Preservice teachers’ use of contrasting cases in mathematics instruction
- 289 Downloads
Drawing comparisons between students’ alternative solution strategies to a single mathematics problem is a powerful yet challenging instructional practice. We examined 80 preservice teachers’ when asked to design a short lesson when given a problem and two student solutions—one correct and one incorrect. These micro-teaching events were videotaped and coded, revealing that fewer than half of participants (43%) made any explicit comparison or contrasts between the two solution strategies. Those who did were still not likely to use additional support strategies to draw students’ attention to key elements of the comparison. Further, correlations suggest that participants’ mathematical content knowledge may be related to whether participants’ showed contrasting cases but not to whether they used specific pedagogical cues to support those comparisons. While these micro-teaching events differ from the interactive constraints of a classroom, they reveal that participants did not immediately orient toward differing student solutions as a discussion opportunity, and that future instruction on contrasting cases must highlight the utility of this practice.
KeywordsTeacher cognition and practices Professional development Mathematics education
This work was supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER Award to the second author, NSF#0954222, and an NSF Science of Learning Center, SPE 0541957. We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback on previous versions on this paper.
- Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. W. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
- Dalehefte, I. M., Prenzel, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Reflecting on learning from errors in school instruction: Findings and suggestions from a Swiss-German video study. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human fallibility. The ambiguity of errors for work and learning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- English, L. D. (Ed.). (1997). Mathematical reasoning: analogies, metaphors, and images. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- English, L. D. (2004). Promoting the development of young children’s mathematical and analogical reasoning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hadfield, O. D., Littleton, C. E., Steiner, R. L., & Woods, E. S. (1998). Predictors of preservice elementary teacher effectiveness in the micro-teaching of mathematics lessons. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(1), 34–48.Google Scholar
- Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study., NCES 2003-013 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
- Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
- Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297–312.Google Scholar
- Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers. Beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(4), 629–639.Google Scholar
- Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2014). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video-and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 491–514.Google Scholar
- Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Star, J. R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., Larson, M. R., Lyskawa, J., McCallum, W. G., Porath, J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2015). Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 2014-4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evalua- tion and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.
- Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.Google Scholar
- Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–595.Google Scholar