Using APOS Theory Framework: Why Did Students Unable To Construct a Formal Proof?

Syamsuri Syamsuri, Purwanto Purwanto, Subanji Subanji, Santi Irawati

Abstract


Mathematical thinking is necessary in mathematics learning especially in college level. One of activities in undergraduate mathematics learning is proving. This article describes students’ thinking process who unable to construct mathematical formal proof. The description uses APOS Theory to explore students’ mental mechanism and students’ mental structure while they do proving. This research is qualitative research that conducted on students majored in mathematics education in public university in Banten province, Indonesia. Data was obtained through asking students to solve proving-task using think-aloud and then following by interview based task. Results show that the students could not construct a formal proof because they unable to appear encapsulation process. They merely enable to think interiorization and coordination. Based on the results, some suitable learning activities should designed to support the construction of these mental mechanism.

Keywords


Thinking process, proof-construction, proving, proof, APOS Theory

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andrew, L. (2009). Creating a Proof Error Evaluation Tool for Use in the Grading of Student-Generated Proofs. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 2009. 19 (5), 447-462.

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktac¸ A., Fuentes, S.R., Trigueros, M., Weller, K. (2013). APOS Theory A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Mathematics Education. New York : Springer.

Baker, D. & Campbell, C. (2004). Fostering the development of mathematical thinking: Observations from a proofs course. PRIMUS: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 14 (4), 345- 353.

Bruce M. McLaren, B.M., van Gog, T. Ganoe, C. & Karabinos, M. (2016). The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour , 55, 87-99

Cai, J. (2000). Mathematical thinking involved in US and Chinese students' solving of process-constrained and process-open problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(4), 309-340.

Creswell, W.J. (2012). Educational Research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research - 4th Edition. Boston : Pearson Education.

Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced Mathematical Thinking Processes. In David Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 25-41). New York : Springer Netherlands.

Dreyfus, T. (2002). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In David Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 25-41). New York : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dubinsky, E. (2002). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In David Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 95-126). New York : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dubinsky, E., & Tall, D. (2002). Advanced mathematical thinking and the computer. In David Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 231-248). New York : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gibson, D. (1998). Students’ use of diagrams to develop proofs in an introductory analysis course. Students’ proof schemes. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, III, 284-307. Washington : AMS.

Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147-168.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell. (2002). Adding it-up : Helping Children Learn Mathematics. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington DC

Margulieux, L.E & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with sub-goal labels in expository text and worked examples. Learning and Instruction , 42, 58-71.

Mason, J., Burton, L. & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking Mathematically. Second Edition. London : Pearson.

McLaren, B.M.,van Gog, T., Ganoe, C., Karabinos, M. & Yaron, D. (2016). The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior , 55 (1), 87-99

Mejia-Ramos, J.P., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads K. & Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model for proof comprehensionin undergraduate mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 79, 3–18.

Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the transition to Formal Proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 249-266.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.

Selden, A. & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of Proofs Considered as Texts: Can Undergraduates Tell Whether an Argument Proves a Theorem? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34 (1), 4-36.

Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (2003). Case studies of mathematics majors’ proof understanding, production, and appreciation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 3 (2), 251-267.

Syamsuri, Purwanto, Subanji & Irawati, S. (2016). Characterization of Students Formal-Proof Construction in Mathematics Learning. Communications in Science and Technology, 1(2), 42-50.

Tall, D. (1992). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking : functions, limits, infinity and proof. In Douglas A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 495-514). New York : Macmilan Publishing Company.

Tall, D. (2002). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking. In David Tall (Eds.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 3-21). New York : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5-24.

Weber, K. (2004). Traditional instruction in advanced mathematics courses: A case study of one professor’s lectures and proofs in an introductory real analysis course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 115–133.

Weber, K. (2006). Investigating and teaching the processes used to construct proofs. In F.Hitt, G. Harel& A. Selden (Eds), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, VI, 197-232. AMS.

Weller, K., Clark, J., Dubinsky, E., Loch, S., McDonald, M., & Merkovsky, R. (2003). Student performance and attitudes in courses based on APOS theory and the ACE teaching cycle. In A. Selden, E. Dubinsky, G. Harel, & F. Hitt (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education V (pp. 97-131). Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5659

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 629 times
PDF - 326 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education
Kampus 2 Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
Jalan Pramuka No. 42, Pandeyan, Umbulharjo, Yogyakarta - 55161
Telp. (0274) 563515, ext. 4902; Fax. (0274) 564604
Email: ijeme@uad.ac.id


p-ISSN: 2549-4996 | e-ISSN: 2548-5806


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

View IJEME's Stats