Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 25 Download : 5

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Zero factorial, defined to be one, is often counterintuitive to students but nonetheless an interesting concept to convey in a classroom environment. The challenge is to delineate the concept in a simple and effective way through the practice of justification, a familiar concept in mathematics and science education. In this regard two algebraic and one statistical justification using the squeeze theorem are presented. To assess the effectiveness of the justifications, a student survey was conducted at a comprehensive university incorporating the analysis of the pre- and post-presentation statements.  They clearly present that the justifications are useful in giving credence to zero factorial equals one. Overall, the result from the online survey supports that the students preferred Justification 1. The justifications provide instructors alternative ways to initiate exploration of students’ intuitive set up of comprehending unobvious facts like zero factorial equals one. For a range of learners with their varied abilities to perform various mental activities most closely associated with learning and problem-solving, the justifications as simple alternative methods offer the potential to raise the current level of cognitive skills to inspire differentiated paths of learning. These are evident from survey results noting the role of statistical thinking and techniques.

Keywords

Bounds Factorial Gamma Function Justification Squeeze Theorem

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Mahmood, M., Murray, L., Zitikis, R., & Mahmood, I. (2024). Alternative ways to initiate students’ intuition, and hence internalization, of why zero factorial is equal to one. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(3), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i3.pp735-750
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adams, R., & Essex, C. (2010). Calculus: A Complete Course (Ninth ed.). Pearson Canada.
  2. Aunio, P., Korhonen, J., Ragpot, L., Tormanen, M., & Henning, E. (2021). An early numeracy intervention for first-graders at risk for mathematical learning difficulties. 55, 225-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.12.002
  3. Bellhouse, D. (1984). A review of optimal designs in survey sampling. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 12(1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/3314724
  4. Brumwell, S., & MacFarlane, A. (2020). Improving Numeracy Skills of Postsecondary Students: What is the Way Forward? Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. https://heqco.ca/pub/improving-numeracy-skills-of-postsecondary-students-what-is-the-way-forward/
  5. Buglear, J., & Castell, A. (2019). Stats Means Business: Statistics and Business Analytics for Business, Hospitality and Tourism. Routledge.
  6. Chen, L., & Zitikis, R. (2017). Measuring and comparing student performance: a new technique for assessing directional associations. Education Sciences, 7(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040077
  7. Chen, L., & Zitikis, R. (2020). Quantifying and analyzing nonlinear relationships with a fresh look at a classical dataset of student scores. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 54, 1145-1169. https:// doi.org /10.1007/s11135-020-00979-7
  8. Cole, N. (1981). Bias in Testing. American Psychologist, 36(10), 1067-1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1067
  9. Dare, L., Nowicki, E., & Murray, L. (2021). How students conceptualize grade-based acceleration in inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools, 58(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22435
  10. Devore, J. (2012). Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.
  11. Galligan, L. (2013). A systematic approach to embedding academic numeracy at university. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(5), 734-747. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.777037
  12. Gustiningsi, T., Putri, R., Zulkardi, & Hapizah. (2023). Developing a PISA-Like Mathematical Problem: Using Traditional Food Context. International Journal of Education & Curriculum Application, 6(3), 324-337. https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v6i3.20200
  13. Hairer, E., & Wanner, G. (1996). Analysis by Its History. Readings in Mathematics. Springer.
  14. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thing, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  15. Konstantinou-Katzi, P., Tsolaki, E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Koutselini, M. (2013). Differentiation of teaching and learning mathematics: an action research study in tertiary education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(3), 332-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2012.714491
  16. Lambert, R., Imm, K., Schuck, R., Choi, S., & McNiff, A. (2021). “UDL is the What, Design Thinking is the How:” Designing for Differentiation in Mathematics. 23(3). https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/666
  17. Macnab, J., Phillips, L., & Norris, S. (2012). Visualizations and Visualizations in Mathematics Education. Reading for Evidence and Interpreting Visualizations in Mathematics and Science Education, 103-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-924-4_6
  18. Mahmood, M., & Mahmood, I. (2015). A simple demonstration of zero factorial equals one. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(6), 959-960. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1119896
  19. Mahmood, M., & Romdhane, M. (2015). An algebraic justification that zero factorial equals one. The Mathematical Scientist, 40, 134-135. https://www.appliedprobability.org/publications/the-mathematical-scientist
  20. Meaders, C., Lane, A., Morozov, A., Shuman, J., Toth, E., Stains, M., & al., e. (2020). Undergraduate student concerns in introductory STEM courses: what they are, how they change, and what influences them. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 195-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00031-1
  21. Murray, L., & Wilson, J. (2021). Generating data sets for teaching the importance of regression analysis. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 19(2), 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12233
  22. NACOME. (2023). The 2nd National Conference on Mathematics Education (NACOME) 2021: Mathematical Proof as a Tool for Learning Mathematics. 2811. https://doi.org/10.1063/12.0016981
  23. Presmeg, N. (2020). Visualization and Learning in Mathematics Education. Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_161
  24. Putra, A., Zulkardi, Putri, R., Susanti, E., & Nusantara, D. (2023). Teaching the Rule of Product using Nature Tourism Routes. Tarbawi: Jurnal Iimu Pendidkan, 19(2), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.32939/tarbawi.v19i2.3168
  25. Rawani, D., Putri, R., Zulkardi, & Susanti, E. (2023). Explore the South Sumatera's traditional dance as the concept to support mathematical learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2811(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0142305
  26. Risdiyanti, I., Zulkardi, Putri, R. I. I., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Nusantara, D. (2024). Ratio and proportion through realistic mathematics education and pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia approach: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Elemen, 10(1), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v10i1.24445
  27. Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M., Bush, S., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., & al., e. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 35. https://stemeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
  28. Roos, H. (2019). Inclusion in mathematics education: an ideology, a way of teaching, or both? Education Studies in Mathematics, 100, 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z
  29. Staples, M., Bartlo, J., & Thanheiser, E. (2012). Justification as a teaching and learning practice: Its (potential) multifaceted role in middle grades mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(4), 447-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.07.001
  30. StatsCan. (2022). Statistics 101: Statistical Bias. Statistics Canada. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/wtc/data-literacy/catalogue/892000062022005
  31. Thompson, M. (1997). Theory of Sample Surveys. Chapman and Hall.
  32. Wiggins, B., Eddy, S., Wener-Fligner, L., Freisem, K., Grunspan, D., Theobald, E., & al., e. (2017). ASPECT: A survey to assess student perspective of engagement in an active-learning classroom. Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244
  33. Wu, C., & Thompson, M. (2020). Sampling Theory and Practice. Springer.
  34. Zhai, X., Gu, J., Liu, H., Liang, J., & Tsai, C. (2017). An experiential learning perspective on students’ satisfaction model in a flipped classroom context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 198-210. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.20.1.198