1 / 17

Hendrik.VanSteenbrugge@UGent.be PME 34 – 18-23/7/2010 Belo Horizonte

A wizard at mathematics as teacher? A study into the knowledge of fractions of preservice primary school teachers. Support committee : Prof. dr. A. Desoete (co-promotor, UGent) Prof . dr. K.P.E. Gravemeijer ( ESOE ) Prof. dr. J. Grégoire (UCL) Prof. dr. M. Valcke (promotor, UGent)

livi
Download Presentation

Hendrik.VanSteenbrugge@UGent.be PME 34 – 18-23/7/2010 Belo Horizonte

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A wizard at mathematics as teacher? A study into the knowledge of fractions of preservice primary school teachers Support committee: Prof. dr. A. Desoete (co-promotor, UGent) Prof. dr. K.P.E. Gravemeijer (ESOE) Prof. dr. J. Grégoire (UCL) Prof. dr. M. Valcke (promotor, UGent) Prof. dr. L. Verschaffel (KULeuven) H. Van Steenbrugge, M. Valcke, A. Desoete Hendrik.VanSteenbrugge@UGent.be PME 34 – 18-23/7/2010 Belo Horizonte

  2. Overview • Introduction • Current study • Methodology • Results • Conclusion

  3. Introduction: fractions • Fractions: important though very difficult topic • students’ performance results (NCES, 2000) • Teachers (Van Steenbrugge, Valcke, & Desoete, 2010) • Important: percentages, decimals, and algebra (Lamon, 1999)

  4. Introduction: elementary school students • Gap procedural – conceptual knowledge of fractions (Aksu, 1997; Post, Cramer, Behr, Lesh & Harel, 1993) • Conceptual K: multiplicity of meanings (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001) • 5 subconstructs

  5. Introduction: elementary school students • Five subconstructs • Part-whole: • Ratio: “John and Mary are making lemonade. Whose lemonade is going to be sweatier, if the kids use the following recipes? John: 2 spoons of sugar for every 5 glasses of lemonade; Mary: 4 spoons of sugar for every 8 glasses of lemonade” • Operator: “By how many times should we increase 9 to get 15?” • Quotient: “Five cakes are equally divided among four friends. How much does anyone get?”

  6. Introduction: elementary school students • Measure: number and interval • Number: “Write for every number in the left column, the corresponding fraction in the right column.” • Interval: “Locate 9/3 and 11/6 on the following number line”

  7. Introduction: elementary school students • Students most successful on tasks about the part-whole sub construct & In general they have too little knowledge of the other sub constructs • Especially students’ knowledge on the sub construct measure seems to be problematic (Charalambous & Pitta-Pantazi, 2007; Clarke, et al., 2007; Hannula, 2003).

  8. The current study • Teachers’ knowledge of fractions?? • Scarce and limited (Newton, 2008) • Deep understanding of school mathematics by elementary school teachers  educational practices & students’ learning (Borko, et al., 1992; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Ma, 1999) • How some procedures work & WHY these procedures work (Newton, 2008)

  9. The current study • Deep knowledge: preservice teachers and inservice teachers ?? (Tirosh, 2000; Zhou, Peverly, & Xin, 2006) • Serious concerns regarding the readiness of some student teachers to teach mathematics to elementary school children (Conference board of the mathematical sciences, 2001; Verschaffel, Janssens, & Janssen, 2005)

  10. The current study: research questions • To which extend do preservice teachers master the procedural and conceptual knowledge of fractions • To which extent do preservice teachers master a deeper knowledge concerning fractions?

  11. Methodology • 290 preservice teachers • First year trainees: 184; Third year trainees: 106 • Male: 43; Female: 247 • General oriented secondary education: 197 • Practical oriented secondary education: 93 • Instrument: • Conceptual K: existing instruments (elementary school students) • Procedural K: textbooks

  12. Results: procedural – conceptual K • Grand mean: .80 (.11); PK: .86 (.15); CK: .79 (.12) • 2*2*2*2 mixed ANOVA design: • Gender: M > F • Sec: GSE > PSE • Type: PK > CK • Gender*Type • Gender*Type*Sec

  13. Results: procedural – conceptual K • Gender*Type • CK: M > F; PK: M = F • F: P > C; M: P = C • Gender*Type*Sec • GSE & PSE: CK: M > F; PK: M = F • GSE & PSE: F: P > C; M: P = C • CK: F(GSE) > F(PSE) ; M(GSE) = M(PSE) • PK: F(GSE) = F(PSE) ; M(GSE) = M(PSE) • => M>F on CK; PK>CK for F; GSE>PSE for F&CK

  14. Results: conceptual K • 2*2*2*2 mixed ANOVA design: • Subconstruct • RATIO > rest • P-W > rest minus ratio • OP > mi; = q; < ratio; p-w; mg • Q > mi; = op; < ratio; p-w; mg • MG > op; q; mi; < pw, ratio • MI < rest • Gender: M>F • Sec: GSE>PSE • Gender*Subconstruct: M>F except for Q • Year: not significant

  15. Results: Deep knowledge • 2*2*2* ANOVA design: • 5/6 – 1/4 = …; 2/6 + 1/3 = …; 5 : 1/2 = …; 2/5 x 3/5 = …; 3/4 : 5/8 = … • Mean: .42 (.20)  /2 ! • Sec: GSE >PSE; p = .045 • Gender*Year; p = .047 • Year: …

  16. Conclusion • Partial overlap results preservice teachers & elementary school students • Chicken – egg? • .80/1: ok? • Deep knowledge ... • Teacher education?

  17. Wrong WrongWrong Some remarkable results ... 70% 63.10% • Locate number 1: • “Is there a fraction located between 1/8 and 1/9? If yes, give an example.” • 1.33 = ... • “By how many times should we increase 9 to get 15?” • “Which of the following are numbers? Put a circle around them: A 4 * 1.7 16 0.006 2/5 47.5 1/2 $ 1 4/5” • “Peter prepares 14 cakes. He divides these cakes equally between his 6 friends. How much cake does each of them get?” 52.07% 43.45% 35.86% 35.52%

More Related