2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A framework for primary teachers’ perceptions of mathematical reasoning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
5

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
15
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…This result shows similarity with the findings of Loong, Vale, Bragg and Herbert (2013) that although some teachers are able to tell the meaning of reasoning, some use unclear expressions. Furthermore, it shows similarity with some of the responses (problem-solving, predicting, thinking, thinking relevantly…) given by the elementary school teachers regarding what they understand from mathematical reasoning in the study of Herbert, Vale, Bragg, Loong (2015). It has been concluded that the expressions which are included in the definition of the mathematical reasoning skill such as the ability to make a logical deduction, inference, and the ability to predict are few.…”
Section: Discussion-conclusionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…This result shows similarity with the findings of Loong, Vale, Bragg and Herbert (2013) that although some teachers are able to tell the meaning of reasoning, some use unclear expressions. Furthermore, it shows similarity with some of the responses (problem-solving, predicting, thinking, thinking relevantly…) given by the elementary school teachers regarding what they understand from mathematical reasoning in the study of Herbert, Vale, Bragg, Loong (2015). It has been concluded that the expressions which are included in the definition of the mathematical reasoning skill such as the ability to make a logical deduction, inference, and the ability to predict are few.…”
Section: Discussion-conclusionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Furthermore, it facilitates recognition of similitudes in the structure of mathematical problems and generalization of methods of resolution when students work with situations that have different contexts but the same underlying structure (Sriraman & Adrian, 2004). Nevertheless, as in the study of Herbert et al (2015), the teachers seem to be less aware of the relationship between mathematical reasoning-inductive, in our case-and problem resolution than they were in the previous categories. In particular, we find that these teachers omitted the description of the inductive strategy for solving a mathematical problem; neither pointed out the potential of this reasoning for recognising methods of solving problems that have the same structure.…”
Section: Category D: Strategy For Solving Problemsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Some studies suggest that promoting and interpreting inductive reasoning in the classroom is a complex task for teachers. Herbert, Vale, Bragg, Loong, and Widjaja (2015) reported that elementary school teachers have little understanding of the distinctive aspects of the mathematical reasoning types and how to encourage mathematical reasoning in the classroom. Furthermore, noticing and interpreting the actions of students' reasoning in generalization tasks is complicated for both pre-service and in-service teachers (Callejo & Zapatera, 2017;El Mouhayar, 2018;Melhuish, Thanheiser, & Guyot, 2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to its significance in all disciplines, reasoning has special and essential place in mathematics (NCTM, 2009, p.4). In many countries, mathematical reasoning is valued and activities that improve mathematical reasoning are included in the mathematics curriculum (Fujita & Jones, 2014;Herbert, Vale, Bragg, Loong & Widjaja, 2015;Thompson, Hatfield, Yoon, Joshua & Byerley,2017). Mathematical reasoning provides a strong foundation for students to understand a wide range of mathematical ideas such as rate of change and linearity, exponential growth, rate (Adu-Gyamfi & Bossé, 2014;Ellis, Ozgur, Kulow, Dogan & Amidon, 2016;Lobato & Siebert, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%