.
- Usiskin Z (1982). Van Hiele levels of achievement in secondary school geometry, Final report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project, University of Chicago.
- Van de Walle J A (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally. Boston: Pearson Education.
- Van Hiele P M (1986). Structure and insight, A theory of mathematics education, Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
- Wan M A (1998). Laporan Kajian: Keperluan Guru-guru Sekolah Rakan Dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik, SEAMEO RECSAM Pulau Pinang.
- Wu D B (1994). A study of the use of the van Hiele model in the teaching of nonEuclidean geometry to prospective elementary school teachers in Taiwan, the Republic of China, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.
- Abdullah A H, and Zakaria E (2013). The effects of Van Hiele’s phase-based instruction using the Geometer’s Sketchpad (GSP) on students’ levels of geometric thinking, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technolog, vol 5(5), 1652-1660.
- Analyzing Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Algebra using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Abstract Views :233 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Affiliations
1 Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysia France Institute, MY
2 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, MY
1 Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysia France Institute, MY
2 Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, MY
Source
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 7, No 3 (2014), Pagination: 249–253Abstract
This study was conducted to analyze pedagogical content knowledge of secondary school teachers. A total of 254 mathematics school teachers from various secondary schools in Negeri Sembilan were randomly selected to participate in the study. A set of multiple choice questions were given to teachers during the data collection process. The questions were developed by the researcher. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to validate the instrument. A good model fit was found for measurement model of pedagogical content knowledge using several fit index tests including CMINDF, GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA. The findings revealed that the subject content knowledge and knowledge of students has a stronger covariance value than the subject content knowledge and knowledge of pedagogy and a stronger covariance between knowledge of students and knowledge of pedagogy. Teachers should be able to recognize their type of knowledge, particularly pedagogical content knowledge to transfer their knowledge effectively to the students.Keywords
Mathematics Teachers, Students’ Knowledge, Algebra, Quadratic Function, Secondary School TeachingFull Text