The Effect in the Action of the Professor and the Problems in the Development of Abstract Reasoning in Future Teachers

David Mendez^1, , Juan Carlos Sanchez¹ and Miriam Mendez²

¹Education, CES Don Bosco, Madrid, Spain

²Mathematics education, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain

Cite this paper:
David Mendez, Juan Carlos Sanchez and Miriam Mendez. The Effect in the Action of the Professor and the Problems in the Development of Abstract Reasoning in Future Teachers. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5(3):267-272. doi: 10.12691/education-5-3-6

Abstract

Abstract reasoning is an important ability to understand science and mathematics concepts. The aim has been to increase this ability by means of mathematic problems and cooperative learning. This experiment has been carried out with six groups: the students have to do some mathematics problems. In the control groups, there was no aid from the professor, and in the experimental groups the professor solved any existing doubt. A pretest and posttest was done in order to consider if the professor's teaching had caused any difference. The results showed that the problems produced a gain and the intervention of the professor increased the gain in the experimental groups.

Keywords:
future teacher logical reasoning mathematics problems gain TOLT

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	NCTM. Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA. 2009. Recovered from: http://www.nctm.org/ [Accessed: 05/03/2012].
[2]	COSCE. Informe Enciende. Rubes, Madrid, 2011.
[3]	Solbes, J., Ruiz, J. J. & Furió, C. Debates y argumentación en las clases de física y química. Alambique, 63, 65-75, 2010.
[4]	Tabach, M., Barkai, R., Tsamir, P.; Tirosh, D., Dreyfus, T. & Levenson, E. Verbal justification- is it a proof? Secondary school teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 1071-1090, 2010.
[5]	Etkina, E. & Van Heuvelen, A. Investigative science learning environment. Forum on education of the American physical society, spring issue, 12-14, 2004.
[6]	Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students’ meta-cognition and argumentation skills. En C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments, Nova Science, London, 2008, 59-94.
[7]	Sánchez Huete, J. C. & Fernández Bravo, J. A. La enseñanza de la Matemática. Fundamentos teóricos y bases psicopedagógicas. CCC, Madrid, 2003.
[8]	PISA. 5 keys in order to understand mathematic competency in PISA (2013)). Recovered from http://blog.educalab.es/inee/2013/12/02/5-claves-para-entender-la-competencia-matematica-en-pisa/ [Accessed: 24/02/2016].
[9]	Mayer, R. Pensamiento, resolución de problemas y cognición. 91. Paidós, Barcelona, 1986.
[10]	Mialaret, G. Las matemáticas. Cómo se aprenden, cómo se enseñan. Madrid: Pablo del Río. (Mathematics. How to learn them and how to teach them, Pablo del Río, Madrid, 1977.
[11]	Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1999.
[12]	Bará, J., Domingo, J. & Valero, M. Techniques of cooperative learning. Training Workshop in Autonomous University of Madrid, 28th and 29th April, 1995.
[13]	Méndez, D. Motivational change realized by cooperative learning applied in thermodynamics. European Journal of Physics Education, 3 (4), 13-26, 2012.
[14]	Hänze, M. & Berger, R. Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and instruction, 17, 29-41, 2007.
[15]	Desbien, D. Modelling discourse management compared to other classroom management styles in university physics. Dissertation presented for the requirements of the degree doctor of philosophy. Arizona State University. Available, 2002. Recovered from http://modeling.la.asu.edu. Accessed July 20, 2012.
[16]	Harskamp, E. & Ding, N. Structured collaboration versus individual learning in solving physics problems. International journal of science education, 28 (14), 1669-1688, 2006.
[17]	Méndez, D. El aprendizaje cooperativo y la enseñanza tradicional en el aprendizaje de la física. (Cooperative learning and traditional teaching in the Physics learning). Educación y futuro, 27, 179-200, 2012.
[18]	Méndez, D. The influence of teaching methodologies in the learning of thermodynamics in secondary education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (1), 59-72, 2013.
[19]	Lawson, A. E. The nature and development of scientific reasoning. A synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2 (3), 307-338, 2009.
[20]	Hand, B.M., Prain, V. & Yore, L.D. Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In P. Tynjala, L. Mason & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001.
[21]	Veerman, A., Andriessen, J. & Kanselaar, G. Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30, 155-186, 2002.
[22]	Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. & Eskin, H. Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10 Investigative science learning environment. Forum on education of the American physical society, spring issue, 12-14 (6), 1415-1443, 2012.
[23]	Carrascosa, J.; Gil-Pérez, D.; Vilches, A. & Valdés, P. Papel de la actividad experimental en la educación científica. Cuaderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 23, (2), 157-181. 2006.
[24]	Tobin, K. G. & Capie, W. The development and validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking, Educational and Psychological Measurement 41, 413-423, 1981.
[25]	Acevedo, J. A. & Oliva, J. M. Validación y aplicaciones de un test razonamiento lógico, Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 48, 339-352, 1995.
[26]	Valanides, N. Formal reasoning abilities and school achievement, Studies in educational evaluation, 23 (2), 169-185, 1997.
[27]	Maris, S. & Difabio, H. Academic achievement and formal thought in engineering students, Electronic journal of research in educational psychology, 7 (2), 653-672, (2009).
[28]	Gupta, T. Guided-inquiry based laboratory instruction: investigation of critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, and implementing student roles in chemistry. A dissertation for the degree of doctor, 2012. Recovered from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/ [Accessed: 13/05/2016].
[29]	Hackling, M., Garnett, P., & Dymond, F. Improving the scientific thinking of pre-service secondary science teachers, Australasian journal of teacher education, 15 (2), 20-27, 1990.
[30]	Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. GALT, Group Test of Logical thinking. Athens, GA, University of Georgia, 1982.
[31]	Oliva, J. Structural patterns in students' conceptions in mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 903-920, 1999.
[32]	Valanides, N. Formal operational performance and achievement of lower secondary schools’ students, Studies in educational evaluation, 24 (1), 1-23, 1998.
[33]	Rotter, C.A. Predicting Student's Level of Reasoning Through the TOLT Test. 1999. Recovered from: http://www.as.wvu.edu/phys/rotter/phys201/1_Habits_of_the_Mind/Test_of_Logic_Thinking.html [Accessed: 30/03/2014].
[34]	Hake, R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics’ test data for introductory physics courses, American journal of physics, 66 [1], 64-74, 1998.
[35]	Méndez, D. & Souviron, P. Desarrollo del pensamiento lógico por medio de la metodología de enseñanza ISLE. Aula de Encuentro, 17[1], 212-238. 2015.