Communications of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈E:수학교육논문집)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Trigonometry in Mathematics Textbooks in Korea, Australia, and Finland

한국, 호주, 핀란드의 수학 교과서에서 삼각법 영역 비교

  • Received : 2020.07.30
  • Accepted : 2020.09.04
  • Published : 2020.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Trigonometry allows us to recognize the usefulness of mathematics through connection with real life and other disciplines, and lays the foundation for the concept of higher mathematics through connection with trigonometric functions. Since international comparisons on the trigonometry area of textbooks can give implications to trigonometry teaching and learning in Korea, this study attempted to compare trigonometry in textbooks in Korea, Australia and Finland. In this study, through the horizontal and vertical analysis presented by Charalambous et al.(2010), the objectives of the curriculum, content system, achievement standards, learning timing of trigonometry content, learning paths, and context of problems were analyzed. The order of learning in which the three countries expanded size of angle was similar, and there was a difference in the introduction of trigonometric functions and the continuity of grades dealing with trigonometry. In the learning path of textbooks on the definition method of trigonometric ratios, the unit circle method was developed from the triangle method to the trigonometric function. However, in Korea, after the explanation using the quadrant in middle school, the general angle and trigonometric functions were studied without expanding the angle. As a result of analyzing the context of the problem, the proportion of problems without context was the highest in all three countries, and the rate of camouflage context problem was twice as high in Korea as in Australia or Finland. Through this, the author suggest to include the unit circle method in the learning path in Korea, to present a problem that can emphasize the real-life context, to utilize technological tools, and to reconsider the ways and areas of the curriculum that deal with trigonometry.

삼각법은 수학의 유용성을 인식하도록 하며 삼각함수와의 연계를 통해 고등 수학 개념의 기반을 다진다. 본 연구는 호주와 핀란드를 비교 대상 국가로 정하여 Charalambous 외(2010)가 제시한 수평적 및 수직적 분석을 통해 교육과정과 교과서를 분석하였다. 세 국가가 삼각비에서 다루는 각을 확장한 학습 순서가 유사하며 삼각함수의 도입 시기 및 학습의 연속성에 차이가 있다. 삼각비의 정의 방법에 대한 학습경로는 공통적으로 삼각형 방법, 단위원 방법, 삼각함수 순서로 나타났는데 우리나라는 제 1사분면의 단위원에서 삼각비를 정의한 후 바로 일반각과 삼각함수가 전개된다는 차이점이 나타났다. 위장 맥락 문제와 인위적 맥락 문제는 우리나라가 호주나 핀란드에 비해 높은 비율을 보였다. 이를 통해 우리나라의 학습경로에서 생략되었던 단위원 방법을 제시하는 것, 실생활 맥락을 강조하는 문제를 제시하고 공학적 도구를 활용할 것, 삼각법을 다루는 교육과정 방식과 영역에 대해 재고할 것을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ko, H., Chang, K., & Lee, G. (2016). A Comparative Analysis of the Middle School Mathematics Curriculum in Korea and Australian, Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 26(2), 309-331.
  2. Ministry of Education (2015). Mathematics Curriculum, Ministry of education notice 2015-74[supplement 8].
  3. Kim, M. & Kim, G. (2013) The analysis of mathematical tasks in the high school mathematics, School Mathematics, 15(1), 37-59.
  4. Kim, W., Cho, M., Bang, G., Yoon, J., Shin, J. H., Im, S., Kim, D., Kang, S., Kim, K., Park, H., Shim, J., Oh, H., Lee, D., Lee, S., J. & Jung, J (2018). High School Mathematics I. Seoul: Visang
  5. Kim, W, Cho, M., Bang, K., Kim, D., Kang, S., Bae, S., Ji, E., & Kim, Y. (2018). Middle School Mathematics 3. Seoul: Visang
  6. Kim, S. H. (2016). A study of the relationship between 9th grade students' concept images and their understanding of trigonometric ratios and problem-solving strategies. Master thesis, Ewha Womans University.
  7. Noh, J. H. (2016). Analyzing Contexts Used in Textbook Problems -A Case of Precalculus-, Communications of Mathematical Education, 30(3), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmee.2016.30.3.295
  8. Ryu, H., Sunwoo, H., Shin, B., Cho, J., Lee, B., Kim, Y., Im, M., Han, M., Nam, S., Kim, M., & Jung, S (2018). Hich School Mathematics I. Seoul: Chunjae
  9. Lew, H., Sunwoo, H., Shin, B., Jeong, D., Sul, J., Jang, Y., & Park, S(2020). Middle School Mathematics 3. Seoul: Chunjae
  10. Park, K. (1998). A Study on How to Use Calculators in Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 8(1), 237-249.
  11. Pang, J., Lee, J., Lee, S. M., Park, Y., Kim, S. K., Choi, I.., & Sun, W. (2015) A comparative analysis of school mathematics curricula in Korea, China, Japan, and USA, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 18(3), 311-334.
  12. Song, E. (2008). A study on the teaching of the concept of trigonometric function, Master thesis, Seoul National University.
  13. Shin, Y. et al. (2011). Research report on the mathematics curriculum according to the 2009 revised curriculum. Korean Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity Research Report 2011-11.
  14. Shin, J. S. (2011). A Comparative study of mathematics curriculum in Finland, Education of Primary School Mathematics, 14(3), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMEC.2011.14.3.225
  15. Yoo, J. (2014) A historical analysis on trigonometric functions, Journal of Education Research in Mathematics, 24(4), 607-622.
  16. Lee, S. W., & Bang, S. (2004). The effect of the trigonometric ratio unit on the trigonometric function unit, Communications of Mathematical Education, 18(2), 187-208.
  17. Chong, Y.., Chang, K.., Kim, G., Kwon, N., Kim, J., Seo, D., ...&.Tak, B. J. (2016). A comparative study of mathematics curriculum among the United States, Singapore, England, Japan, Australia and Korea, Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 26(3), 371-402.
  18. Choi, Y. & Cho, M. (2011). A study on the content anaytic comparison of Korean and Finnish high school mathe textbooks, Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 61-82.
  19. Choi, J. (2018). A Comparative Study on Calculator in Mathematics Educations Between Korea and Singapore, Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, 21(3), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.30807/ksms.2018.21.3.002
  20. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). The Australian curriculum : Mathematics Curriculum F-10. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ 2020.7.26
  21. Brown, S. A. (2005). The trigonometric connection: Students' understanding of sine and cosine. Doctoral dissertation. Illinois State University.
  22. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H. Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical thinking and learning, 12(2), 117-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903460070
  23. De Lange, J. (1995). Assessment: No change without problems. In Tomas A. Romberg(Eds.), Reform in school mathematics and authentic assessment, 87-172. The USA: SUNY Press.
  24. Demir, O. (2012). Students' concept development and understanding of sine and cosine functions: A new theoretical and educational approach. Doctoral dissertation. Universite van Amsterdam.
  25. Fi, C. D. (2003). Preservice secondary school mathematics teachers' knowledge of trigonometry: Subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and envisioned pedagogy. Doctoral dissertation. Iowa University.
  26. Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9070-8
  27. Hähkioniemi, Juhala, Juutinen, Louhikallio-Fomin, Luoma-aho, Raittila, Tikka. (2016). Juuri 3 - MAA3 : geometria. Helsingissa : Kustannusosakeyhtio Otava.
  28. Hong, D. & Choi, K. (2014). A comparison of Korean and American secondary school textbooks: the case of quadratic equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 241-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9512-4
  29. Jurdak, M. E. (2006). Contrasting perspectives and performance of high school students on problem solving in real world, situated, and school contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(3), 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9008-y
  30. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (1996). Trigonometry: Comparing ratio and unit circle methods. In Technology in Mathematics Education. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics education Research group of Australasia, 322-329.
  31. Laurinolli, T., Lindroos-Heinanen, R., Luoma-aho, E., Timo sankilampi, Selenius, R., Talvitie, K., & Vaha-Vahe, O. (2009). Laskutaito 9. Lee, J. Y. translation (2014). Finnish Middle School Mathematics 9. Solbitgil.
  32. Mesa, V., & Goldstein, B. (2017). Conceptions of Angles, Trigonometric Functions, and Inverse Trigonometric Functions in College Textbooks. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(2), 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-016-0042-1
  33. Moore, K. C. (2013). Making sense by measuring arcs: A teaching experiment in angle measure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(2), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9450-6
  34. Peter Brown, Michael Evans, Garth Gaudry, David Hunt, Robert McLaren, Bill Pender, Brian Woolacott. (2011). ICE-EM Mathematics Australian Curriculum 2nd Edition Year 9 Book 2. Cambridge University Press.
  35. Peter Brown, Michael Evans, Garth Gaudry, David Hunt, Robert McLaren, Bill Pender, Brian Woolacott. (2017). ICE-EM Mathematics Australian Curriculum 3rd Edition Year 10 & 10A. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Shin, J., & Lee, S. J. (2018). The alignment of student fraction learning with textbooks in Korea and the United States. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.005
  37. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S.(2007) How curriculum influences student learning. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  38. Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79(5), 555-581. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790506
  39. The Finnish National Board of Education(2016a). National Core Curriculum for Basic education 2014. Helsinki: The Finnish National Board of Education.
  40. The Finnish National Board of Education(2016b). National Core Curriculum for Upper secondary education 2014. Helsinki: The Finnish National Board of Education.
  41. Thompson, P. W. (2008). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundations of mathematics education. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 31-49.
  42. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in mathematics education. Netherlands.
  43. Weber, K. (2005). Students' understanding of trigonometric functions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217423
  44. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn context-based tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1