Author Details

In present era, traditional instructions cannot respond to all educational procedures in schools especially in mathematics. Usage of intelligent instructions can promote the real educational needs of students and they will improve and ease the deep mathematical learning. In present research, we tried to introduce intelligent instruction in mathematics and smart schools at elementary level. Through casual-comparative method and cluster sampling, 180 students are selected in fourth grade of elementary level. Results of independents samples T-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (P<0.05) have shown that usage of the intelligent instruction will effect on deep learning in mathematics in meaningful level of 0.05.

Keywords

Mathematics Education, Traditional Instruction, Intelligent Instruction, Mathematical Learning, Smart School

Full Text

References

Afzalniya M (2005) Information technology and lifetime learning, challenge on formal academic. Collection of conferences' electronic instruction to virtual university.

Duffy TM and Jonassen PM (1992) Constructivism: new implication for Instructional technology. Lawerenee Erlhaum Associatec, MahWah, NJ. pp: 1- 16.

Erdem M and Akkoyunlu B (2002) WWW .uzerin denbilgiye eriim konusundasahip olunan bilgi duzeyi ve bu konuda hissedilen bilgi ihtiyaci uzerine bir calima. Hacettepe Eitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 23, 95-103 (2002).

Erica Melis and Jorg Siekmann (2001) Active math: An intelligent tutoring system for mathematics. German Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI).Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 66123 Saarbrucken,Germany.

Fatih Gursul and HafizeKeser (2009) The effects of online and face to face problem based learning environments in mathematics education on student's academic achievement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.1,489–494.

Foongme (2002) ICT in Malaysian school: policy and strategy.

Kenneth R, Koedinger Anderson J, William H and Mark H (1997) Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Edu. 8, 30-43.

Karamipour M (2002) Instruction proper to technology era. Instructional technology growth. 7,27.

Malaysia ministry of education (1997) The Malaysian smart school; an MSC flagship application. Development and reformation in Malaysia: past, present educational, administration. Indicators on ICT for Educ. 36, 76 – 85.

National council of teachers of mathematics (NCTM) (2000) Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.

Saif A (1997) Learning and studying. Tehran: Doran.

Ya'acob A, Mohd nor N and Azmah H (2005) Implementation of the Malaysian smart school: an investigation of teaching-learning practices and teacher-student readiness. Internet J. e-Language Learning & Teaching. 2(2), 16-25.

Instruction of Mathematical Concepts through Analogical Reasoning Skills

Abstract Views :527 | PDF Views:144

Authors

Somayeh Amir-Mofidi ¹, Parvaneh Amiripour ², Mohammad H. Bijan-Zadeh ²

Affiliations
1 Department of Mathematics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR
2 Department of Mathematics, The center for graduate studies, Payamenoor University, Tehran, IR

Source

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 5, No 6 (2012), Pagination: 2916-2922

Abstract

For learning the mathematical concepts need to have special skills. Reasoning is skill that uses to teach and learn. These reasoning must have harmony to real life. Analogical reasoning is reasoning skill that made to better learning in mathematical context. In this research, analogical reasoning skills have been instructed on 20 students of first grade in girly high school and the results of the Leven and independent samples tests have shown that instruction through analogical reasoning improves the mathematical learning. Therefore it seems that instruction of mathematical concepts through analogical reasoning modify the misconceptions and difficult of mathematical problems for students.

Keywords

Mathematics, Analogical Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, Instruction

Full Text

References

Aubusson PJ, Harrison AG and Ritchie SM (2006) Metaphor and analogy: Serious thought in science education. In PJ Aubusson, AG Harrison and SM Ritchie (Eds.), Analogy in science, 1-10. Dordrecht: Springer.

Arslan C, Ilkörücü Göcmencelebi S, Seden Tapan M (2009) Learning and reasoning styles of pre service teachers : inductive or deductive reasoning on science and mathematics related to their learning style. Procedia Social & Behavioral Sci. 1, 2460–2465.

Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR, Donovan MS and Pellegrino JW (2000) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National acad. press. Washington, US.

Brown JS, Collins A and Harris G (1978) Artificial intelligence and learning strategies. In H.F. O’Neil (Ed.), Learning strategies. NY: Academic.

Clement J (1988) Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive sci. 12, 563-586.

Cheshire AJ, Ball L and Lewis L (2000) Selfexplanation, feedback and the development of analogical Reasoning Skills: Microgenetic evidence for a meta-cognitive processing account. Dept. Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YF, UK.

Dreistadt R (1968) An analysis of the use of analogies and metaphors in science. J. Psycho. 68, 97-l 16.

Duval R and Egret MA (1989) Organisation déductive du discours, annales de didactique et de sciences Cognitives 2, pp 25-40, Strasbourg: IREM de Strasbourg.

Gentner D (1989) The mechanisms of analogical learning. In: Vosniadou S and Ortony A. (Eds.) Similarity and analogical reasoning. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Harverty LA, Koedinger KR, Klahr D and Alibali MW (2000) Solving inductive reasoning problems in mathematics: No-so-trivial pursuit, Cognitive Sci. 24. 249–298.

Hawk TF and Shah AJ (2007) Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. decision sciences. J. Innovative Edu. 5(1), 1-17.

Heller P, Heller K, Henderson C, Kuo VH and Yerushalmi E (2001) Instructors beliefs and values about learning problem solving. http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/Talks/Heller%2 0PERC01.pdf.

Holland J, Holyoak K, Nisbett R, Thagard PR (1986) Induction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gick M and Holyoak K (1983) Scheme induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychol. 15(1), 1-38.

Lee K, Kim M, Na G, Han D and SandHun S (2007) Induction, analogy, and imagery in geometric reasoning. Proce. 31st Confe. Intl.Group Psychol. Maths. Edu. 3rd Eds. J-H. Woo, H-C. Lew, K-S. Park and D-Y. Seo, Seoul: Seoul National Univ. pp: 145- 157.

Michalski R (1986) Understanding the nature of learning: issues and research directions. In: Michalski R, Carbonell J, Mitchell T. (Eds.) Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. 2. Los Altos, CA: Morgan-Kaufman.

Michalski R (1989) Two-tiered concept meaning, inferential matching, and conceptual cohesiveness. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A. (Eds.) similarity and analogical reasoning, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Moreno A, Myller N and Sutinen E (2007) Inductive reasoning and programming visualization, an experiment proposal. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Comput. Sci. 178. pp: 61–68.

Mason J, Burton L and Stacy k (1991) Thinking mathematically. England, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.

Pellegrino JW and Glaser R (1982) Analyzing aptitudes for learning: Inductive reasoning. In: Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2), Glaser R (editor), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Polya G (1954) Mathematics and plausible reasoning, Vol (I): Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

Park J and Han S (2002) Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students. Conceptions about force and motion. Intl. J.Sci. Edu. 24(6), 593-609.

Richland L Zur OJ and Holyoak K (2007) Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Forum education. pp:40.

Richland L, Holyoak K and Stigler J (2004) Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition & Instruction. 22 (1), pp: 37.

Sarina VK and Namukasa I (2010) Non-math analogies in teaching mathematics. Procedia Social & Behavioral Sci. 2. 5738–5743.

Sternberg RJ (1977) Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schoenfeld AH (1992) Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, meta cognition.

Siegler RS and Svetina M (2002) A micro genetic/cross sectional study of matrix completion: Comparing short-term and long-term change. Child Dev. 73,793-809.

Watters JJ and English LS (1995) Children's application of simultaneous and successive processing in inductive and deductive reasoning problems: Implications for developing scientific reasoning. J. Res. Sci. Teaching. 32(7), 699-714.

Zaman A, Jumani A, Ali A and Hussain A (2011) Predictive validity of scores in mathematics for reasoning ability in mathematics for grade 9 students in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa based on curriculum of mathematics. Procedia Social & Behavioral Sci. 12. 588–594.

Zhu X and Simon HA (1987) Learning mathematics from examples and by doing, Cognition & Instruction. 4,137–166.

Scaffolding as Effective Method for Mathematical Learning

Abstract Views :952 | PDF Views:133

Authors

Parvaneh Amiripour ¹, Somayeh Amir-Mofidi ², Ahmad Shahvarani ²

Affiliations
1 Department of Mathematics, Shahr-e Rey Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR
2 Department of Mathematics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, IR

Source

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 5, No 9 (2012), Pagination: 3328-3331

Abstract

Scaffolding is a mechanism for observing the process by which a learner is helped to achieve his or her potential learning. Regard to nature of scaffolding, it seems that scaffolding process can have an effect on learning and teaching procedure. In the present study, researchers have studied primary nature of scaffolding method in mathematical learning, then introduced mathematical samples through scaffolding method. Finally researchers have provided many strategies for better implementation of scaffolding method on mathematical learning and teaching.

Keywords

Mathematics, Scaffolding, Education, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), Learning

Full Text

References

Berk LE (2000) Child development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bodrova E and Leong D (1996) The Vygotski an approach to early childhood. Columbus, Ohio:Merrill, Imprint of Prentice Hall.

Briars DJ and Resnick LB (2000) Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement (CSE Technical Report 528). Retrieved September 28, 2008, from ttp://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/ Reports/TECH528.pdf

Bruner JS (1983) Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Eggen P and Kauchak D(2001) Educational psychology: Windows on classroom (5thed.).Upper saddle river, NJ: Merrill, Practice-Hall.

Maybin J, Mercer N andStierer B (1992) Scaffolding in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National oracy project. London:Hodder and Stoughton.

Mercer N (1995) The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon, UK Multilingual Matters.

Piaget J (1973) The child's conception of the world. London: Routlege.

Santrock JW (2004) Educational psychology (2nd& 3rded.). NY.McGraw-Hill.

Slavin RE (2006) Educational psychology: Theory and practice (8thed.). NY. Pearson.

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA. Harward Univ. Press.

Stone CA (1993) What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C.A.

Stone (1993), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's learning. Oxford: OxfordUniv. Press.

Vygotsky LS (1981)The genesis of higher mental functions. In J.V. Wretsch (Ed.). The concept of activity in social psychology. Arnonk, NY.Sharpe.

Woolfolk AE (2004) Educational psychology (10thed.). Boston: Pearson.

Wells G (1999) Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.Cambridge.Cambridge Univ. Press.

Username
Password
Remember me