Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 27–57 | Cite as

Supporting teachers in the development of young children’s mathematical thinking: Three large scale cases

  • Janette Bobis
  • Barbara Clarke
  • Doug Clarke
  • Gill Thomas
  • Bob Wright
  • Jenny Young-Loveridge
  • Peter Gould
Article

Abstract

Recognition of the importance of the early childhood years in the development of numeracy is a significant characteristic of the New Zealand Numeracy Development Project, the Victorian Early Numeracy Research Project and the Count Me In Too program in New South Wales, Australia. This article outlines the background, key components and major impacts of these three innovative and successful professional development and research initiatives. Juxtaposing the three projects highlights important commonalities—research-based frameworks, diagnostic interviews, and whole-school approaches to professional development. Each program has been significant in rethinking what mathematics and how mathematics is taught to young children.

Keywords

Professional Development Professional Development Program Growth Point Mathematic Education Research Group Early Numeracy 
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. Aubrey, C. (1999). Children’s early learning of number in school and out. In I. Thompson (Ed.),Teaching and learning early number (pp. 20–29). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Board of Studies NSW. (2002).Mathematics K-6 syllabus. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Bobis, J. (1996). Visualisation and the development of number sense with kindergarten children. In J. Mulligan & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.),Children’s number learning (pp. 17–34). Adelaide: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers and MERGA.Google Scholar
  4. Bobis, J. (2003).Count Me In Too: Evaluation of Stage 2. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  5. Bobis, J., & Gould, P. (2000). Changing the professional knowledge of teachers. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.),Mathematics education beyond 2000 (Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Fremantle, pp. 47–54). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, J. E. (1991). Conclusion to advances in research on teaching, Vol. II: Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to teaching practice. In J. Brophy (Ed.),Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 2 Teachers’ subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction (pp. 347–362). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, T. A., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999).Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.),Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, I. (2003).An evaluation of Te Putama Tau 2002: Exploring issues in mathematics education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, D. M. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Croxford (Eds.),Professional development for teachers of mathematics. (1994 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, D. M. (2004). Some issues in the teaching of algorithms in primary schools. In B. Clarke, D. M. Clarke, F. K. Lester, & D. Lambdin (Eds.),International perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 21–36). Göteborg, Sweden: Nationellt Centrum för Matematikutbildning.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke. D. M., & Cheeseman, J., (2000). Some insights from the first year of the early numeracy research project.Improving numeracy learning: Proceedings of the ACER Research Conference 2000 (pp. 6–10), Brisbane: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., McDonough, A., & Clarke, B. A. (2003). Assessing and developing measurement with young children. In D. H. Clements & G. W. Bright (Eds.),Learning and teaching measurement (65th Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 68–80). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, D. M., & Clarke, B. A. (2004). Mathematics teaching in Grades K-2: Painting a picture of challenging, supportive, and effective classrooms. In R. N. Rubenstein & G. W. Bright (Eds.),Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (66th Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, pp. 67–81). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  15. Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s conceptions of space.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of pencil-and-paper tests for school mathematics. In B. Atweh & S. Flavel (Eds.),Galtha: MERGA 18: (Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 184–188). Darwin, NT: University of the Northern Territory.Google Scholar
  17. Cobb, P. (2003). Investigating students’ reasoning about linear measurement as a paradigm case of design research. In M. Stephan, J. Bowers, P. Cobb, & K. Gravemeijer (Eds.),Supporting students’ development of measuring conceptions: Analyzing students’ learning in social contexts (pp. 1–16), Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  18. Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.),Situated cognition theory: Social, semiotic, and neurological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Cobb, P., & Wheatley, G. (1988). Children’s initial understandings of ten.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 10(3), 1–36.Google Scholar
  20. Department of Education & Training. (2001).Early numeracy interview booklet. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. Hewson (Ed.),Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3–24). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Fosnot, C., & Dolk, M. (2001).Young mathematicians at work: Constructing number sense, addition and subtraction. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  23. Fraivillig, J., Murphy, L., & Fuson, K. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992).Teacher development and educational change. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fuson, K. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Gervasoni, A. (2003). Key transitions in counting development for young children who experience difficulty. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Ed.),Proceedings of the 2003 joint meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 2, pp. 421–427). Hawaii: PME.Google Scholar
  27. Ginsburg, H., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children’s mathematical thinking: Connecting research with practice. In I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.),Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed., Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice (pp. 401–476). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  28. Gould, P. (2000). Count Me In Too: Creating a choir in the swamp. InImproving numerary learning: What does the research tell us? (Proceedings of the ACER Research Conference 2000, pp. 23–26) Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  29. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education,Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5) 443–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., et al. (1997).Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Higgins, J. (2003).An evaluation of the Advanced Numeracy Project 2002: Exploring issues in mathematics education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Higgins, J., Parsons, R., & Hyland, M. (2003). The Numeracy Development Project: Policy to practice. In J. Livingstone (Ed.),New Zealand annual review of education. (pp 157–174). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  34. Horne, M., & Rowley G. (2001). Measuring growth in early numeracy: Creation of interval scales to monitor development. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.),Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 3-161–3-167). Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.Google Scholar
  35. Irwin, K. (2003).An evaluation of the Numeracy Project for Years 7–10, 2002. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Irwin, K., & Niederer, K. (2002).An evaluation of the Numeracy Exploratory Study (NEST) and the associated Numeracy Exploratory Study Assessment (NESTA) years 7–10, 2001. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, G., Thornton, C., Putt, I., Hill, K., Mogill, A., Rich, B., & Van Zoest, L. (1996). Multidigit number sense: A framework for instruction and assessment.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 310–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001).Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (1998).Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonough, A., Clarke, B. A., & Clarke, D. M. (2002). Understanding, assessing and developing young children’s mathematical thinking: The power of the one-toone interview for preservice teachers in providing insights into appropriate pedagogical practices.International Journal of Education Research, 37, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McIntosh, A., Bana, J., & Farrell, B. (1995).Mental computation in school mathematics: Preference, attitude and performance of students in years 3, 5, 7, and 9 (MASTEC Monograph Series No. 1). Perth: Mathematics, Science & Technology Education Centre, Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
  43. Ministry of Education (2001).Curriculum update: The numeracy story. No. 45. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  44. Ministry of Education. (2002).Curriculum update: Literacy. No. 50. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  45. Ministry of Education. (2004).The Number Framework: Teachers’ material. Wellington: Author.Google Scholar
  46. Ministry of Education. (n.d.).New Zealand Numeracy Project material. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/Numeracy/project_material.htmGoogle Scholar
  47. Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997). Young children’s intuitive models of multiplication and division.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Narode, R., Board, J., & Davenport, L. (1993). Algorithms supplant understanding: Case studies of primary students’ strategies for double-digit addition and subtraction. In J. R. Becker & B. J. Preece (Eds.),Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 254–260). San Jose: Center for Mathematics and Computer Science Education, San Jose State University.Google Scholar
  49. National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.).TIMSS results. Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results.aspGoogle Scholar
  50. Newman, R. S. (1984). Children’s achievement and self-evaluations in mathematics: A longitudinal study.Developmental Psychology, 76, 857–873.Google Scholar
  51. NSW Department of Education and Training (2003).Count Me In Too: Professional development package, Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
  52. Outhred, L., Mitchelmore, M., McPhail, D., & Gould, P. (2003). Count Me into Measurement: A program for the early elementary school. In D. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.),Learning and teaching measurement. (65th Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, p. 81–99), Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  53. Owen, J., Johnson, N., Clarke, D. M., Lovitt, C., & Morony, W. (1988).Guidelines for consultants and curriculum leaders. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  54. Owens, K., Reddacliff, C., Gould, P., & McPhail, D., (2001). Changing the teaching of space mathematics. 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, pp. 402–409). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  55. Perry, B., & Howard, P. (2001). Counting On: A systemic program for year 7 students who have experienced difficulty with mathematics. 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, pp. 410–417). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  56. Pirie, S., & Kieran, T. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding.For the Learning of Mathematics, 9, 7–11.Google Scholar
  57. Schon, D.(1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  58. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steffe, L. (1992). Learning stages in the construction of the number sequence. In J. Bideaud, C. Meljac, & J. Fischer (Eds.),Pathways to number: Children’s developing numerical abilities (pp. 83–88). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Steffe, L., Cobb, P., & von Glasersfeld, E. (1988).Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. Stephens, M. (2000).Identification and evaluation of teaching practices that enhance numeracy achievement. Retrieved May 30, 2004 from http://www.aamt.edu.au/projects/numeracy_papers/stephens.pdfGoogle Scholar
  63. Sulllivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., & Mulligan, J. (2001). Moving beyond physical models in learning multiplicative reasoning. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.),Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 233–240). Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.Google Scholar
  64. Thomas, G., Tagg, A., & Ward, J. (2003).An evaluation of the Early Numeracy Project 2002: Exploring issues in mathematics education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  65. Thomas, G., & Ward, J. (2001).An evaluation of the Count Me In Too Pilot Project. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  66. Thomas, G., & Ward, J. (2002).An evaluation of the Early Numeracy Project 2001: Exploring issues in mathematics education. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  67. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.),Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (2001).The impact of Count Me In Too on year 3 Basic Skills Test numeracy scores. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, P. S., & Osborne, A. (1992). Foundational ideas in teaching about measure. In T. R. Post (Ed.),Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research-based methods (pp. 89–122). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  70. Wright, R. J. (1994). A study of the numerical development of 5-year-olds and 6-yearolds.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wright, R. J. (1998). An overview of a research-based framework for assessing and teaching early number learning. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.),Teaching mathematics in new times (Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 701–708). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  72. Wright, R. J. (2000). Professional development in recovery education. In L. Steffe & P. Thompson (Eds.),Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp. 135–151). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  73. Wright, R. J. (2003). Mathematics Recovery: A program of intervention in early number learning.Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(4), 6–11.Google Scholar
  74. Wright, R. J., Martland, J., & Stafford, A. (2000).Early numeracy: Assessment for teaching and intervention. London: Paul Chapman Publications/Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Wright, R. J., Martland, J., Stafford, A., & Stanger, G. (2002).Teaching number: Advancing children’s skills and strategies. London: Paul Chapman Publications/Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Wright, R. J., Stanger, G., Cowper, M., & Dyson, R. (1996). First-graders’ progress in an experimental mathematics recovery program. In J. Mulligan & M. Mitchelmore (Eds.),Children’s number learning (pp. 55–72). Adelaide: AAMT and MERGA.Google Scholar
  77. Young-Loveridge, J. (1991).The development of children’s number concepts from ages five to nine. Early Mathematics Learning Project: Phase II. Volume I: Report of findings. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  78. Young-Loveridge, J. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number books and games.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Young-Loveridge, J., Peters, S., & Carr, M. (1998). Enhancing the mathematics of fouryear-olds: An overview of the EMI-4s study.Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 82–93.Google Scholar
  80. Young-Loveridge, J., & Wright, V. (2002). Validation of the New Zealand Number Framework. In B. Barton, K. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. Thomas (Eds.),Mathematics Education in the South Pacific (Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Auckland, pp 722–729). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janette Bobis
    • 1
  • Barbara Clarke
    • 2
  • Doug Clarke
    • 3
  • Gill Thomas
    • 4
  • Bob Wright
    • 5
  • Jenny Young-Loveridge
    • 6
  • Peter Gould
    • 7
  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydney
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationMonash University — Peninsula CampusFrankston
  3. 3.Faculty of EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityParade, Fitzroy
  4. 4.Maths Technology LtdConsultancy HouseDunedin
  5. 5.Southern Cross UniversityLismore
  6. 6.Department of Human Development and Counselling, Nga PumanawaThe University of WaikatoHamilton
  7. 7.Curriculum K-12 DirectorateNSW Department of Education and TrainingRyde

Personalised recommendations