Article Sidebar

Published
Jan 17, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 392 Download : 275

Main Article Content

Abstract

Although many scholars support the Lakatosian method of mathematics education for enhancing students learning, the use of the method to foster students' transition from alternative to scientific conceptions in mathematics does not seem to have been a focus of any research. This study explored if the Lakatosian heuristic method of teaching could foster a students' transition from alternative to scientific conceptions of the surface area of a cone. The study used a qualitative, exploratory single case study design to undertake an in-depth study of a student in the 11th grade at a secondary school in Cyprus. Data was collected through lesson observation and analyzed using deductive content analysis. The study found that beginning from informal conjectures and proofs to more formal proofs the student was able to transit from alternative conception to the scientific conception of the surface area of a cone. The finding suggests that the Lakatosian method of mathematics can foster students' conceptual understanding of some mathematical concepts.

Keywords

Conceptual change Cone Cyprus Secondary school deductive proof Euclidean geometry Lakatosian heuristic Surface area of a cone

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Bass, L., & Semetko, H. A. (2021). Content Analysis. In J.-F. Morin, C. Olsson, & E. Ö. Atikcan (Eds.), Research Methods in the Social Sciences: an AZ of Key Concepts (Vol. 54, pp. 56-61). Oxford University Press.

  2. Bofferding, L. (2018). Challenges of Promoting Conceptual Change with Instructional Contexts. In L. Bofferding & N. M. Wessman-Enzinger (Eds.), Exploring the Integer Addition and Subtraction Landscape: Perspectives on Integer Thinking (pp. 167-187). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90692-8_7

  3. Cellucci, C. (2020). Reconnecting Logic with Discovery. Topoi, 39(4), 869-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9523-3

  4. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001

  5. de Villiers, M. (2012). An illustration of the explanatory and discovery functions of proof. Pythagoras, 33(3), 193. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v33i3.193

  6. Densmore, D. (2010). Conics, books I-III. Green Lion Press.

  7. Dimitriou-Hadjichristou, C., & Ogbonnaya, U. I. (2015). The effect of using the lakatosian heuristic method to teach the surface area of a cone on students’ achievement according to bloom's taxonomy levels. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(2), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1049013

  8. European Evaluation Committee of the pre-service programme in Cyprus. (2009). Report of Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Cyprus Pedagogical Institute (unpublished).

  9. Hersh, R. (1978). Introducing imre lakatos. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 1(3), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03023262

  10. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2006, 12-17 October 2006). Teacher professional development in focus: Reorganizing the existing in-service training scheme in Cyprus. In Conference Recreating Linkages between Theory and Praxis in Educational Leadership, Nicosia.

  11. Laburú, C. E., & Niaz, M. (2002). A Lakatosian Framework to Analyze Situations of Cognitive Conflict and Controversy in Students' Understanding of Heat Energy and Temperature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(3), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016064301034

  12. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

  13. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press.

  14. Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical Papers (Vol. 54). Cambridge University Press.

  15. Lehtinen, E., Gegenfurtner, A., Helle, L., & Säljö, R. (2020). Conceptual change in the development of visual expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101545

  16. Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

  17. Morales-Carballo, A., Locia-Espinoza, E., Ramirez-Barragan, M., Almira, J. M. S., & Mederos, O. B. (2018). The Theoretical didactic approach to the counterexample in mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology, 9, 1510-1517. https://doi.org/10.24297/ijrem.v9i1.8013

  18. Motterlini, M. (2002). Professor Lakatos Between the Hegelian Devil and the Popperian Deep Blue Sea. In G. Kampis, L. Kvasz, & M. Stöltzner (Eds.), Appraising Lakatos: Mathematics, Methodology, and the Man (pp. 23-52). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0769-5_3

  19. Niaz, M. (1998). A lakatosian conceptual change teaching strategy based on student ability to build models with varying degrees of conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Science & Education, 7(2), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008671632536

  20. Pease, A., Colton, S., Smaill, A., & Lee, J. (2004). A model of Lakatos’s philosophy of mathematics. In Proceedings of the European Computing and Philosophy Conference (ECAP 2004).

  21. Persianis, P. (1998). 'Compensatory Legitimation' in Greek Educational Policy: An explanation for the abortive educational reforms in Greece in comparison with those in France. Comparative Education, 34(1), 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828351

  22. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, Inc.

  23. Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424

  24. Ravn, O., & Skovsmose, O. (2019). Mathematics as Dialogue. In O. Ravn & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Connecting Humans to Equations : A Reinterpretation of the Philosophy of Mathematics (pp. 107-119). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01337-0_8

  25. Shaffer, M. (2015). Lakatos’ quasi-empiricism in the philosophy of mathematics. Polish Journal of Philosophy, 9(2), 71-80.

  26. Sriraman, B., & Mousoulides, N. (2020). Quasi-empirical Reasoning (Lakatos). In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 703-705). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_131

  27. Stylianides, G. (2010). Engaging secondary students in reasoning and proving. Mathematics Teaching, 219, 39-44.

  28. Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. Cambridge University Press.

  29. Vamvakoussi, X. (2017). Using analogies to facilitate conceptual change in mathematics learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(4), 497-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0857-5

  30. Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(2), 97-129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002998529016

  31. Wadhwa, M., Gahlawat, I. N., & Chhikara, A. (2020). Understanding students’ alternative conceptions: A mirror to their thinking. Integrated Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 9-13.

  32. Weissová, M., & Prokop, P. (2020). Alternative conceptions of obesity and perception of obese people amongst children. Journal of Biological Education, 54(5), 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1609549