Factors Affecting Success in Solving a Stand-Alone Geometrical Problem by Students aged 14 to 15

  • Branka Antunović-Piton Faculty of Educational Sciences, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Croatia
  • Nives Baranović Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Split
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.889
Keywords: geometrical problem, mathematic language, problem solving, visualisation

Abstract

This paper investigates and considers factors that affect success in solving a stand-alone geometrical problem by 182 students of the 7th and 8th grades of elementary school. The starting point for consideration is a geometrical task from the National Secondary School Leaving Exam in Croatia (State Matura), utilising elementary-level geometry concepts. The task was presented as a textual problem with an appropriate drawing and a task within a given context. After data processing, the key factors affecting the process of problem solving were singled out: visualisation skills, detection and connection of concepts, symbolic notations, and problem-solving culture. The obtained results are the basis of suggestions for changes in the geometry teaching-learning process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024312321077

Baranović, N. (2019). Pre-service primary education teachers’ knowledge of relationships among quadrilaterals, In J. Milinković & Z. Kadelburg (Eds.), Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 112–127). Mathematical Society of Serbia.

Bingolbali, E. (2011). Multiple solutions to problems in mathematics teaching: Do teachers really value them? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n1.2

Boonen, A. J. H., Van Wesel, F., Jolles, J., & Van der Schoot, M. (2014). The role of visual representation type, spatial ability, and reading comprehension in word problem solving: An item-level analysis in elementary school children. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.001

Cavanagh, M. (2008). One secondary teacher’s use of problem-solving teaching approaches. In M. Goos, R. Brown & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 117–124). MERGA http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.507.6272

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K. (2007). Metode istraživanja u obrazovanju [Research methods in education]. NAKLADA SLAP.

de Villiers, M. (1998). To teach definitions in geometry or teach to define? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255605686

Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 33–48). PME, Assisi.

Državna matura 2011/2012 – ljetni rok [State Matura 2011/2012 - Summer Assessment Term] (DM ljeto 2012) (2012). Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje. https://www.ncvvo.hr/dm-2011-2012-ljetni-rok/

Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualisation: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Meeting of the North American, Chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 3–26). PME.

Duval, R. (2000). Basic issues for research in mathematics education, Plenary. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th international conference for the psychology of mathematics education, 1 (pp. 55–69). PME, Hiroshima University.

Duval, R. (2014). Commentary: Linking epistemology and semi-cognitive modelling in visualization. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0565-8

Foong, P. Y. (2002). Using short open-ended mathematics questions to promote thinking and understanding. National Institute of Education, Singapore. http://math.unipa.it/~grim/SiFoong.PDF

Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520167

Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analysing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9232-y

Hodnik Čadež, T., & Manfreda Kolar, V. (2018). Monitoring and guiding pupils’ problem solving, Magistra Iadertina, 12(2), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.15291/magistra.1493

Hsu, W.-M. (2013). Examining the types of mathematical tasks used to explore the mathematics instruction by elementary school teachers. Creative Education, 4(6), 396–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.46056

Klavir, R., & Gorodetsky, K. (2011). Features of creativity as expressed in the construction of new analogical problems by intellectually gifted students. Creative Education, 2(3), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2011.23023

Klavir, R., & Hershkovitz, S. (2008). Teaching and evaluating ‘open - ended’ problems. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 20(5), 23.

Kurnik, Z. (2000). MatematiÄki zadatak [Mathematical task]. Matematika i Å¡kola, II(7), 51–58. https://mis.element.hr/fajli/545/07-02.pdf

Leikin, R., Lev, M. (2007). Multiple solution tasks as a magnifying glass for observation of mathematical creativity. In the Proceedings of the 3th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. 3 (pp. 161–168 ). PME, Seoul.

MZOS [Ministry of Science, Education and Sports]. (2006). Nastavni plan i program za osnovnu Å¡kolu [The educational plan and programme for elementary school]. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports.

Odluka o donošenju kurikuluma za nastavni predmet Matematike za osnovne škole i gimnazije u Republici Hrvatskoj [Decision on the adoption of the curriculum for the subject of Mathematics for elementary schools and gymnasiums in the Republic of Croatia]. (Odluka) (2019). Narodne novine 7/2019.

PISA 2012 MatematiÄke kompetencije za život [Mathematical Competencies for Life] (2013). Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje.

Polya, G. (1966). Kako ću rijeÅ¡iti matematiÄki zadatak [How to solve mathematical task]. Å kolska knjiga.

Presmeg, N. C. (2006). Research on visualisation in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 205-235). Sense Publishers.

Presmeg, N. (2014). Contemplating visualisation as an epistemological learning tool in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0561-z

PriruÄnik za struÄne radne skupine koje izraÄ‘uju ispite državne mature s primjerima zadataka iz ispita na državnoj maturi [Handbook for professional working groups preparing state Matura examinations with examples of tasks from the state Matura exam] (PriruÄnik DM). (2017). Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje.

PriruÄnik za unapreÄ‘ivanje nastave matematike s primjerima zadataka iz meÄ‘unarodnog istraživanja TIMSS 2015 [Handbook for the advancement of teaching mathematics with examples of tasks from TIMSS 2015] (PriruÄnik TIMSS). (2017). Nacionalni centar za vanjsko vrednovanje.

Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2017). Make a drawing. Effects of strategic knowledge, drawing accuracy, and type of drawing on students’ mathematical modelling performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9736-1

Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215–237. https://doi-org.nukweb.nuk.uni-lj.si/10.1007/s10649-011-9341-2

Sinclair N., Moss J., Hawes Z., Stephenson C. (2018). Learning through and from drawing in early years geometry. In K. Mix, & M. Battista (Eds), Visualizing mathematics. Research in mathematics education. (pp. 229–252). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98767-5

Sullivan, P. (2009). Constraints and opportunities when using content-specific open-ended tasks. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia, 1 (pp. 726–729). MERGA. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.544.9781&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Press

Yang, K. L., & Li, J. L. (2018). A framework for assessing reading comprehension of geometric construction texts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9770-6

Yanhui, X. (2018). On “one problem multiple change†in Chinese “Bianshi†mathematics teaching. Teaching of Mathematics, 21(2), 80. http://www.teaching.math.rs/vol/tm2123.pdf

Published
2022-03-25
How to Cite
Antunović-Piton, B., & Baranović, N. (2022). Factors Affecting Success in Solving a Stand-Alone Geometrical Problem by Students aged 14 to 15. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(1), 55-79. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.889
Issue
Vol 12 No 1 (2022): Problem Solving and Problem Posing: From Conceptualisation to Implementation in the Mathematics Classroom
Section
FOCUS

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

  1. Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
  2. The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
  3. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.