|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| Mathematical thinking is an act of sense-making and rest on the processes of generalizing, specializing, convincing and conjecturing. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of mathematical thinking students in primary schools and whether there is any difference in the level of mathematical thinking of students from different types of school. The data was collected from 516 Year 4 students which are from 7 primary schools in the state of Terengganu, Johor, Kedah and Federal Territory. Data were collected using a paper-and-pencil test that were directly administered to the sample. The data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical software was used to compute the means (M) and corresponding standard deviations (sd). T-tests were also conducted to determine if there are any significant difference in the levels of mathematical thinking of the students according to the different types of schools. The descriptive analysis of the study revealed that primary school students have inadequate level of mathematical thinking (M= 15.25, sd=7.19) and only 2.5% of the students have achieved the adequate level of mathematical thinking based on the “cut off” score of 30.00. The study also found that the level of mathematical thinking of students from Sekolah Kebangsaan (M = 13.37, sd=6.85) was significantly different than level of mathematical thinking of students from Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) (M = 18.64, sd=1.63) with t (514) =-7.87, p< .05). The analysis further revealed that many students were not able to provide and justified reasoning for their decisions, were not able to make generalization based on the observation of patterns, were not alert that problems can have more than one solution, did not seek for other solutions and were contented with having only one solution. |
| References |
1. Cathcart, W. G., Pothier, Y. M., Vance, J. H., & Bezuk, N. S. (2000). Learning Mathematics in Elementary and Middle Schools. New Jersey: Merrill.
2. Chronaki, A., & Christiansen, I. M. (2005). Challenging perspectives on Mathematics classroom communication: From representations to contexts, interactions, and politics. Challenging Perspectives on Mathematics Classroom Communication (pp. 6-8). Connecticut: Information Age.
3. Chua, Y. P. (2012). Mastering research methods. Mcgraw-Hill Education.
4. Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission [CDSMC] (2006). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
5. English, L. D. (Ed.). (2013). Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images. Routledge.
6. Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258-291.
7. Hatfield, M. M., Edwards, N. T., Bitter, G. G., & Morrow, J. (2000). Mathematical methods for elementary and middle school teachers (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
8. Healy, J. M. (2011). Endangered Minds: Why Children Dont Think And What We Can Do About I. Simon and Schuster.
9. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan
10. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fuson, K„ Murray, A., Oliver, P. H„ & Wearne, D. (1997). Designing classrooms for learning mathematics with understanding. Porthsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11. Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–26). Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12. Hiebert, J. (2013). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Routledge.
13. Ismail, R. (2016). Metodologi penyelidikan: teori dan praktis. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
14. John, A., & Walle, V. D. (2001). Elementary and middle school mathematics (4 ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
15. Kennedy, L. M., & Tipps, S. (2000). Guiding children's learning of Mathematics (Vol. 9). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16. Labinowicz, E. (1985). Learning from children: New beginning for teaching numerical thinking. Menlo Park, CA: AWL Supplemental.
17. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255–276.
18. Lithner, J. (2015). Learning mathematics by creative or imitative reasoning. In Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 487-506). Springer International Publishing.
19. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
20. Lovitt, C., & Clarke, D. (1992). The Mathematics curriculum and teaching program: Professional development package - Activity Bank Volume I. Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
21. Magno, C. (2011). The use of study strategies on Mathematical problem solving. International Journal, 6(2).
22. Malaysian Ministry of Education. (2001). Kemahiran berfikir dalam pengajaran pembelajaran [Thinking skills in teaching and learning]. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre.
23. Ministry of Education Malaysia. Putrajaya Malaysia: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013–2025 (preschool to post-secondary education) Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/en/pelan-pembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia-2013-2025.
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
26. Noor Shah & Sazelli, A.G. (2010). Teaching mathematics in secondary schools: theories and practices. UPSI: Ampang Press Sdn. Bhd.
27. Noraini, I. (2006). Teaching and learning of mathematics: Making sense and development of cognitive abilities'. Utusan Publications & Distributors.
28. Reys, B. J., & Long, V. M. (1994). Teachers as architect of mathematical tasks. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1 (January 1995), pp. 296-299.
29. Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., Smith, N. L., & Suydam, M. N. (2001). Helping children learn mathematics (6 ed.). New York: Wiley.
30. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi, 10.
31. Schank, R. C. (2004). Making minds less well educated than our own. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Sonnabend, T. (1997). Mathematics for elementary teachers: An interactice approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
33. Troutman, A. P., & Lichtenberg, B. K. (2003). Mathematics a good beginning (6 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34. Turner, J. C., Warzon, K. B., & Christensen, A. (2011). Motivating Mathematics Learning Changes in Teachers’ Practices and Beliefs During a Nine-Month Collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 718-762.
35. Yang, E. F., Chang, B., Cheng, H. N., & Chan, T. W. (2016). Improving Pupils’ Mathematical Communication Abilities through Computer-Supported Reciprocal Peer Tutoring. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 1 |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |