Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 399–413 | Cite as

Pre-service teachers’ experiences teaching secondary mathematics in English-medium schools in Tanzania

  • Lisa Kasmer
Original Article

Abstract

In order to promote mathematical understanding among English Language Learners (ELLs), it is necessary to modify instructional strategies to effectively communicate mathematical content. This paper discusses the instructional strategies used by four pre-service teachers to teach mathematics to secondary students in English-medium schools in Arusha, Tanzania as a result of the tensions they faced and reflections on their teaching. Strategies such as code switching, attending to sentence structure, non-linguistic representations, and placing the content within a familiar context proved to be beneficial strategies for conveying mathematical ideas.

Keywords

English language learners Secondary mathematics education Kiswahili English-medium schools Pre-service teachers 

References

  1. Bailey, J., & Taylor, M. (2010). Conceptions, language, culture and mathematics and the New Zealand curriculum. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(3), 131–140.Google Scholar
  2. Brock-Utne, B. (2003). The language question in Africa in the light of globalization. International Journal of Peace, 8(2), 67–87.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria: Association of Supervision of Curriculum.Google Scholar
  4. Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Piscataway: Transactions Publishers Paperback.Google Scholar
  5. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Hiebert, J., Morris, A., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: an “experiment” model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, K. (1992). Learning to teach: instructional actions and decisions of preservice ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(3), 507–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kohler, F. W., Henning, J. E., & Usma-Wilches, J. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to make instructional decisions: an examination of teacher work samples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2108–2117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Lucas, T., & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: The role of native language in English-only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3).Google Scholar
  13. McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field laboratory experiences. In J. P. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 171–193). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  14. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mewborn, D. S. (2000). Learning to teach elementary mathematics: ecological elements of a field experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyers, E. (2007). From activity to learning: using Cultural-Historical activity theory to model school library programmes and practices. Information Research, 12(3).Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Education and Culture. (1995). Education and training policy. http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/Educationandtrainingpolicy01.pdf
  18. Moore. (1995). The craft of teaching. MAA Focus 15(2), 5–8.Google Scholar
  19. Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011). Content-based instruction and vocabulary learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 631–644). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Okonkwo, C. (1983). Bilingualism in education: the Nigerian experience re-examined. Prospects, 13(3), 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osaki, K. M. (1991). Factors influencing the use of the environment in science teaching. Ph.D. thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  22. Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2011). Research in English for specific purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 106–121). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Perso, T. (2003). School mathematics and its impact on cultural diversity. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 59(2), 10–16.Google Scholar
  24. Puja, G. (2001). Moving against the grain: The experiences of Tanzanian female undergraduates. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Sociology and Equity. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. Qorro, M. (2006). Does language of instruction affect quality of education? HakiElimu Working Papers, 06(8).Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  27. Samoff, J. (2002). Local initiatives and national policies: the politics of private schooling in Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Research, 15(5), 337–391.Google Scholar
  28. Shein, P. (2012). Seeing with two eyes: a teacher’s use of gestures in revoicing to engage English language learners in the repair of mathematical errors. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(2), 182–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smalley & Retallick. (2011). Purposes, activities, and documentation of early field experiences in agricultural education: A national Delphi study. Journal of Agricultural Education. 52(3), 100–109.Google Scholar
  30. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  31. Stillman, J., & Anderson, L. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: managing instructional tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts., 89(1), 22–37.Google Scholar
  32. Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The role of pedagogy in classroom discourse: a review of recent research into mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren, E., Young, J., & deVries, E. (2007). Australian indigenous students: The role of oral language and representations in the negotiation of mathematical understanding. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. MERGA.Google Scholar
  34. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zevenbergen, R. (2000a). Language implications for numeracy: A study of language use of disadvantaged students. In Improving Numeracy Learning Conference Proceedings, Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2000/2
  36. Zevenbergen, R. (2000b). Cracking the code of mathematics classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic, social, and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 201–223). Westport: Alex.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics DepartmentGrand Valley State UniversityAllendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations