Assessing Future Teachres' Knowledge on Fractions: Written Tests vs Concept Cartoons

Pub Date : 2018-09-30 DOI:10.7160/ERIESJ.2018.110301
L. Samková
{"title":"Assessing Future Teachres' Knowledge on Fractions: Written Tests vs Concept Cartoons","authors":"L. Samková","doi":"10.7160/ERIESJ.2018.110301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contribution investigates opportunities that an educational tool called Concept Cartoons can offer in future teachers' education, namely in comparison with word problems in standard written tests. The referred empirical study was conducted in two separated consecutive stages, with two groups of future primary school teachers (the first one from the Czech Republic, and the second one from Slovakia). The participants of the first stage solved four word problems (T1, T2, T3, T4) with increasing difficulty within the written test, and a problem with a similar structure and difficulty as T3 but in the Concept Cartoon form. The second stage of the study served as a complementary stage, its participants solved only the word problem T3 and the Concept Cartoon. In both stages, the comparison of results and solution procedures revealed many participants who mastered the word problem(s) but displayed a fundamental misconception when working with the Concept Cartoon. Two thirds of the participants presented non-corresponding responses to these two corresponding tasks: they solved one of them correctly and the other one incorrectly. All of the problems in the study were based on the part-whole interpretation of fractions, the revealed misconception consisted of incorrect determination of the whole.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7160/ERIESJ.2018.110301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The contribution investigates opportunities that an educational tool called Concept Cartoons can offer in future teachers' education, namely in comparison with word problems in standard written tests. The referred empirical study was conducted in two separated consecutive stages, with two groups of future primary school teachers (the first one from the Czech Republic, and the second one from Slovakia). The participants of the first stage solved four word problems (T1, T2, T3, T4) with increasing difficulty within the written test, and a problem with a similar structure and difficulty as T3 but in the Concept Cartoon form. The second stage of the study served as a complementary stage, its participants solved only the word problem T3 and the Concept Cartoon. In both stages, the comparison of results and solution procedures revealed many participants who mastered the word problem(s) but displayed a fundamental misconception when working with the Concept Cartoon. Two thirds of the participants presented non-corresponding responses to these two corresponding tasks: they solved one of them correctly and the other one incorrectly. All of the problems in the study were based on the part-whole interpretation of fractions, the revealed misconception consisted of incorrect determination of the whole.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
评估未来教师的分数知识:笔试vs概念漫画
该贡献调查了一种叫做概念漫画的教育工具可以为未来教师的教育提供的机会,即与标准笔试中的单词问题进行比较。本文的实证研究分两个连续阶段进行,选取了两组未来小学教师(第一组来自捷克,第二组来自斯洛伐克)。第一阶段的参与者在笔试中解决了难度越来越大的T1、T2、T3、T4四个单词问题,以及一个结构和难度与T3相似但以概念漫画形式出现的问题。研究的第二阶段作为补充阶段,参与者只解决了文字问题T3和概念漫画。在这两个阶段,结果和解决过程的比较表明,许多参与者掌握了单词问题,但在处理概念卡通时却表现出根本性的误解。三分之二的参与者对这两个相应的任务给出了不对应的回答:他们正确地解决了其中一个,而另一个不正确。研究中的所有问题都是基于分数的部分-整体解释,揭示的误解包括对整体的错误确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1