EVU-studenters oppfattelse av nytte ved analyse av egne elevers resonnement og argumentasjon – En kvalitativ casestudie

Abstract

This qualitative case study investigated what in-service teachers viewed as useful in evaluating their own students' reasoning and argumentation. This was done in response to the following research question: How do in-service teachers perceive analyzing their students’ written reasoning and argumentation as useful? The theoretical framework for the study was a proof definition for school mathematics. It also sheds light on what knowledge the teacher requires to succeed in engaging students in proof, as well as what challenges the teacher faces. The findings in this study were discussed in light of the theoretical framework. The study’ sparticipants were teachers in lower secondary enrolled in continuing university mathematics education in the fall of 2020.They planned and conducted a teaching session and wrote a report focusing on mathematical argumentation in the students' written work. Methods used for data collection were:(1) collecting in-service teachers' reports and (2) conducting semi-structured interviews with five in-service teachers. The reports and the transcribed interviews were interpreted, coded and categorized through this study’s data analysis. Three core categories of usefulness were identified: useful for gaining insight into students' prerequisites, useful for being able to facilitate teaching, and useful for their own professional development. The conclusion is that analysis of their students' reasoning and argumentation was useful for the in-service teachers in several different ways. It was perceived as useful to gain insight into different aspects of the students' prerequisites, as a foundation for facilitating teaching. They perceived the analysis as useful to acquired knowledge related to various aspects of proof.