Pre-service elementary school classroom and mathematics teachers' interpretations about the definition of angle concept

Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 131-140

  Tunc, Mutlu Piskin ^a   Durmus, Soner ^a  

^a ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Angle; Mathematics education; Pre service teacher; Teacher training program

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861133760     PISSN: 13087711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Keiser JM. Struggles with developing the concept of angle: Comparing sixth-grade students' discourse to the history of the angle concept. Math Thin Learn 2004;6:285-306.
2. Mitchelmore MC, White AP. Development of angle concepts by progressive abstraction and generalization. Educ Stud Math 2000;41:209-238.
3. Yazgan G, Argün Z, Emre E. Teacher sceneries related to "Angle Concept": Turkey case. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2009;1:285-290.
4. Matos J. The historical development of the concept of angle. Math Educ 1990;1:4-11.
5. nd Ed., The MIT Press, London, 1986.
6. Clements DH, Burns BA. Students' development of strategies for turn and angle measure. Educ Stud Math 2000;41:31-45.
7. Close GS. Children's understanding of angle at the primary/secondary transfer stage. Polytechnic of the South Bank, London, 1982.
8. Kieran C. LOGO and the notion of angle among fourth and sixth grade children. The 10th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of London Institute of Education, London, 1986.
9. Scally SP. A clinical investigation of the impact of a LOGO learning environment on students' Van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. The 10th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of London Institute of Education, London, 1986.
10. Weisstein EW. CRC Concise of encyclopedia of mathematics. FL: CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1998.
11. Clements DH, Battista MT. Learning of geometric concepts in a Logo environment. J Res Math Educ 1989;20:450-467.
12. Silfverberg H, Joutsenlahti J. Prospective class and subject teachers' interpretations of the meaning of the concept of a plane angle. The European Conference on Educational Research 2010, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, August 25-27, 2010.
13. Australian Education Council. A National Statement on Mathematics for Australian Schools: Curriculum Corporation, Melbourne, 1991.
14. Azar A. A comparison of the effects of two physics laboratory applications with different approaches on student physics achievement. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:161-185.
15. th of December, 2010, from http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/index.aspx, 2010.
16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. VA: NCTM, Reston, 2010.
17. Fennema E, Franke M. Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1992.
18. Turnuklu E, Yesildere S. The pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics: preservice primary mathematics teachers' perspectives in Turkey. Issues Undergrad Math Prep School Teach: J 2007;1:1-13.
19. Durmus S, Toluk Z, Olkun S. Matematik ogretmenligi 1. sinif ogrencilerinin geometri alan bilgi duzeylerinin tespiti, duzeylerin gelistirilmesi icin yapilan arastirma ve sonuclari (Research findings related to investigation of freshman pre-service elementary mathematics teachers' geometry subject knowledge level and improvement of their levels). V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Kongresi, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, September 16-18, 2002 [in Turkish].
20. Ball DL. With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School J 1993;93:373-397.
21. Barnett B. No shortcuts to preparing good teachers. Educ Lead 2001;58:32-36.
22. Calik M. How did creating a constructivist learning environment influence my graduate students' views? Energy Educn Sci Technol Part B 2011;3:1-13.
23. Driver R, Oldham V. A constructivist approach to curriculum development. Stud Sci Educ 1986;13:105-122.
24. Yigit N. Developing presentation skills of student teachers through micro-teaching method. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2010;2:55-74.
25. Ozmantar MF. Rethinking about the pedagogy for pedagogical content knowledge in the context of mathematics teaching. Eurasia J Math Sci Tech Ed 2010;7:15-27.
26. Karamustafaoglu O. Active learning strategies in physics teaching. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009:1:27-50.
27. Kurnaz MA, Calik M. A thematic review of energy' teaching studies: focuses, needs, methods, general knowledge claims and implications. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:1-26.
28. Demirbas A. Concept of energy conversion in engineering education. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:183-197.
29. Tatli ZH. Computer based education: Online learning and teaching facilities. Energy Educ Sci Technol Part B 2009;1:171-181.