การพัฒนาหลักสูตรเสริมที่ส่งเสริมสมรรถนะด้านการให้เหตุผลทางคณิตศาสตร์โดยใช้วิธีการสอนแบบอุปนัยและนิรนัยร่วมกับแนวคิดฮิวริสติกส์ สำหรับนักศึกษาครู สาขาวิชาคณิตศาสตร์

Nuttapong Wattanasiripong; Suwana  Juithong; Mesa  Nuansri

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e290850

Authors

Nuttapong Wattanasiripong Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University under the Royal Patronage, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1829-8055
Suwana Juithong Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University under the Royal Patronage, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1391-5819
Mesa Nuansri Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University under the Royal Patronage, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2449-3604

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e290850

Keywords:

Supplementary Curriculum, Mathematical Reasoning Competency, Inductive Teaching, Deductive Teaching, Heuristic Approach

Abstract

Background and Aims: Mathematical reasoning is a critical competency that pre-service mathematics teachers should systematically develop, particularly in the context of 21st-century education, which emphasizes analytical thinking and knowledge integration. This study aimed to 1) examine the foundational information and components of a supplementary curriculum designed to enhance mathematical reasoning competency through the integration of inductive and deductive teaching methods along with heuristic approaches, and 2) develop such a curriculum for pre-service mathematics teachers in the group of Rajabhat Universities in the Sri Ayutthaya Group.

Methodology: This research employed a Research and Development (R&D) approach consisting of three phases: (1) studying foundational information through focus group discussions with seven experts in mathematics, curriculum and instruction, and educational assessment, (2) designing a supplementary curriculum, including eight instructional plans, a user manual, competency assessment criteria, and test instruments, and (3) validating the quality of the tools using mean, standard deviation (S.D.), and the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC).

Results: The developed curriculum comprised six essential components: rationale, objectives, content, instructional process, learning materials, and assessment. The competency framework included five dimensions: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, analyzing and constructing conclusions, mathematical problem-solving, and mathematical communication. The designed instructional process is aligned with logical reasoning development. The curriculum received the highest level of quality ratings from experts (M = 4.79, SD = 0.41). The eight instructional plans and user manual also received high ratings (M = 4.89 and M = 4.86, respectively). The competency assessment criteria were deemed appropriate, and the test items demonstrated high content validity with IOC values ranging from 0.71 to 1.00, indicating significant alignment with learning objectives.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that the developed supplementary curriculum is appropriate for enhancing mathematical reasoning competency. The integration of inductive and deductive teaching methods with heuristic strategies effectively promotes analytical thinking among pre-service teachers, reflecting the curriculum’s quality and effectiveness in systematically fostering reasoning skills.

References

สถาบันทดสอบทางการศึกษาแห่งชาติ (องค์การมหาชน). (2566). รายงานผลการทดสอบทางการศึกษาระดับชาติขั้นพื้นฐาน (O-NET) ปีการศึกษา 2565.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, M., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.

Gruman, J., & Roesler, J. (2020). Curriculum design for the 21st century: A guide for educators. Routledge.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., … & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Heinemann.

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1995). Reasoning and problem solving: A handbook for elementary school teachers (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Lai, M. Y., & Murray, S. (2012). Teaching with procedural variation: A Chinese way of promoting deep understanding of mathematics. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1, 1–25.

Larmer, J. (2021). Project-based learning: How to create rigorous and engaging learning experiences. ASCD.

Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2

Mulder, M. (2014). Conceptions of professional competence. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 107–137). Springer.

OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264305274-en

OECD. (2021). The OECD learning compass 2030: A framework for thinking about education. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-22239-1

Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Proof and proving in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 289–321.

Stylianides, A. J. (2007). Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(4), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701533150

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. Harcourt Brace & World.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.