Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 493–511 | Cite as

Stretching student teachers’ understanding of fractions

  • Roger Harvey
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The teaching of fractions in elementary school is known to be challenging. Literature indicates that teachers’ and prospective teachers’ lack of depth of fraction content knowledge and associated pedagogical knowledge is of concern. This study investigated the fraction content knowledge of prospective teachers and their ability to use that knowledge in a novel situation. Prospective teachers who regarded their own fractional content knowledge as weak were recruited to participate in the study. They completed a questionnaire and then participated in a loosely structured teaching experiment in which they were shown how an elastic strip could be used to assist in the development of fraction ideas. Data gained from questionnaires and transcripts of the teaching experiment indicated that using the elastic strip was effective in challenging and enriching the participants’ knowledge of equivalent fractions and ordering fractions. The physical nature of the use of the fraction strip required participants to articulate their thoughts to other participants which assisted in making their actions relating to the fraction tasks explicit. The results suggest that the use of the elastic strip, and associated teaching, should be considered as a productive way of assisting prospective teachers to develop their understanding of fractional concepts.

Keywords

Fractions Manipulatives Mathematics Teacher education Misconceptions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the prospective teachers who willingly participated in this study. Thank you to Robin Averill and the anonymous reviewer who provided constructive feedback on drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Abels, M. (1991). Procenten in W12-16. Nieuwe Wiskrant, 10(3), 20–25.Google Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., & Briggs, M. (1998). Building and assessing subject knowledge in mathematics for pre-service students. Teacher Development, 3(2), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Berk, D., Taber, S., Gorowara, C., & Poetzl, C. (2009). Developing prospective elementary teachers’ flexibility in the domain of proportional reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(3), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bright, G., Behr, M., Post, T., & Wachsmuth, I. (1988). Identifying fractions on number lines. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charalambous, C., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(3), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer, K., & Wyberg, T. (2009). Efficacy of different concrete models for teaching the part-whole construct for fractions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11(4), 226–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer, K., Post, T., & delMas, R. (2002). Initial fraction learning by fourth- and fifth-grade students: a comparison of the effects of using commercial curricula with the effects of using the rational number project curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher trainees’ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 679–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannula, M. (2003). Locating fraction on a number line. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 17–24).Google Scholar
  13. Hill, H. (2010). Nature and predictors of elementary MKT. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 513–545.Google Scholar
  14. Hill, H., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodgen, J., Küchemann, D., Brown, M., & Coe, R. (2010). Lower secondary school students’ knowledge of fractions. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 75–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaminsky, J., Sloutsky, V., & Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  18. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. McNeil, N., Uttal, D., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children’s understanding of the rational numbers: a new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moyer, P. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearn, C., & Stephens, M. (2004). Why you have to probe to discover what year 8 students really think about fractions. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Townsville (pp. 430–437). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  27. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Beyond metaphor: formalising in mathematical understanding with constructivist environments. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  28. Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O’Donnell, A., & Flick, A. (2008). Teacher learning and mathematics manipulatives: a collective case study about teacher use of manipulatives in elementary and middle school mathematics lessons (Case study). School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Runesson, U. (2005). Beyond discourse and interaction. Variation: a critical aspect for teaching and learning mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Runesson, U. (2006). What is it possible to learn? On variation as a necessary condition for learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(4), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  32. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  33. Skemp, R. (1979). Intelligence, leaning and action. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, J. P. (1995). Competent reasoning with rational numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 13(1), 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sowell, E. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steffe, L. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. von Glaserfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Steinle, V., & Price, V. (2008). What does three-quarters look like? Students’ representations of three-quarters. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions (Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 483–489). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  38. Stephens, M., & Pearn, C. (2003). Probing whole number dominance with fractions. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity. (Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 650–657). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  39. Tchoshanov, M. (2011). Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uttal, D., Scudder, K., & DeLoache, J. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: a new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: an example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ward, J. (2010). Teacher knowledge of fractions: an assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  43. Ward, J., & Thomas, G. (2007). What do teachers know about fractions? In Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Project 2006. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Zhou, Z., Peverly, S., & Xin, T. (2006). Knowing and teaching fractions: a cross-cultural study of American and Chinese mathematics teachers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 438–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational Policy and ImplementationVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options