Types of learner error (kurs ishi)

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

35.072265625 KB

Скачать

Types of learner error Content Introduction 1.Understanding of learner errors and misconception 2. The role of conversations in learning 3. Validity and reliability 4. Number of errors. Error category comparison bar graph Conclusion Used literature

Introduction This work is about ways on how to increase mathematics learning for low achieving students via a teaching intervention strategy that used learners’ errors and misconceptions . The task of the investigation is the extent to which a pedagogy which focused on identified learner errors and misconceptions in algebra could help learners to overcome their errors. The study found that some types of learner errors in elementary algebra can be reduced as a result of the pedagogical intervention. Some of the errors, for example, the cancellation error, persisted despite the intervention. This work has two inter-related foci in relation to Grade 10 learners. The focus is on whether classroom discussions and dialogue using identified learner errors. The assumption made here is that such an intervention may help these learners reduce some of the errors and misconceptions they had shown in a pre-test Aims to assist learners to understand foreign languages has the potential to contribute to improving achievement not only in languages but in many other subjects. In textbooks found that in the most, textbooks use the equal sign as an operational symbol rather than a relational one which has dire consequences for students. When they mention errors, they do not explore how these may be used in pedagogy. We argue that learner errors and misconceptions in foreign languages in particular must be used to trigger enquiry; as teaching and learning resources to assist students to master by way of their errors, for truth and fallacy are two sides of the same coin. Student misconceptions or gaps in conceptual knowledge of algebra lead to use of incorrect procedures for solving problems

Use of incorrect procedures is common when learning naturally, this ‘inhibits accurate solution of problems. In the Grade 10 English class taught by one of the authors, the learners tended to disrespect other learners’ ideas if they thought they were incorrect. Learners at times showed that they found it hard to accommodate new ideas previously unknown to them, especially if they come from their classmates. They had difficulties in resolving cognitive conflict and developing new schema. ‘As individuals encounter circumstances that are at variance with their current understanding, they develop tension and anxiety, called cognitive conflict; a state of perturbation’ In one of the Grade 10 classes, dealing with this variance was difficult. Learners in the class demonstrated an emotional state of discontent and frustration. Knowledge and awareness of learner difficulties enables the teacher to adapt teaching styles to suit learners’ level of understanding concepts. Rather than seeing errors as indicators of failure, errors ought to be viewed as ‘learning opportunities and as challenges to clarify conceptual misconceptions” 1 Some errors and misconceptions Some errors and misconceptions concern learners’ misinterpretation of previous knowledge in relation to new concepts. One such example is the misconception of the meanings of signs held by many learners. Conceptual Framework The constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning informed the study. 2 We presumed that these theories though quite different, subsume the use of dialogue and conversations (facilitated by the teacher) in supporting learners in dealing with their challenges in meaningfully learning foreign languages. Piaget (1964) argued that the growth of learners’ knowledge occurs through knowledge representation structures or schemas that learners hold in their minds. Teachers’ role is to facilitate that constructions through the tasks they engage their learners and the questions, discussions that prob learners to think and 1 Nesher, 1987; Reusser, 2000, p 21 2 Piaget, 1964; Vygotsky, 1986

reflect the new experiences. As learners are confronted with new experience, they interpret it in the their knowledge acquisition tool which they have built in their minds. The leading to formation of errors and misconceptions due to incorrect interpretation and linking of old and new knowledge. Often learners’ errors and misconception are rational to learners and they have meaning to them. 1.Understanding of learner errors and misconception The study found that some types of learner errors in elementary algebra can be reduced as a result of the pedagogical intervention. Some of the errors, for example, the cancellation error, persisted despite the intervention. This work has two inter-related foci in relation to Grade 10 learners. The focus is on whether classroom discussions and dialogue using identified learner errors. The assumption made here is that such an intervention may help these learners reduce some of the errors and misconceptions they had shown in a pre-test Aims to assist learners to understand foreign languages has the potential to contribute to improving achievement not only in languages but in many other subjects. In textbooks found that in the most, textbooks use the equal sign as an operational symbol rather than a relational one which has dire consequences for students. When they mention errors, they do not explore how these may be used in pedagogy. We argue that learner errors and misconceptions in foreign languages in particular must be used to trigger enquiry; as teaching and learning resources to assist students to master by way of their errors, for truth and fallacy are two sides of the same coin. Student misconceptions or gaps in conceptual knowledge of algebra lead to use of incorrect procedures for solving problems

resources has potential to help learners build scientific concepts in algebra. Amateur concepts appear reasonable to learners as learners focus on visible surface features of phenomena as opposed to the deep invisible features which are scientific. According to Brodie (2007), classroom discussions offer learners opportunities to express and clarify their own ideas, enable them to share mathematical ideas and give the teacher valuable information on learner thinking processes. They illuminate learners’ strengths, weaknesses, misconceptions, and errors that may be used as entry points to instruction. It can be argued that discussions promote the learner centred teaching approach stipulated in the new curriculum. Discussions promote adaptive reasoning, as learners try to justify their thinking under the scrutiny of teachers and peers. According to Davis, classroom discussions should become more like conversations, with the teacher participating in similar ways to the learners. Conversations or discourses ought to focus on supporting learners to make contributions that are productive of further conversation. It is also important for a teacher to respect and value all learners’ thinking while working with the diversity of their mathematical ideas. Critically important is respecting the integrity of learners’ errors while trying to transform them and teach the appropriate mathematical concepts. Thus we regard classroom discussions and conversations as supporting learners to reflect on their positions and help them to re-organise their language understanding. The research used was qualitative. Denzin and Lincoln state that qualitative research involves the placement of researchers in a natural world in order to interpret and provide a window view into reality. Qualitative research produce findings not arrived at by means of statistical methods or numbers but by thick wordy descriptions of the phenomena. Sampling

The sample was one class of grade 10 learners aged between 16 and 17 years of age at a Soweto, Johannesburg school. The reason for choosing this particular class was that most of the learners generally performed lower than their school colleagues. Learners they could lag behind as the teacher might not have enough time to cater for students who learnt at very different rates. It should be noted that the students in this class was a convenience sample as one of the co-researchers taught the class. This convenience made data gathering fairly easy. Data collection methods The research data was collected in three phases. Firstly, a pre-test was given to learners for the co-researchers to locate their errors in simplification. The second stage was a pedagogical intervention which interrogated identified learner errors in the pre-test through classroom discussions and dialogue with the focus of the discussions being the identified errors. At the third stage a post test to measure the extent to which the intervention helped these learners to address their errors was given administered. In the intervention the misconceptions and errors identified by the co-researchers were the subject of two 50 minute class discussion sessions. The special focus group discussions involved a group of 10 weakest learners whose tests revealed the most errors and misconceptions. On the first day, a 25 minute pre-intervention test was given to the class. Then the tasks were marked, carefully analysed and discussed by the co-researchers. Then two periods of interventions that constituted of conversations and dialogue with all participating learners of fifty minute each were done on a Monday and the following Wednesday. On Thursday there was a further fifty minute in-depth dialogue with the ten identified very weak students. Finally a 25 minute post-intervention test was given to 27 learners the next day Friday to measure the learning change resulting from the interventions. 3. Validity and reliability

The co-researchers agreed that this was so. Also discussions concentrated on the errors learners committed in the pre-intervention tasks. At all times we kept in mind the research questions underpinning the research. The researcher effect was removed by encouraging learners to speak up. Also students were clearly told that these were research sessions so there were no right or wrong answers; the researchers just wanted to learn from the learners. Learners were told that their responses were not for marks. In general, the researchers tried to be as friendly as possible to learners who responded by being quite at ease in the sessions. Being co-researchers we were in position to compare and contrast our data collection process, as well as data analysis and interpretation. We believe that these measures triangulated our research to ensure rigor. Ethical considerations Before starting collecting data, ethical clearance was sought and granted by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE); Reference No. D2015/258. Indeed it is illegal to carry out any research in Gauteng schools without their ethical clearance. In seeking permission from GDE and school principal, and informed consent from learners’ parents or guardians total information about the research aims and how data was to be collected was shared with all stakeholders. Further, assurance was given that learners’ responses would be highly respected and confidential. We informed stakeholders that research data might be reported in educational conferences or published in educational journals. So it was with full information about the study and how it was to be conducted that permission and consent was given for this research. Learners whose parents/guardians did not consent were not included in the study. Findings The findings are presented according to the three phases of data collection. Trends in the pre-intervention task performances Twenty nine (29) learners wrote the pre-intervention task. Seven (7) managed to simplify all the items of the task with minor slipups (mistakes). The rest of the

learners got almost everything wrong. Most learners who struggled with the pre- intervention tasks appeared to have misconceptions about the addition sign. To them it appeared to mean bringing together or conjoining and bringing closure. As shown in Figure 1, 80% of the learners made this type of error. Most of the learners who committed the conjoining error seemed to confuse addition with multiplication as seen when conjoining; most learners employed the laws of indices or exponents. Figure 4: Bar graph showing types of errors in the pre-tests Table 1: Examples of conjoining errors The above examples (Table 2) from Thabo and Mobi (pseudonyms) represent a number of the learners who made this category of error. The second most common error in this data is ‘senseless’ cancelling. Of the 16 learners who made errors, 8 of them used ‘senseless’ cancelling whereby they just cancelled at will, whenever they saw any similar terms in the numerator and the denominator. Table 2: Examples from the data on the cancelling Karab Sendi Mobi Again here from these examples (Table 2) from Karab, Sendi and Mobi (pseudonyms) it is evident that these learners saw the common term in both the numerator and the denominator and cancelled straight away. When cancelling Both Karab and Mobi seem to get an answer of 0, they do not seem to recognize that cancelling and dividing are the same operation and therefore one cannot divide a term by itself and get a zero. The third most common error that was exhibited by the learners in the preintervention task is the error of changing the task to suit their intuition, called arbitrary error. Table 3: Example of changing of expression sign Mobi Sendi Emma Mobi and a few other learners either ignored or changed the signs in either the denominator or the numerator in order to divide the expression by itself (see Table 3). At first the authors thought this was an example of a slipup (mistake) but when

$the number of learners who did this went beyond three it became apparent that this was an error rather than a slipup. The next two equally common errors seen in the performance of learners in the preinterventiontasks were (i) the error of changing the fraction into some form of equation and then solving for some specific value for the variable and (ii) the error of oversimplification. Table 4: Change to equation error Kanyi Tshe Emma Here Khanyi and Tshe (Table 4) ended up with a specific value for the variable x, perhaps because of interference from the schema for solving equations. Coincidentally the error of oversimplification was also made on the same item of the task as seen in Ntabiseng’s case (Table 5): Table 5: Oversimplification errors Ntabi Sizwe Here Ntabiseng (Table 5) and a few others got the correct solution and further conjoined the numerator and cancelled to remain with the wrong solution of x. This may be because of the misconception that an expression such as, cannot be a solution as it seems to need further simplification. One interesting trend in this oversimplification is that even the good students did not seem to know when to stop the whole process of simplification. Some learners could not identify the common factor or struggled with the process of factorization. The in-depth intervention discussions These are the in-depth discussions that were held with the focus group of 10 learners whose sripts revealed many more errors and misconceptions than the rest of the class. (For the excerpt of the group discussions see appendix). The following are the discussions between Author 1 and Thabo, Nqoba and Mobi as they took him through their thinking as they worked through the pre- intervention task. Since this was done after two group sessions it was hoped that these learners would now realize and think about their errors and perhaps learn from them. Post intervention tasks In the post intervention tasks twenty seven (27) learners participated. Of these, 8$ $learners still made the cancelling error, but from the focus group only 2 learners still made this error out of a group of 10 learners who participated in the in-depth discussions (see Figure 2). On the conjoining error only one learner made this kind of error out of the whole group. With reference to oversimplification, 2 learners out of the whole group still made this kind of error. Only one learner still changed the algebraic fraction to an equation and solved for some specific value of the variable. This time around no learner changed the expression to suit their intuition as witnessed in the pre-intervention task. Figure 5: Post task errors quantities by type Table 6: Comparison of attempts by learners before and after the intervention discussions: Name of learner Before intervention After intervention Mobi: Thabo: Kanyi: Kara: On the first item of the post intervention test the learners seem to be getting the simplification correct. These learners were part of the intervention discussions. Table 6 compares the performances of the same learners in the pre-intervention and the post intervention tasks. Table 7: Comparison of attempts by learners before and after the intervention discussions Name of learner Before intervention After intervention Mobi: Thabo: Kanyi: Kara: Nqoba: In this comparison again, Mobi, Kanyi and Kara (Table 7) seem to have overcome their errors but Nqoba and Thabo seem to be still struggling, with Nqoba still$

cancelling. Again in this comparison Thabo and Nqoba seem to be still struggling with factorizing, while Nqoba seems to have made some progress in mastering the procedure (Table 8). Name of learner Before intervention After intervention Mobi: Thabo: Kanyi: Nqoba: Table 9: Table showing the number of errors in the pre-intervention and post intervention tasks: Error category Before intervention After intervention Conjoining error 13 1 Cancelling error 8 8 Change to equation error 2 1 Change of expression error 5 0 Common factor error 2 0 Oversimplification error 3 2 Total 33 12 There is a general reduction in errors is seen in this table 9. Figure 6 : Comparison of quantity of errors by type before and after intervention The bar graph (Figure 3) shows general reduction of errors after the discussions; however the cancelling error seems to be the most resistant error among these identified errors. Discussions of research findings We discuss the trends in the pre-intervention tasks, the dialogue as intervention and

$the shifts in learning in the post intervention tasks. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 4. Number of errors. Error category comparison bar graph Before intervention After intervention In the pre-intervention tasks, learners like Thabo, Mobi and Lebo who manifested the error of conjoining seem to have created or constructed it themselves. This was suggested later by the dialogue with the learners. They did not claim to have learnt it from previous instruction from a teacher The error can be explained in terms of constructivism as learners own their constructions, make interpretations and make meanings of new experiences they encounter (Fosnot, 1996). These errors were due to learners extrapolating the arithmetic addition schema to algebra without appropriate re-constructions. The other errors and misconceptions were due to oversimplification; the change of expression to suit intuition called arbitrary errors (Makonye, 2012); change of expression into some form of equation and then solving for a specific value for the variable in the expression (Davis, 1984). It is interesting to note that in oversimplification the learners did not seem to know when to stop the whole process of simplification. They seemed to seek closure as in arithmetic where there is only ‘one answer’ : a number or a fraction. This is because some learners, influenced by arithmetic, cannot accept an expression as a final answer and are determined to find a single value as an answer (Hoyles & Sutherland,$

1992).Learners, who changed the expressions in a haphazard manner to suit their intuition, either ignored the minus sign on some items or they changed it to a plus so that the numerator was equal to the denominator. This meant that they would get 1 as their answer from the fact that they knew that dividing a number by itself gives A further interesting error was one where learners obtained an answer of zero from dividing the two equal expressions. This may be because of confusing division with subtraction which is again a case of the schema of subtraction interfering with the one for division. In the intervention discussions, learners who did not make any errors such as Pat and Waki dominated the discussions as the more knowledgeable others. Another challenge was that the participants struggled with the language of teaching and learning ( English) and this hindered them from clearly expressing or explaining their ideas. For instance, Waki asked in turn 4 if she should use English which suggests that she was not comfortable speaking in English (see under Exerpt from the discussions ). On turn 6 again Waki cannot find the words ‘common factor’ while making a contribution. Both the dominance of particular learners and the challenge of discussing mathematical reasoning in English limited the discussions. However, it must be acknowledged that when the more knowledgeable others contributed to the discussions it helped weaker learners such as Mobi and Kara to clarify their difficulties and to become more actively involved in the discussion. Mobi, who had made a lot of errors and only managed one item in the pre- intervention tasks, voluntarily and actively participated in the errors discussions. She identified errors and suggested correct procedures for completing tasks. The researchers saw Mobi and Kara learn from their peers (more knowledgeable others) (Vygotsky, 1986) and correcting their own errors and learning from them in their zone of proximal development.

Learners like Mobi and Kara seemed to have been able to simplify the similar algebraic expressions after the discussions about their errors in pre-intervention tasks. They seemed to have resolved their own errors by participating in the discussions. One can say these learners have learned from their errors with the help of their peers and the teacher. On the other hand learners like Thabo and Nqoba were still struggling with errors and could barely simplify any expression; with Thabo still cancelling as he did in the preinterventiontasks. This continued failure suggests that some errors and misconceptions are resistant to instruction directed to resolving them (Smith, DiSessa & Roschelle, 1993). This may be because such errors form part of learners’entrenched conceptual structures and thus it is difficult for them to disown them since it would be like denying themselves. Learners may struggle to understand why their thinking is regarded as wrong when it works perfectly well. Where errors and misconceptions are resistant to change, further research is needed on how to assist learners. Change to equation error Kanyi Tshe Emma Here Khanyi and Tshe (Table 4) ended up with a specific value for the variable x, perhaps because of interference from the schema for solving equations. Coincidentally the error of oversimplification was also made on the same item of the task as seen in Ntabiseng’s case (Table 5): Oversimplification errors Ntabi Sizwe Here Ntabiseng (Table 5) and a few others got the correct solution and further conjoined the numerator and cancelled to remain with the wrong solution This may be because of the misconception that an expression such as, cannot be a solution as it seems to need further simplification. One interesting trend in this oversimplification is that even the good students did not seem to know when to stop the whole process of simplification. Some learners could not identify the common factor or struggled with the process of factorization.

These are the in-depth discussions that were held with the focus group of 10 learners whose sripts revealed many more errors and misconceptions than the rest of the class. (For the excerpt of the group discussions see appendix). The following are the discussions between Author 1 and Thabo, Nqoba and Mobi as they took him through their thinking as they worked through the pre- intervention task. Since this was done after two group sessions it was hoped that these learners would now realize and think about their errors and perhaps learn from them.

$Conclusions and recommendations This article concludes that learners do indeed commit various errors when simplifying algebraic expressions at grade 10. These errors and misconceptions seem to be as a result of learner failure to form viable algebraic processes schemas from their arithmetic ones. In conclusion, these errors and misconceptions seem to be as a result of learner failure to form viable algebraic process schemas from their arithmetic ones. It is arguable that these learners had not formed robust arithmetic fraction schemas. The errors we found seemed to be a result of the interference of previously valid schemas interacting with new algebraic knowledge. We say so because students like Karab wrote: This is an attempt to cancel using a common factor as done when students simplify fractions like 10/15 in arithmetic. They look for a common factor 5 in the numeratror and denominator and cancel with it to get the simplest form 2/3. We regarded Karabi’s miconception as one of generalising over operations. This error could also be due to lack of understanding of the notion of the algebraic variable, the distributive law as well as failure to factorise. Indeed there were many types of errors committted often in solving a single task. It seemed that most students’ thinking was highly muddled and confused. Discussions and dialogue to a large extent help learners overcome their errors and misconceptions. Take for example, students who had particularly done poorly in the pre-test, Mobi and Kara. These learners were able to correct themselves during indepth discussions on their mathematical errors. The discussions encouraged them to think about their thinking, which is meta-cognition that promoted equilibration. These cognitive processes enabled the learners to deal with their errors as they$

Types of learner error (kurs ishi)

20.09.2019

0

35.072265625 KB

Похожие