Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 47–77 | Cite as

Inquiry pedagogy to promote emerging proportional reasoning in primary students

  • Jill Fielding-Wells
  • Shelley Dole
  • Katie Makar
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Proportional reasoning as the capacity to compare situations in relative (multiplicative) rather than absolute (additive) terms is an important outcome of primary school mathematics. Research suggests that students tend to see comparative situations in additive rather than multiplicative terms and this thinking can influence their capacity for proportional reasoning in later years. In this paper, excerpts from a classroom case study of a fourth-grade classroom (students aged 9) are presented as they address an inquiry problem that required proportional reasoning. As the inquiry unfolded, students' additive strategies were progressively seen to shift to proportional thinking to enable them to answer the question that guided their inquiry. In wrestling with the challenges they encountered, their emerging proportional reasoning was supported by the inquiry model used to provide a structure, a classroom culture of inquiry and argumentation, and the proportionality embedded in the problem context.

Keywords

Proportional reasoning Mathematical inquiry Classroom argumentation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (LP0990184; DP120100690), Education Queensland and The University of Queensland. The first author is in receipt of an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship and wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the Commonwealth Government.

References

  1. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Nardi, E. (2001). Normalising: children's activity to construct meanings for trend. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1–3), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, E. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allmond, S., & Makar, K. (2010). Developing primary students' ability to pose questions in statistical investigations. In C. Reading (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on teaching statistics. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Allmond, S., Wells, J., & Makar, K. (2010). Thinking through mathematics: engaging students in inquiry-based learning. Melbourne: Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baber, R. L. (2011). The language of mathematics: utilizing math in practice. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook on research of teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
  8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. doi: 10.1002/sce.20286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, F., & Kamii, C. (1996). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1–5. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2006). Guiding inquiry-based math learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 171–186). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffield, F. (Ed.). (2000). The necessity of informal learning. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  15. Confrey, J. (1991). Learning to listen: a student's understanding of powers of ten. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 111–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Confrey, J. (1998). Voice and perspective: hearing epistemological innovation in students' words. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. W. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 104–120). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Confrey, J. (2008, July). A synthesis of the research on rational number reasoning: a learning progressions approach to synthesis. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress of Mathematics Instruction, Monterrey Mexico.Google Scholar
  18. Confrey, J. (2010). Response commentary: “Both and”—Equity and mathematics: a response to Martin, Gholson, and Leonard. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 25–33.Google Scholar
  19. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: research implications. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: middle grade mathematics (pp. 159–178). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Dewey, J. (1929/1960). The quest for certainty: a study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York: Capricorn Books.Google Scholar
  24. Diezmann, C., Watters, J., & English, L. (2001). Difficulties confronting young children undertaking investigations. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., & Hilton, G. (2012a). Students' proportional reasoning in mathematics and science. In T. Tso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 195–202). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.Google Scholar
  26. Dole, S., Makar, K., & Gillies, R. (2012b). Enacting the intended curriculum through inquiry pedagogy. Paper presented in Topic Study Group 32: Mathematics Curriculum Development. The Twelfth International Congress of Mathematics Education, Seoul KoreaGoogle Scholar
  27. Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. English, L., & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics education: models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Fielding-Wells, J. (2010). Linking problems, conclusions and evidence: primary students' early experiences of planning statistical investigations. In C. Reading (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Fielding-Wells, J. (2013, July). Inquiry-based argumentation in primary mathematics: reflecting on evidence. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  32. Fielding-Wells, J., & Makar, K. (2008, July). Using mathematical inquiry to engage student learning within the overall curriculum. Paper presented in the Symposium: The Role of Mathematics in the Overall Curriculum at the 11th International Congress for Mathematics Education, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  33. Fielding-Wells, J., & Makar, K. (2012). Developing primary students' argumentation skills in inquiry-based mathematics classrooms. In: van Aalst, J., Thompson, K., Jacobson, M. J., & Reimann, P. (Eds.) The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (vol 2, pp. 149–153). International Society of the Learning Sciences: Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goos, M. (2002). Understanding metacognitive failure. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harel, G., & Koichu, B. (2010). An operational definition of learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29(3), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hart, K. (1981). Children's understanding of mathematics 11–16. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  40. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos., M., & O’Brien, M. (2012). Evaluating middle years students’ proportional reasoning. In: J. Dindyal, L. Chen, & S. Ng. (Eds.). Mathematics education: expanding horizons. Singapore: MERGA. pp. 330–37Google Scholar
  42. Hollingsworth, H., McCrae, B., & Lokan, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia: results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  43. Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: a handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. Krajcek, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lo, J.-J., & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: a story of a fifth grader. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In M. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. Makar, K. (2004). Developing statistical inquiry. Doctoral dissertation, College of Education, The University of Texas–Austin.Google Scholar
  49. Makar, K. (2007). Connection levers: supports for building teachers' confidence and commitment to teach mathematics and statistics through inquiry. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 8(1), 48–73.Google Scholar
  50. Makar, K. (2012). The pedagogy of mathematical inquiry. In R. Gillies (Ed.), Pedagogy: new developments in the learning sciences (pp. 371–397). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  51. Makar, K., & Fielding-Wells, J. (2011). Teaching teachers to teach statistical investigations. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics: challenges for teaching and teacher education (pp. 347–358). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Makar, K., Fielding-Wells, J., & Allmond, S. (2011, July). Is this game 1 or game 2? Primary children's reasoning about samples in an inquiry classroom. Paper presented at the Seventh International Forum for Research on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, & Literacy. Texel, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  53. Muller Mirza, N., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Tartas, V., & Iannaccone, A. (2009). Psychosocial processes in argumentation. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 67–90). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  55. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: a guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  56. Norton, S. (2005). The construction of proportional reasoning. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 17–24). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
  57. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Essential learnings: mathematics. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.Google Scholar
  59. Queensland Studies Authority. (2008). Scope and sequence: mathematics. Brisbane: Author.Google Scholar
  60. Reitman, W. (1965). Cognition and thought: an information-processing approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Resnick, L. B. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 183–197. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10364671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189–203. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.667065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: the challenges of teaching thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775–802). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rowland, T., & Zazkis, R. (2013). Contingency in the mathematics classroom: opportunities taken and opportunities missed. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 13(2), 137–153. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2013.784825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., & Bransford, J. D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204–214. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.696317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stacey, K. (1992). Mathematical problem solving in groups: are two heads better than one? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 261–275.Google Scholar
  68. Stacey, K. (2006). What is mathematical thinking and why is it important. Progress report of the APEC project: collaborative studies on innovations for teaching and learning mathematics in different cultures (II)—Lesson study focusing on mathematical thinking.Google Scholar
  69. Stacey, K., & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Staples, M. E., & Truxaw, M. P. (2012). An initial framework for the language of higher-order thinking mathematics practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steinthorsdottir, O. B., & Sriraman, B. (2009). Islandic 5th-grade girls' developmental trajectories in proportional reasoning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(1), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Streefland, L. (1985). Searching for the roots of ratio: some thoughts on the long term learning process (towards…a theory). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., & Clarke, B. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralisation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). From addition to multiplication … and back: the development of students' additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. doi: 10.1002/tea.20213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walshaw, M. (2007). Editorial: research as a catalyst for the promotion of equity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(3), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yoon, C., Dreyfus, T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2010). How high is the tramping track? Mathematising and applying in a calculus model-eliciting activity. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What's your evidence? Engaging K-5 students in constructing explanations in science. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Fielding-Wells
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shelley Dole
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katie Makar
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of Queensland, School of EducationQueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.The University of QueenslandQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options