Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons

Kan Kan Chan; Barry Lee Reynolds

doi:10.29333/ejmste/12463

Full Text (PDF)

Kan Kan Chan ¹ ^* , Barry Lee Reynolds ¹

More Detail

¹ University of Macau, MACAU^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Students’ beliefs and attitudes have a direct impact on their behavior and engagement in the learning of mathematics. This study examined students’ beliefs of dynamic mathematics lessons through the lens of the contemporary theory of metaphor. Participants of the study were grade 10 students in a Macao private secondary school. 51 students attended dynamic inquiry-based lessons and used dynamic geometry software. After the lessons, students’ attitudes of the dynamic lessons were uncovered using open-ended questions and a Likert-item questionnaire. Students held a polarized view regarding the dynamic mathematics lessons claiming they were rewarding but challenging. In order to develop students’ positive attitudes towards the dynamic mathematics lessons, teachers should plan more diversified pedagogy to meet the different learning approaches of students.

Keywords

contemporary metaphor theory
dynamic mathematics lessons
beliefs
attitudes
metaphors
dynamic geometry software

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2022, Volume 18, Issue 10, Article No: em2169

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

Publication date: 17 Sep 2022

Article Views: 1071

Article Downloads: 591

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Adelabu, F. M., & Makgato, M. (2019). Attitudes of male and female students to dynamic geometry computer software for learning mathematics. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 17(3), 314-319.
Baki, A., Kosa, T., & Guven, B. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of using dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on the spatial visualisation skills of pre‐service mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01012.x
Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported collaborative learning environment on seventh grade students’ geometry achievement, retention and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 474-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1983505
Bokosmaty, S., Mavilidi, M.-F., & Paas, F. (2017). Making versus observing manipulations of geometric properties of triangles to learn geometry using dynamic geometry software. Computers & Education, 113, 313-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.008
Bryan, C. A., Wang, T., Perry, B., Wong, N. Y., & Cai, J. (2007). Comparison and contrast: similarities and differences of teachers’ views of effective mathematics teaching and learning from four regions. ZDM, 39(4), 329-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0035-2
Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9132-1
Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
Chan, K. K., & Leung, S. W. (2014). Dynamic geometry software improves mathematical achievement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing, 51(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.c
Chan, K. K., & Zhou, Y. C. (2020). Effects of cooperative learning with dynamic mathematics software (DMS) on learning inversely proportional functions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(20), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i20.14339
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
Cheung, K. C., Sit, P. S., Mak, S. K., & Ieong, M. K. (2013). Macao PISA 2012 report: Assessment of mathematical, scientific and reading literacy performance of 15-year-old students from an international comparison perspective. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Devine, A., Fawcett, K., Szűcs, D., & Dowker, A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-8-33
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018053
Erbas, A. K., & Yenmez, A. A. (2011). The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth grade students’ achievements in polygons. Computers & Education, 57, 2462-2475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.002
Font, V., Bolite, J., & Acevedo, J. (2010). Metaphors in mathematics classrooms: Analyzing the dynamic process of teaching and learning of graph functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9247-4
Funkhouser, C. (2002). The effects of computer-augmented geometry instruction on student performance and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2002.10782377
Guven, B., & Karatas, I. (2009). Students discovering spherical geometry using dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(3), 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390802641650
Isiksal, M., & Askar, P. (2005). The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research, 47(3), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880500287815
Kaplan, E. B. (2000). Using food as a metaphor for care middle-school kids talk about family, school, and class relationships. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(4), 474-509. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124100029004003
Koklu, O., & Topcu, A. (2012). Effect of Cabri-assisted instruction on secondary school students’ misconceptions about graph of quadratic functions. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 43(8), 999-1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.678892
Lai, M. Y. (2013). Constructing meanings of mathematical registers using metaphorical reasoning and models. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 15(1), 29-47.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Latterell, C. M., & Wilson, J. L. (2016). Math is like a lion hunting a sleeping gazelle: Preservice elementary teachers’ metaphors of mathematics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9470
Lim, C. S. (1999). Using metaphor analysis to explore adults’ images of mathematics. https://education.exeter.ac.uk/research/centres/stem/publications/pmej/pome12/article9.htm
Markovits, Z., & Forgasz, H. (2017). “Mathematics is like a lion”: Elementary students’ beliefs about mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9759-2
Martı́nez, M. A., Sauleda, N., & Huber, G. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 965-977. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00043-9
Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21026
Noyes, A. (2006). Using metaphor in mathematics teacher preparation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(7), 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.009
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1-3), 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003759711966
OECD. (2012). Closing the gender gap. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-en
OECD. (2015). The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en
Olivero, F., & Robutti, O. (2007). Measuring in dynamic geometry environments as a tool for conjecturing and proving. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(7), 135-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-007-9115-1
Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom: A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357
Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257-315). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Pierce, R., Stacey, K., Wander, R., & Ball, L. (2011). The design of lessons using mathematics analysis software to support multiple representations in secondary school mathematics. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2010.534869
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
Schinck, A. G., Neale, H. W., Pugalee, D. K., & Cifarelli, V. V. (2008). Using metaphors to unpack student beliefs about mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 326-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17845.x
Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358-394.
Selaković, M., Marinković, V., & Janičić, P. (2020). New dynamics in dynamic geometry: Dragging constructed points. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 97, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2018.12.002
Skilling, K., Bobis, J., & Martin, A. J. (2020). The “ins and outs” of student engagement in mathematics: Shifts in engagement factors among high and low achievers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33, 469-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00313-2
Thomas, G. P., & McRobbie, C. J. (2001). Using a metaphor for learning to improve students’ metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 222-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<222::AID-TEA1004>3.0.CO;2-S
Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Junior high school students’ Internet usage and self-efficacy: A re-examination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.004
Vale, C. M., & Leder, G. C. (2004). Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2-3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040411.94890.56
Willox, A. C., Harper, S. L., Bridger, D., Morton, S., & Orbach, A. S., Silvia. (2010). Co-creating metaphor in the classroom for deeper learning: Graduate student reflections. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 71-79.
Wong, N. Y. (2003). The influence of technology on the mathematics curriculum. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook on mathematics education (pp. 271-321). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_10
Woodside, A. G. (2008). Using the forced metaphor-elicitation technique (FMET) to meet animal companions within self. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 480-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.029
Zengin, Y., & Tatar, E. (2017). Integrating dynamic mathematics software into cooperative learning environments in mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 74-88.
Zilka, G. C. (2020). Teenagers connected to digital environments–what happens when they get to school? Commonalities, similarities and differences from their perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1743-1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10052-y

How to cite this article

APA

Chan, K. K., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(10), em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

Vancouver

Chan KK, Reynolds BL. Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2022;18(10):em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

AMA

Chan KK, Reynolds BL. Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2022;18(10), em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

Chicago

Chan, Kan Kan, and Barry Lee Reynolds. "Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2022 18 no. 10 (2022): em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

Harvard

Chan, K. K., and Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(10), em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463

MLA

Chan, Kan Kan et al. "Metaphoric beliefs of students engaged in dynamic mathematics lessons". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 18, no. 10, 2022, em2169. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12463