Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 3–18 | Cite as

Teaching mathematics thematically: Teachers’ perspectives

  • Boris Handal
  • Janette Bobis
Article

Abstract

Teaching mathematics through themes has been praised for relating mathematics to real-life situations. However, research shows that the implementation of teaching mathematics thematically has not been widely adopted. In the present study, instructional, curricula and organisational factors that teachers perceive as obstacles to the implementation of a thematic approach to teaching mathematics were explored. Findings from interviews with 10 secondary mathematics teachers who were implementing a curriculum requiring a thematic instructional approach are reported. The findings of the study extend the literature concerning teachers’ beliefs and practices in the teaching of mathematics, and broaden understandings of the issues surrounding the implementation of a thematically taught mathematics curriculum.

Keywords

Teaching Mathematic Organisational Factor School Mathematic Mathematical Achievement Head Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrantes, P. (1991). The role of applications in a curriculum project for school mathematics. In M. Niss, W. Blum & I. Huntley (Eds.),Teaching of mathematical modelling and applications (pp. 128–136). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  2. Abrantes, P. (1993). Project work in school mathematics. In J. de Lange, I. Huntley, C. Keitel, & M. Niss (Eds.),Innovation in maths education by modelling and applications (pp. 355–364). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996).Applications and misapplication of cognitive psychology to mathematic education. Retrieved December 9, 2003, from http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.htmlGoogle Scholar
  4. Beechey, B., Bigelow, M., & Whitland, J. (2001). Mathematics K-10 review: Survey of conference participants.Reflections, 26(1), 73–74.Google Scholar
  5. Black, J. G., & Power, G. H. (1980). Story understanding as problem solving.Poetics, 9, 176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Board of Studies, NSW. (1996).Mathematics standard course: Years 9–10. Sydney: Board of Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. F., & Rose, T. D. (1995). Self-reported classroom impact of teachers’ theories about learning and obstacles to implementation.Action in Teacher Education, 17(1), 20–29.Google Scholar
  8. Burkhardt, H. (1984). Modelling in the classroom — How can we get it to happen? In J. S. Berry, D. N. Burghes, I. D. Huntley, D. J. G. James & A. O. Moscardini (Eds.),Teaching and applying mathematical modelling (pp. 39–47). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  9. Burkhardt, H. (1987). Teaching mathematics through its applications. In J. S. Berry, D. N. Burghes, I. D. Huntley, D. J. G. James & A. Q. Moscardini (Eds.),Mathematical modelling courses (pp. 13–20). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  10. Burkhardt, H. (1989). Mathematical modelling in the curriculum. In W. Blum, J. S. Berry, R. Biehler, I. D. Huntley, G. Kaiser-Messmer & L. Profke (Eds.),Applications and modelling in learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 1–11). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  11. Burkhardt, H. (1994). Mathematical applications in school curriculum. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 3631–3634). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, M. A. (1995). The rhetoric/reality gap in school mathematics.Reflections, 20(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  13. Dawe, L., Dengate, B., Howard, P., & Perry, B. (1999).We taught them but did they learn? Research report of the investigation of literacy in the teaching and learning of mathematics in secondary schools. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training — Disadvantaged Schools Program.Google Scholar
  14. Dengate, B. (2000).Since the sixties: A retrospective on mathematics education. Paper presented at the 2000 annual conference of the Mathematical Association of New South Wales, Wollongong, NSW.Google Scholar
  15. Foss, D. H., & Kleeinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers’ views of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge.Teaching and Teacher Education, 12 (4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, C., & Sokoloff, H. J. (1995). Children learn to make a better world: Exploring themes.Childhood Education, 73, 17–22.Google Scholar
  17. Handal, B. (2000). Teaching in themes: Is that easy?Reflections, 25 (3), 48–49.Google Scholar
  18. Handal, B. (2001).Teachers’ mathematical beliefs and practices in teaching and learning thematically: The 1996 standard course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  19. Handal, B. (2002). Rest in peace: The stage 5 syllabus (1997–2003).Reflections, 27 (2), 12–16.Google Scholar
  20. Handal, B., & Bobis, J. (2003). Instructional styles in teaching mathematics thematically.International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved December 9, 2003, from http://www.exeter.ac.uk/cimt/ijmtl/handalbobis.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. Handal, B., Bobis, J., & Grimison, L. (2001). Teachers’ mathematical beliefs and practices in teaching and learning thematically. In J. Bobis, B. Perry & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.),Numeracy and beyond. (Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. pp. 265-272), Sydney: MERGA Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Henderson, R. W., & Landesman, E. M. (1995). Effects of thematically integrated mathematics instruction on students of Mexican descent.Journal of Educational Research, 88 (5), 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson, R. W., & St. John, L. (1997).Thematically integrated middle school mathematics: A school — university-business partnership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409187)Google Scholar
  24. Jamal, N. (1998, November 16). Year 10 test too stressful — parents.The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2.Google Scholar
  25. Jose, P. (1988). Linking of plan-based stories: The role of goal importance and goal attainment difficulty.Discourse Processes, 11(3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Julie, C. (1983). People’s mathematics and the application of mathematics. In J. de Lange, I. Huntley, C. Keitel & M. Niss (Eds.),Innovation in maths education by modelling and applications (pp. 31–40). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  27. Kaiser-Messmer, G. (1989). Application-orientated mathematics teaching. In W. Blum, J. S. Berry, R. Biehler, I. D. Huntley, G. Kaiser-Messmer & L. Profke (Eds.),Applications and modelling in learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 66–72). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  28. Kupari, P. (1989). Applications in Finnish school mathematics education — Research results and development prospects. In W. Blum, J. S. Berry, R. Biehler, I. D. Huntley, G. Kaiser-Messmer & L. Profke (Eds.),Applications and modelling in learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 88–91). London: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  29. Lipson, M. Y., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning.Language Arts, 70(4), 252–263.Google Scholar
  30. McKernan, M. (1994). The effects of “mathematics their way” and Chicago math project on mathematical application and story problem strategies of second graders (Doctoral dissertation, Drake University, 1992).Dissertations Abstracts International, 54A, 2932.Google Scholar
  31. Memon, M. (1997). Curriculum change in Pakistan: An alternative model of change.Curriculum and Teaching, 12 (1), 55–63.Google Scholar
  32. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Rimewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1990).In-depth interviewing: Researching people. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  33. Mock, J. (1999). Course performance descriptors.Reflections, 24 (2), 5–6.Google Scholar
  34. Pegg, J. (1998). Help in understanding course performance descriptors in mathematics.Curriculum Support for the Teaching of Mathematics 772-12, 3(3), 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. Pepple, J., & O’Connor, F. (1992).An evaluation of the applied mathematics and applied communication demonstration site in Indiana. Final research report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346316).Google Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  37. Rogerson, A. (1990).International review of computing in schools. Monograph No. 3. Melbourne: International Educational Consultants.Google Scholar
  38. Schroeder, T. L., & Lester, F. K. (1989). Developing understanding in mathematics via problem solving. In P. R. Trafton (Ed.),New directions for elementary school mathematics (pp. 31–56). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  39. Secondary Schools Board NSW. (1983).Syllabus in mathematics year 9 and 10. Sydney: Secondary Schools Board.Google Scholar
  40. Seely, A. (1995).Integrated thematic units.Westminter, CA: Teachers Created Materials.Google Scholar
  41. Short, K., & Burke, C. (1996). Examining our beliefs and practices through inquiry.Language Arts, 73(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  42. Stephen, V., & Varble, E. (1995). Staff development model.Schools in the Middle, 4 (4), 22–26.Google Scholar
  43. Streibel, M. J. (1995). Instructional plans and situated learning. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 145–160). Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Usiskin, Z. (1991). Mathematical applications: Secondary school. In A. Lewy (Ed.),The international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 845–847). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Teaching realistic mathematical modeling in the elementary school: Ateaching experiment with fifth graders.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28 (5), 577–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, D. (1977).A book about thematic mathematics. Victoria: Primary Education (Publishing) Pty. Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F., & Broekman, H. (1997). Preparing teachers of realistic mathematics education.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Handal
    • 1
  • Janette Bobis
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Technology SydneyLindfield
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationThe University of Sydney

Personalised recommendations