فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی

بررسی عملکرد ریاضی دانشجویان در ارزیابی قلم-کاغذی و پویای الکترونیکی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای آموزش ریاضی، دانشکده علوم ریاضی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 استادیار دانشکده علوم ریاضی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 استاد دانشکده علوم ریاضی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

هدف از مطالعه‌ حاضر بررسی توانایی دانشجویان سال اول رشته ریاضی در استفاده از یک قضیه‌ ریاضی در حل یک مسئله از طریق ارزیابی قلم-کاغذی و ارزیابی پویای الکترونیکی بود. در این پژوهش از روش نمونه­ گیریِ در دسترس و هدفمند استفاده شد. 35 نفر از دانشجویان یکی از دانشگاه‌های دولتی کشور داوطلبانه در این مطالعه حضور داشتند. جمع‌آوری و تحلیل داده‌ها با دو رویکرد کمّی و کیفی در قالب پژوهش ترکیبی صورت گرفت. روش‌ کمّیِ استفاده شده روش توصیفی بود. همچنین برای مقایسه عملکرد دانشجویان در ارزیابی قلم-کاغذی و عملکرد آنها در ارزیابی پویا از طرح شبه آزمایشی استفاده شد. در رویکرد کیفی بررسی نگرش دانشجویان به ارزیابی پویا در نتیجه‌ مصاحبه نیمه ­ساختار یافته با برخی از دانشجویان انجام گرفت. تحلیل داده‌ها نشان داد که اغلب دانشجویان در اِعمال شرایط قضیه برای حل مسئله عملکرد موفقی در ارزیابی قلم-کاغذی ندارند و عملکرد آنها در ارزیابی پویا بعد از دریافت بازخوردهای آموزشی ارتقا یافته است. همچنین اغلب دانشجویان بر این باور بودند که دریافت بازخوردها در مسیر ارزیابی پویا بر عملکرد آنها تاثیر مثبتی داشته و به آنها کمک کرده است تا درک بهتری از قضیه مورد نظر داشته باشند. با توجه به یافته‌ها به نظر می‌رسد ارزیابی پویا یکی از روش­های مؤثر ارزیابی برای دروس ریاضی دانشگاهی است و می­ تواند به بهبود یادگیری ریاضی دانشجویان کمک کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating students' mathematical performance in a Paper-pencil and an electronic-based dynamic assessment

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fahimeh Kolahdouz 1
  • Farzad Radmehr 2
  • S. Hassan Alamolhodaei 3
  • Majid Mirzavaziri 3

1 Doctoral of Mathematics Education, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

3 Professor, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The aim of the present study was to explore the ability of first-year mathematics major students to use a mathematical theorem to solve a problem through a paper-pencil and an electronic-based dynamic assessment. In this study, a convenient and purposeful sampling method was used. Thirty-five students from a public university in voluntarily participated in this study. Data gathering and analysis with both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used in a mixed method research format. The quantitative method used in this study was the descriptive method. Also, a semi-experimental design was used to compare students' performance in the paper-pencil assessment and the dynamic assessment. In the qualitative approach, students' attitudes toward dynamic assessment were also explored through semi-structured interviews with several students. Data analysis showed that most students did not perform well in applying the conditions of the theorem to solve the problem in the paper-pencil assessment, and that their performance improved after receiving instructional feedback in the dynamic assessment. Furthermore, most students believed that receiving feedback in the dynamic assessment had a positive impact on their performance and helped them to have a better understanding of the theorem. According to the obtained results, it seems dynamic assessment is an effective assessment method for university mathematical courses and could improve mathematical learning of university students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Mathematical theorem comprehension
  • Mathematics major students
  • Theorem application
  • Paper-pencil assessment
  • Electronic-based dynamic assessment
1. Adams, R.U. (2007). Calculus and integral. Translation by Mohammad Ali Rezvani. Tehran: Scientific and Technical Publications. (Original publication, 2006) (in Persian).
2. Alcock, L. (2009). E-proofs: Students experience of online resources to aid understanding of mathematical proofs. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http:// sigmaa.maa.org rume/crume2009/proceedings. html.Last downloaded January 20, 2014.
3. Alcock, L., & Wilkinson, N. (2011). E-proofs: Design of a resource to support proof comprehension in mathematics. Educational Designer, 1(4). Retrieved from http:// www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/ issue4/article14/index.htm Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger
4. Anapa, P., & Şamkar, H. (2010). Investigation of undergraduate students’ perceptions of mathematical proof. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 2700-2706.
5. Bardelle, C., & Di Martino, P. (2012). E-learning in secondary–tertiary transition in mathematics: For what purpose?. ZDM, 44(6), 787-800.
6. Burkhardt, H., & Pead, D. (2003). Computer-based assessment: A platform for better tests? In C. Richardson (Ed.). Whither assessment? (pp. 133-148). London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
7. Clark, M., & Lovric, M. (2008). Suggestion for a theoretical model for secondary-tertiary transition in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20 (2), 25-37.
8. Clark, M., & Lovric, M. (2009). Understanding secondary-tertiary transition in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40 (6), 755-776.
9. Conradie, J., & Frith, J. (2000). Comprehension tests in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 225-235
10. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Deutsch, T., Herrmann, K., Frese, T., & Sandholzer, H. (2012). Implementing computer-based assessment – a web-based mock examination changes attitudes. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1068–1075.
12. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
13. Elliott, J.G. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realizing potential. Educational Review, 55, 15-32.
14. Gal, M., Burg, W., & Gal, J. (2003). Quantitative and qualitative research methods in educational sciences and psychology. Translation by Ahmad Reza Nasr, Hamidreza Arizi, and colleagues. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Press (Original publication, 1996) (in Persian).
15. Gueudet, G. (2008). Investigating the secondary-tertiary transition. Educational Studies inMathematics, 67 , 237-254.
16. Hanafizadeh, P., Hanafizadeh, M.R., & Hoda Pour, R. (2008). Designing an e-readiness assessment model for Iranian universities and higher education institutions. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 48, 137-103 (in Persian).
17. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
18. Karimi, P., & Nasr, A. (2012). Interview analysis methods. Research, 1, 4, 94-71 (in Persian).
19. Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1).
20. Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2406-2417). Springer US.
21. Mejia-Ramos, J.P., Fuller, E., Weber, K., Rhoads, K., & Samkoff, A. (2012). An assessment model for proof comprehension in undergraduate mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79 (1), 3-18.
22. Nath, S. (2013). Best split-half and maximum reliability. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 3, 1.
23. Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 249-266.
24. Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.
25. Reyhani, E., Fathollahi, F., & Kolahdouz, F. (2015). Students' perceptions of the process of mathematical proof based on the model of Mija Ramos and colleagues. Educational Technology Journal, 10(3), 227-215 (in Persian).
26. Roy, S., Alcock, L., & Inglis, M. (2010). Undergraduates proof comprehension: A comparative study of three forms of proof presentation. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference for Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education.
27. Selden, A. (2011). Transitions and proof and proving at tertiary level. In Proof and proving in mathematics education (pp. 391-420). Springer Netherlands.
28. Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., & Hejazi, U. (2008). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Agah Publication (in Persian).
29. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2001). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education, 7, 137-170.
30. Tall, D. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits, infi nity, and proof. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495–511). New York: Macmillan.
31. Tall, D. (2002). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 3-21). Springer Netherlands.
32. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, Q. (2013). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to research in Leonard, Bickman and Debra, Rug. Social research methods. Translation by Sajjad Yahak etal. Tehran: Publications of the Culture, Arts and Communication Research Center. (Original Publication, 2005) (in Persian).
33. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Kolovou, A., & Peltenburg, M. (2011). Using ICT to improve assessment. Assessment in the Mathematics Classroom: Yearbook, 165-185.
34. Vygotsky, L.S. (1998) The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (ed.) The Collected Works of L. S.Vygotsky. Vol. 5. Child Psychology. New York: Plenum.
35. Wang, T.H. (2010). Web-based dynamic assessment: Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving students’ e-Learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 54 (4), 1157–1166.
36. Wang, T.H. (2011). Implementation of web-based dynamic assessment in facilitating junior high school students to learn mathematics. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1062-1071.
37. Wang, T.H. (2014). Developing an assessment-centered e-learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 73, 189-203.
38. Weber, K. (2004). A framework for describing the processes that undergraduates use to construct proofs. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 425-432.
39. Wildemuth, B.M. (2009). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
40. Yang, K.L., & Lin, F.L. (2008). A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 59-76.
41. Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2008). Exemplifying definitions: A case of a square. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 131-148.
فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
دوره 24، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 87
خرداد 1397
صفحه 91-112