INVESTIGATION OF MISTAKES AND MISCONCEPTIONS OF 8TH GRADE STUDENTS ACCORDING TO STUMP'S SLOPE PERCEPTION CLASSIFICATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of this research is to investigate eighth graders’ mistakes and misconceptions of the concept that take place in the mathematics curriculum and to make recommendations for solution. According to this purpose, the sample of the research consisted of 165 eighth graders from 4 different public schools located in Palandoken district of Erzurum province. The students of the sample were those, who were ready at the school on the day at which the research was carried out. To determine the mistakes and misconceptions of the students on the slope, a “Slope Test” consisting of 7 multiple choice questions and 8 open-ended questions, was created in accordance with the gains. Expert opinions were applied during developing the test, and validity and reliance studies were carried out through a pilot study. In the research, the Slope Test was applied to the students and this test was used as the data collection tool. The descriptive scanning method was employed in the research and as the interview was held with some of the students if necessary, the mixed method was the method of the study. The obtained data were analyzed with the descriptive analysis and content analysis techniques. The mistakes and misconceptions of the students were examined according to the results of the study and some recommendations were made considering the results. Keywords: Slope, misconception, eighth grade students, mathematics education. REFERENCES Barr, G. (1981). Some student ideas on the concept of gradient. Mathematics in School . 10 (1), 14-17. Cheng, D. S. (2010). Connecting proportionality and slope: Middle school students' reasoning about steepness . Boston: Boston University. Clement, J. (1985, July). Misconceptions in graphing. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 369-375). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht University. Crawford, A. R., & Scott, W. E. (2000). Making sense of slope. The Mathematics Teacher , 93(2), 114-118. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . CA, Sage publications. Duncan, B., & Chick, H. L. (2013). How do adults perceive, analyse and measure slope?. In 36 th annual conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia , 258-265. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11(3), 255-274. Hoffman, T. W. (2015). Concept image of slope: Understanding middle school mathematics teachers' perspective through task-based interviews. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Milli Egitim Bakanligi (MEB) (2017). Ilkogretim matematik dersi 5-8. siniflar ogretim programi ve kilavuzu . Ankara: Devlet Kitaplari Mudurlugu Basimevi. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative–quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research , 40, 120–123. Ozbellek, G. (2003). Ilkogretim 6. ve 7. sinif duzeyindeki aci konusunda karsilasilan kavram yangilari, eksik algilamalarin tespiti [Confronted conceptions mistakes about angle, determaniation and elimination methods of deficient perceptions at 6 th and 7 th grades in primary education], (Unpublished Master Dissertation). Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir. Stump, S. (1999). Secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge of slope. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 11 (2), 124-144. Styers, J. L., Nagle, C. R., & Moore-Russo, D. (2020). Teachers’ noticing of students’ slope statements: attending and interpreting. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20 (3), 504-520. Yenilmez, K., & Yasa, E. (2008). Ilkogretim ogrencilerinin geometrideki kavram yanilgilari [Primary school students’ misconceptions about geometry]. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 21 (2), 461-483. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences], 9 th Edition, Ankara: Seckin Publishing 256-272. Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education , 8, 103-127.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».