[-] Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLannin, John K.eng
dc.contributor.authorPerkowski, Michael, 1954-eng
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Missouri-Columbia. Graduate School. Theses and Dissertations. Dissertations. 2013 Dissertationseng
dc.date.issued2013eng
dc.date.submitted2013 Springeng
dc.descriptionTitle from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on August 28, 2013).eng
dc.descriptionThe entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file.eng
dc.descriptionDissertation advisor: Dr. John Lannineng
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references.eng
dc.descriptionVita.eng
dc.descriptionPh. D. University of Missouri--Columbia 2013.eng
dc.descriptionDissertations, Academic -- University of Missouri--Columbia -- Curriculum and instruction.eng
dc.description"May 2013"eng
dc.description.abstractRecent curriculum recommendation call for mathematical argumentation to play a significantly greater role in U. S. mathematics instruction at all grade levels, including the elementary grades. To better understand how preservice elementary teachers (PTs) enrolled in a one-semester course emphasizing mathematical argumentation might become better prepared to implement this change, I interviewed five such PTs at two points in time, near the beginning of the course and shortly after they completed it. Both interviews focused on a problem set in which fictional elementary school students present arguments for their solutions to mathematical problems. Interviewees compared the arguments, decided which were convincing, and gave reasons for their choices. I found that they initially preferred arguments in which they perceived the arguer as knowing what to do, getting the correct answer, using a quick way to get it, and showing how with numbers. In contrast, after completing the course, they focused on understanding the problem, finding answers that made sense, and explaining why with diagrams. These and other findings suggest that current research on PTs' approaches to mathematical justification may: (a) overemphasize the formal aspects of mathematical arguments and undervalue their substance, (b) overemphasize the role of verification and undervalue explanation, (c) be too far removed from PTs' perspectives, and (d) therefore fail to accurately reflect significant progress in PTs' understandings.eng
dc.format.extentxi, 204 pageseng
dc.identifier.oclc871203506eng
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10355/37800
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.32469/10355/37800eng
dc.languageEnglisheng
dc.publisherUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaeng
dc.relation.ispartof2013 Freely available dissertations (MU)eng
dc.subjectpreservice teacherseng
dc.subjectmathematics instructioneng
dc.subjectmathematical argumentseng
dc.titlePreservice elementary teachers' initial and post-course views of mathematical arguments: an interpretative phenomenological analysiseng
dc.typeThesiseng
thesis.degree.disciplineCurriculum and instruction (MU)eng
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Missouri--Columbiaeng
thesis.degree.levelDoctoraleng
thesis.degree.namePh. D.eng


Files in this item

[PDF]
[PDF]
[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

[-] Show simple item record