# Effects of Self-Explanation on the Expansion and Indulgent of Mathematics Teaching: Case of the Students of the University of Wachemo

## DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v3n1a128## Keywords:

Self-effects, Mathematics Instruction, Comprehension, Indulgent## Abstract

*The main goal of this study is to investigate the effects of self-explanation in improving proof comprehension in mathematics instruction: the case of Wachemo university undergraduate mathematics students of academic year 2020/2021. Moreover it is intended to find out interconnection between students achievement in mathematics and self-explanation in proof comprehension. To assess student’s self-explanation ability we applied self-explanation test and attitude test at the beginning and at the end to assess student’s character change to ward mathematics. In this study there are 48 students participated in both control and experimental groups. This study showed that the effectiveness of self-explanation in proof comprehension in mathematics courses. This also leading to recommend for curriculum developers to consider in self-explanation. One of the most strong findings of research is that conceptual indulgent is an important elements of expertise hence self-explanation is the tool to enhance students conceptual understanding, along with realistic knowledge and technical facility. The alliance of realistic knowledge, procedural expertise, and conceptual indulgent makes all three components operational in powerful ways. So that self-explanation has prominent effect in supporting students to achieve the intended objectives in proving theorems. Of these, two areas were measured quantitatively: student achievement in calculus and transformation geometry, and self-concept toward these courses. Those quantitative research findings are presented in chapter four with the details of the data collection procedures, the quantitative results, and an analysis of the outcomes.*

### Downloads

## References

Warwick, J. (2017) Dealing with mathematical anxiety: Should one size fit all? The Mathematics Enthusiast, Vol. 14: 161-173.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Weber, K., and Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2013). Effective but underused strategies for proof comprehension. In M. Martinez and A. Castro Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting for the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 260-267). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.

Weber, K. (2001). Student difficulty in constructing proofs: The need for strategic knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 101-119.

Hanna, G. (1995). Challenges to the Importance of Proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15 (3), 42-50.

Conradie, J., & Frith, J. (2000). Comprehension tests in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42 (3), 225-35.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., and Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (4), 836-852.

Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26 (2), 147-179.

Berthold, K., and Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 70-87.

Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., and Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18 (1), 54-65.

Matthews, P., and Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing selfexplanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 1-21.

Mitrovic, A. (2005). Scaffolding answer explanation in a data normalization tutor. Facta universitatis-series: Electronics and Energetics, 18, 151–163.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we know about mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13 (1), 55-80.

Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (2007). Towards a comprehensive perspective on proof. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematical teaching and learning. Washington, DC: NCTM.

Marriotti, M. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Guttierez and P. Boero (Eds.) Handbook of research in mathematics education: Past, present, and future [PME 1976-2006]. (pp. 173-204). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Weber, K. (2003). Students’ difficulties with proof. In A. Selden and J. Selden (eds.).

Yackel, E. and Hanna, G. (2003). Reasoning and proof. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin, and D. Schifter (Eds.) A research companion to the NCTM Standards (pp. 227-236) Washington, DC: NCTM.

Weber, K. and Alcock, L. (2004). Semantic and syntactic proof productions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56, 209-234.

Yerushalmy, M. and B. Shternberg, 2001. Charting a visual course to the concept of function. In A. A. Cuoco and F. R. Curcio (Eds.) The role of representation in school mathematics. pp. 251- 268. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346-362.

Leont’ev, A., 1978. Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gagatsis, A. and I. Elia, 2004. ‘The effects of different modes of representations on mathematical problem solving’, in M. Johnsen Hoines and A. Berit Fuglestad (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway. pp. 447-454.

Post, T., and K., Cramer, 1989. Knowledge, Representation and Quantitative Thinking. In M. Reynolds (Ed.) Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher – Special publication of the AACTE (pp. 221-231). Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Confrey, J., and E. Smith, 1991. A framework for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations and transformations. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. pp. 57-63. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Lesh, R., T. Post, and M. Behr, 1987a. ‘Representations and translation among reprensentations in mathematics learning and problem solving’, in C. Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ: Hillsdale.

Goldstone, R. L., & Day, S. B. (2012). Introduction to "New Conceptualizations of Transfer of Learning.” Educational Psychologist, 47, 149-152.

National Research Council (NRC), 2001. Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Edited by J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

## Downloads

## Published

## How to Cite

*Qubahan Academic Journal*,

*3*(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v3n1a128

## Issue

## Section

## License

Copyright (c) 2023 Qubahan Academic Journal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.