Moving Students’ Mathematical Thinking from Object Manipulation Experiences to Abstract Tools: Accessing the Unit Squares to Find the Area
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) explore evidence of students' mathematical thinking mobility and 2) study the sequence of students' mathematical thinking mobility from object manipulation experiences to abstract tools. The qualitative research methodology was used. The research area was a school context in Nakhon Phanom Province that used the Thailand Lesson Study incorporated with the Open Approach Innovation Framework (TLSOA) (Inprasitha, 2022) to develop classroom quality. The target group was 9 grade 4 students. The selection method was students in the TLSOA classroom context since grade 1. There were 5 types of research instruments: learning management plans, activity sheets, classroom observation records, video cameras, and still cameras. The research data was collected for 4 periods of the learning unit: Area. The protocol and content were analyzed and then written as a descriptive description. The results of the research found that 1) the classroom using the TLSOA innovation showed evidence of students' mathematical thinking mobility. Teachers gave students opportunities to think and discover ways to solve problems by themselves from experiences to creating abstract tools according to their cognitive development. To cultivate students' learning abilities to be self-reliant 2) Moving students' mathematical thinking from the experience of manipulating objects to abstract tools has the following sequence: 2.1) Facing problem situations and having experience of manipulating objects by representing them with real objects 2.2) Connecting the experience of manipulating objects to creating abstract tools by representing them with semi-concrete aids and 2.3) Creating abstract tools by representing them with symbols and mathematical understanding that reflects real experiences.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and Closed Mathematics: Student Experiences and Understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.
Department of Children and Youth & National Child and Youth Council of Thailand. (2020). Survey report on children's and youth’s thoughts: "What children and youth think and do each day." https://www.dcy.go.th/public/mainWeb/file_download/1653283114029-672024637.pdf
Herman, T. (2020). Menuju Indonesia Emas. UPI Press.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press.
Inprasitha, M. (2010). One feature of adaptive Lesson Study in Thailand – designing learning unit. Proceedings of the 45th Korean National Meeting of Mathematics Education, Korean Society of Mathematics Education, Seoul, Korea, pp. 193-206.
Inprasitha, M. (2011). Learning mathematics with friends: Mathematics for primary school, Grade 4, Book 2. Klang Nana Wittaya Printing.
Inprasitha, M. (2022). Lesson study and open approach development in Thailand: A longitudinal study. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 11(5), 1–15.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2023). Press release on the results of PISA 2022 assessment. Presented at Rajavallop Building, Ministry of Education, December 6, 2023, Bangkok, Thailand.
Isoda, M. (2006). Teaching Arithmetic and Mathematical Thinking Through Open-Ended Approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 187-195.
Isoda, M., & Katagiri, S. (2012). Mathematical Thinking: How to Develop it in The Classroom. (ed. K. Stacey (ed.)). World Scientific Publishing Co.
Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically. (2nd ed.). Pearson.
OECD. (2019). Future of Education and Skills 2030. Conceptual Learning Framework: Transformative Competencies for 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/ 06/the-future-of-education-and-skills_5424dd26/54ac7020-en.pdf
Office of the Education Council. (2017). National Education Plan B.E. 2560–2579 (2017–2036). Prikwarn Graphic Co., Ltd.
Panich, W. (2012). Learning creation approach for students in the 21st century. Sodsri-Saritwong Foundation.
Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget (pp. 1–11). McGraw-Hill.
Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It. (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Rujirawinitchai, T., Sangaroon, K., Changsri N., & Inprasitha M. (2021). Mathematical connections of students on the topic of area in classrooms using lesson study and open approach. Proceedings of the 22nd National Research Conference, March 25, 2021, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(3), 221-239.
Sinlarat, P. (2013). Traditional vs. Modern Teaching Methods in Thai Education. Journal of Educational Development, 21(3), 45-57.
