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

Authors

  • Syamsuri Syamsuri Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-0696
  • Purwanto Purwanto Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia
  • Subanji Subanji Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia
  • Santi Irawati Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5659

Keywords:

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

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.

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.

JAppinen, 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.

Downloads

Published

2017-08-24

How to Cite

Syamsuri, S., Purwanto, P., Subanji, S., & Irawati, S. (2017). Using APOS Theory Framework: Why Did Students Unable To Construct a Formal Proof?. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 1(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5659

Issue

IJEME, Vol. 1 No. 2, September 2017

Section

Articles

License

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal. Please also carefully read the International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education (IJEME) Author Guidelines at http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/IJEME/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities, tacitly or explicitly, of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

Copyright

Authors who publish with the International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education (IJEME) agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. 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.

 


Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.