The Compatibility of Model Eliciting Activities of Secondary School Teacher Candidates with Design Principles

Abstract

The purpose of this study is the investigation of the compatibility of model eliciting activities of secondary school teacher candidates with design principles. This study was conducted in the scope of Mathematical Modelling course with the students who were the secondary school mathematics teacher candidates. The participants of this case study were thirty-nine mathematics teacher candidates who worked in eight groups. The data of this study consisted of eight model eliciting activities which were created within the eight groups and their analysis. The activities created by the groups were analyzed by document analysis method in terms of design principles that were defined for model eliciting activities. It was concluded that the created model eliciting activities satisfied the construct share ability and reusability principle at minimum while they satisfied the reality principle at maximum. The effective prototype principle could not be determined. It can be ensured that the secondary school mathematics teacher candidates gain more experience by making more implementations related to model eliciting activities. The implementation of model eliciting activities in class can be effective in reducing the modelling deficiencies of secondary school mathematics teacher candidates.

Bisim Matematiksel Modelleme Etkinliğinin Sınıf İçi ve Sınıf Dışı Uygulaması

“…Although difficulties such as the inability to determine the variables required for the solution of the problem and not being able to interpret on these variables (Graham & Thomas, 2000;Hıdıroğlu, Tekin Dede, Kula, & Bukova Güzel, 2014) were observed in inclass practice, students did not experience such difficulties in out-of-class practice. And it is seen that some of the students tend to reach the solution by performing operations with the numbers given in the context instead of creating models (Blum & Borromeo Ferri, 2009;Blum, 2011;Elçi, 2020;Tekin Dede, 2017) in class solutions. After class discussion, they grasped the importance of eliciting a model and they could create a model in line with their assumptions.…”

“…Modelleme çalışmalarında görülen genel bir eğilim olan model oluşturmadan problemi çözme eğilimi bu çalışmada da ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğrencilerden bazılarının sınıf içi çözümlerde model oluşturmak yerine bağlamda verilen sayılarla dört işlem yaparak çözüme ulaşma eğiliminde (Blum ve Borromeo Ferri, 2009;Blum, 2011;Elçi, 2020;Tekin Dede, 2017) oldukları görülse de sınıf tartışmasında model oluşturmanın önemini kavramışlar ve varsayımlarına uygun olarak model oluşturmaya başlamışlardır. Sınıf tartışmasının yanı sıra araştırmacının öğrencileri sürekli olarak model oluşturmaya teşvik etmesi de bu eylemlerde etkili olmuştur.…”

“…Blum ve Niss, 1991;Deniz ve Akgün, 2014;Kaiser ve Maaß, 2007, Lesh ve Lehrer 2003English ve Watters, 2004;Maaß, 2007;Olkun, Şahin, Akkurt, Dikkartın ve Gülbağcı, 2009;Özaltun, Hıdıroğlu, Kula ve Güzel, 2013 (Lingefjard, 2002;Blum, 2011). Öğrencilerin problemde yer alan gerçek yaşam bağlamını göz ardı etmeleri ve sadece problemde yer alan sayılarla bildikleri işlemleri yapma eğiliminde oldukları, dolayısıyla model oluşturmadan çözüme ulaşma eğilimleri olduğu da görülmüştür (Blum ve Borromeo Ferri, 2009;Elçi, 2020). Model oluştururken ise öğrencilerin değişkenleri doğru bir şekilde belirleyememeleri (Graham ve Thomas, 2000) (Rennie ve McClafferty, 1996;Eshach, 2007).…”

“…This complex structure of the activities puts students in some difficult situations. Difficulties are listed in the studies (Lingefjard, 2002;Peter Koop, 2004;Blum & Borromeo Ferri, 2009;Blum, 2011;Tekin Dede, 2016;Elçi, 2020 ) such as not being able to understand problem, not determining the necessary variables, trying to solve the problem without creating models, not interpreting and verifying the solution.…”