한국학교수학회논문집 (Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society)

  • 제25권4호
  • /
  • Pages.307-332
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1229-0890(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-4350(eISSN)
한국학교수학회 (The Korean School Mathematics Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

분수교구를 활용한 분수연산지도 실행연구

An Action Research on the Teaching Fraction Computation Using Semi-concrete Fraction Manipulatives

  • 투고 : 2022.08.10
  • 심사 : 2022.10.13
  • 발행 : 2022.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 수학교실에서 지속적으로 활용할 수 있는 반구체물 분수교구를 제작·활용함으로써 학생들의 분수학습을 돕기 위한 목적으로 실행되었다. 이를 위해서 학생들과 직접 분수교구를 제작하였고, 4차시에 걸쳐 이전의 분수내용의 복습에 분수교구를 활용함으로써 본 학습 전에 분수교구의 활용방법을 익혔다. 이후 원리 탐구 학습 모형을 적용한 14차시의 수업을 통해 약분과 통분(7차시), 이분모 분수의 덧셈과 뺄셈(7차시) 학습에 분수교구를 활용하여 원리를 탐구하도록 하였다. 학생들은 분수교구를 활용하여 다양한 분수를 나타낼 수 있었고 이를 이용해서 분수연산문제를 해결할 수 있었다. 수업 후 성취도평가를 통해서 학생들이 반구체물교구-표상-수식을 연결시킬 수 있음을 알 수 있었고, 분수교구를 활용한 수업을 통해 수학에 대한 흥미와 자신감을 보임을 알 수 있었다.

This action research was carried out to help students learn fractions computation by making and using semi-concrete fraction manipulatives that can be used continuously in math classes. For this purpose, the researcher and students made semi-concrete fraction manipulatives and learned how to use these through reviewing the previously learned fraction contents over 4 class sessions. Afterward, through the 14 classes (7 classes for learning to reduce fractions and to a common denominator, 7 classes for adding and subtracting fractions with different denominators) in which the principle inquiry learning model was applied, students actively engaged in learning activities with fraction manipulatives and explored the principles underneath the manipulations of fraction manipulatives. Students could represent various fractions using fraction manipulatives and solve fraction computation problems using them. The achievement evaluation after class found that the students could connect the semi-concrete fraction manipulatives with fraction representation and symbolic formulas. Moreover, the students showed interest and confidence in mathematics through the classes using fraction manipulatives.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 고상숙, 고호경, 강현희 (2003). 실생활문제에서 분수의 개념적 이해. 한국학교수학회논문집, 6(2), 117-126. 
  2. 교육부a (2019). 교사용 지도서 수학 3-2. 서울: 교육부. 
  3. 교육부b (2019). 교사용 지도서 수학 5-2. 서울: 교육부. 
  4. 교육부c (2019). 수학 3-2. 서울: 교육부. 
  5. 교육부d (2019). 수학 5-2. 서울: 교육부. 
  6. 김민경 (2009). 초등학생의 분수 이해 분석: 6학년의 분수 개념 및 분수 나눗셈을 중심으로. 한국학교수학회논문집, 12(2), 151-170. 
  7. 김옥경 (1997). 초등학교 6학년 학생들의 분수 개념 이해 및 분수 수업 방안에 대한 연구. 한국교원대학교대학원 석사학위논문. 
  8. 박계관 (2007). 수학 학습부진 학생의 학습부진 발생 단계 분석 및 효율적인 지도방안에 관한 연구 - 중학교 1학년을 대상으로. 서울시립대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문 
  9. 박희연 (1998). 초등수학학습에서의 학습 결손 예방을 위한 가정 학습 지도 방안 연구 : 수.연산영역을 중심으로. 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위논문 
  10. 임영빈 (2016). 초등수학 학습에서의 구체와 추상. 건국대학교 대학원 박사학위논문 
  11. Bailey, D. H., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. J ournal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 447-455. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004 
  12. Baroody, A. J. (1989) Manipulatives don't come with guarantees, Arithmetic Teacher, 37(2), pp. 4-5.  https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.37.2.0004
  13. Bruner & Kenney. (1965). Monographs of Society for Research in Child Development. Wiley, 1-75. 
  14. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/math. 
  15. Driscoll, M. J. (1983) Research within Reach: elementary school mathematics and reading. St Louis: CEMREL, Inc. 
  16. Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., & Meyer, J. M. (2020). Teaching Fraction Concepts Using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract Sequence. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518795477. 
  17. Fuchs, L. S., Schumacher, R. F., Sterba, S. K., Long, J., Namkung, J., Malone, A., et al. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499-514. doi:10.1037/a0034341.1. 
  18. Fuson, K. C.; & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for firstand second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180-206. 
  19. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10034-000 
  20. Kaminski, J. A, Sloutsky, V. M, & Heckler, A. (2004). Transfer of learning between isomorphic artificial domains: Advantage for the Abstract. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3km5s4d7 
  21. Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2012). Representation and transfer of abstract mathematical concepts in adolescence and young adulthood. In V. F. Reyna, S. B. Chapman, M. R. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 67-93). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13493-003 
  22. Labinowicz. E. (1985). Learning from students: New beginnings for teaching numerical thinking. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. In P. W. Thompson, & D. Lambdin (1994). Research into practice : concrete materials and teaching for mathematical understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(9), 556-558. 
  23. Lortie-Forgues, H., Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Why is learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult? Developmental Review, 38, 201-221. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.008.
  24. Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action Research: Improving schools and empowering educators(5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 
  25. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson. 
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA, Author. 
  27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA, Author. 
  28. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 
  29. Resnick, I. B. & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser(Ed.). Advances in instructional psychology(Vol. 3. pp.41-96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
  30. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505. 
  31. Suydam, M. N. (1986) Manipulative materials and achievement, Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), pp. 10-32.  https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.33.6.0010
  32. Suydam, M. N., & Higgins, J. L. (1977). Activity-based learning in elementary school mathematics: Recommendations from research. Columbus, OH: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. 
  33. Thompson, P. W. (1992) Notations, conventions, and constraints: contributions to effective use of concrete materials in elementary mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, pp. 123-147. 
  34. Van De Walle, J. A., Karp K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, New York: Allyn & Bacon.