School Mathematics (대한수학교육학회지:학교수학)

The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics (대한수학교육학회)
권호 표지

5th and 6th Grade Korean Students' Proportional Reasoning Abilities

초등학교 5학년과 6학년의 비례 추론 능력 분석

  • Received : 2016.11.10
  • Accepted : 2016.12.18
  • Published : 2016.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research analyzed proportional reasoning abilities of the 5th grade students who learned only the basis of ratio and rate and 6th grade students who also learned proportion and cross product strategy. Data were collected through the proportional reasoning tests and the interviews, and then the achievement of the students and their proportional reasoning strategies were analyzed. In the light of such analytical results, the conclusions are as follows. Firstly, there is not much difference between 5th and 6th grade students in the achievement scores. Secondly, both 5th and 6th graders are less familiar with the geometric, qualitative and comparisons tasks than the other tasks. Thirdly, not only 5th graders but also 6th graders used informal strategies much more than the formal strategy. Fourthly, some students can't come up with other strategies than the cross product strategy. Finally, many students have difficulties in discerning proportional situation and non-proportional situations. This study provided suggestions for improving teaching proportional reasoning in elementary schools in Korea as follows: focusing on letting students use their informal strategies fluently in geometric, qualitative, and comparisons tasks as well as algebraic, quantitative, and missing value tasks focusing on the concept of ratio and proportion instead of enforcing the formal strategy.

본 연구는 비와 비율에 대한 기본적인 내용을 배운 5학년 학생들과 비례와 비례식 및 형식적인 전략까지 배운 6학년 학생들의 비례추론 능력을 비교 분석하고, 초등학교의 비례 추론 지도를 위한 시사점을 제공하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 5학년 131명과 6학년 138명 학생들을 대상으로 다양한 과제로 구성된 비례 추론 검사를 실시하여 성취도와 전략을 분석하고, 일부 면담을 실시하였다. 분석 결과 5학년과 6학년 학생들의 평균은 다소 차이는 있었으나 크지 않았고, 과제 유형별로는 5, 6학년 모두 기하 과제보다는 대수 과제, 질적 과제보다는 양적 과제, 비교 과제보다는 미지값 과제에서 높은 점수를 보였으며, 5, 6학년 모두 형식적 전략보다는 인수 전략과 단위 비율 전략 같은 비형식적 전략을 훨씬 더 많이 사용하였고, 비례 상황과 비 비례 상황을 구분하는 데는 여전히 어려움이 있었다. 이런 결과를 바탕으로 학생들의 비례 추론 지도를 위한 시사점으로 다양한 비례 추론 과제의 도입과 학생들의 유연한 전략의 중시를 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 고은성․이경화(2007). 초등학교 6학년 학생의 비례 추론 능력 분석. 수학교육학연구, 17(4), 359-380.
  2. 교육과학기술부(2011a). 수학 6-1. 서울: 두산동아(주).
  3. 교육과학기술부(2011b). 수학과교육과정. 교육과학기술부 고시 제 2011-361호 [별책 8]. 교육 과학기술부.
  4. 교육과학기술부(2012). 수학 5-2. 서울: 두산동아(주).
  5. 교육부(2014). 수학 6-1 지도서. 서울: 두산동아(주).
  6. 교육부(2016). 과학 5-1. 서울: 천재교육(주).
  7. 김경선․박영희(2007). 초등학생의 비례 추론 지도에 관한 연구. 학교수학, 9(4), 447-466.
  8. 김경희․백희수(2010). 비와 비율 영역에 대한 우리나라와 싱가포르 교육과정 및 교과서 비교-TIMSS 평가 목표와 공개문항을 중심으로. 학교수학, 12(4), 473-491.
  9. 안숙현․방정숙(2008). 5, 6, 7학년 학생들의 비례 추론 능력 실태 조사. 수학교육학연구, 18(1), 103-121.
  10. 이종욱(2006). 4학년 아동의 비와 비례 개념 분석. 수학교육학연구, 16(2), 157-177.
  11. 임재훈․이형숙(2015). 비례추론을 돕는 시각적 모델에 대하여: 초등 수학 교과서의 비례식과 비례배분 실생활 문제를 대상으로. 수학 교육학연구, 25(2), 189-206.
  12. 정영옥(2015). 초등학교에서 비례추론 지도에 관한 논의. 수학교육학연구, 25(1), 21-58.
  13. 정유경․정영옥(2015). 초등학생들의 비례 추론 전략 분석-6학년을 중심으로. 한국초등수학교육학회지, 19(4), 457-484.
  14. 정은실(2013). 초등학교 수학교과서에서의 비례 추론에 대한 연구. 수학교육학연구, 23(4), 505-516.
  15. 홍지연․김민경(2013). 초등수학 비구조화된 문제해결 과정에서의 비례적 추론. 학교수학, 15(4), 723-742.
  16. Adjiage, R. & Pluvinage, F. (2007). An experiment in teaching ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 149-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9049-x
  17. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority(ACARA) (2013a). F-10 Curriculum. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
  18. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority(ACARA) (2013b). F-10 Curriculum. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
  19. Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational Number, Ratio, and Proportion. In D. A. Grouws(Ed), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 296-331). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  20. Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(3) 247-273.
  21. Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B. S. (2012). Ratio and Proportion. Research and Teaching in Mathematics Teachers' Education (Pre-and In-Service Mathematics Teachers of Elementary and Middle School Classes). Rotterdam, AW: Sense Publishers.
  22. Billings, E. M. H. (2001). Problems that encourage proportion sense. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(1), 10-14.
  23. Common Core State Standards Initiative(CCSSI) (2010). Common Core Standards for Mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ Math_Standards.pdf.
  24. Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. T. Owens(Ed.), Research Ideas for the Classroom: Middle Grades Mathematics (pp. 159-178). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  25. Curriculum Planning Development Division(CPDD) (2012). O-& N(A)-Level Mathematics Teaching and Learning Syllabus. Ministry of Education, Singapore.
  26. Department for Education(DfE) (2013). Mathematics Programmes of Study: Key Stage 3, National Curriculum in England. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/nationalcurriculum-inengland- mathematics-programmes-of-study.
  27. Department for Education(DfE) (2014). Mathematics Programmes of Study: Key Stage 4, National Curriculum in England. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/nationalcurriculum-inengland- mathematics-programmes-of-study.
  28. Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., Hilton, G., & Roche, A. (2008). Eliciting growth in teachers' proportional reasoning: Measuring the impact of a professional development program. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar(Eds.) Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 163-168.
  29. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  30. Harel, G., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Post, T. (1994). Invariance of ratio: The case of children's anticipatory scheme for constancy of taste. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(4), 324-345. https://doi.org/10.2307/749237
  31. Karplus, R., Pulos, S., & Stage, E. (1983). Early adolescents' proportional reasoning on 'rate' problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(3), 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410539
  32. Kastberg, S. E., D'Ambrosio, B., & Lynch-Davis, K. (2012). Understanding proportional reasoning for teaching. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 68(3), 32-40.
  33. Lamon, S. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Children's cognitive and metacognitive processes. In T. P. Carpente, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational Numbers An Integration of Research(pp. 131-156). New Jersey, Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  34. Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teaching Fractions and Ratios for Understanding. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
  35. Langrall, C. W., & Swafford, J. (2000). Three balloons for two dollars: Developing proportional reasoning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(4), 254-261.
  36. Lanius, C. A., & Williams, S. E. (2003). Proportionality: A unifying theme for the middle grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8(8), 392-396.
  37. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional Reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.) Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades(pp. 93-118). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, INC.
  38. Post, T., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1988). Proportionality and the development of pre-algebra understandings. In A. Coxford & A. Shulte (Eds.) The Idea of Algebra K-12 (1998 Yearbook, pp. 78-90). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  39. Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lamdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2012). 초등교사를 위한 수학과 교수법. 박성선.김민경.방정숙.권점례 역. 서울; 경문사. (영어 원작은 2009년 출판).
  40. Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9415-9
  41. The School Mathematics Project(2003). SMP Interact Practice for Book 8T. Cambridge University Press.
  42. Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400937
  43. Van de Walle, J. A. (2008). 수학을 어떻게 가르 칠 것인가. (남승인 외 역). 서울: 경문사. (영어 원작은 2004년 출판).
  44. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on properties of Overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_3
  45. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). The Linear imperative: An inventory and conceptual analysis of students' overuse of linearity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 311-342.
  46. Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In J. Hiebert, & M. Behr (Eds.), Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades, Vol. 2 (pp. 141-161). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.