Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 101–128 | Cite as

Frequencies as proportions: Using a teaching model based on Pirie and Kieren’s model of mathematical understanding

  • Vince Wright
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Pirie and Kieren (1989 For the learning of mathematics, 9(3)7–11, 1992 Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 243–257, 1994a Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 61–86, 1994b For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1)39–43) created a model (P–K) that describes a dynamic and recursive process by which learners develop their mathematical understanding. The model was adapted to create the teaching model used in the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects (Ministry of Education, 2007). A case study of a 3-week sequence of instruction with a group of eight 12- and 13-year-old students provided the data. The teacher/researcher used folding back to materials and images and progressing from materials to imaging to number properties to assist students to develop their understanding of frequencies as proportions. The data show that successful implementation of the model is dependent on the teacher noticing and responding to the layers of understanding demonstrated by the students and the careful selection of materials, problems and situations. It supports the use of the model as a useful part of teachers’ instructional strategies and the importance of pedagogical content knowledge to the quality of the way the model is used.

Keywords

Mathematical understanding Teaching model Percentages Ratios 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adjiage, R., & Pluvinage, F. (2007). An experiment in teaching ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(2), 140–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alatorre, S. (2002). A framework for the study of intuitive answers to ratio comparison (probability) tasks. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.2, pp. 33–40). Norwich, UK.: PME.Google Scholar
  3. Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2004). Proportional reasoning of quasi-literate adults. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.2, pp. 9–16). Bergen, Norway: PME.Google Scholar
  4. Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2005). A developmental model for proportional reasoning in ratio comparison tasks. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), 29th Annual Conference of the International Research Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.2, pp. 25–32). Melbourne, Australia:PME.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. B., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it so special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University.Google Scholar
  8. Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., & Watson, A. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In J. Novotna (Ed.), 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.1, pp. 126–154). Prague, Czech Republic:PME.Google Scholar
  9. Borgen, K. L., & Manu, S. S. (2002). What do students really understand? Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 21, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britt, M. S., & Irwin, K. C. (2008). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: a three-year longitudinal study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darr, C., Neill, A., & Stephanou, A. (2006). Progressive achievement test: Mathematics: teacher manual. Wellington, NZ.: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  14. Dole, S. (1999). Percent knowledge: effective teaching for learning, relearning and unlearning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Dole, S. (2000). Promoting percent as a proportion in eighth-grade mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake, M. (2010). Student understanding of linear scale in mathematics: exploring what year 7 and 8 students know. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  17. Hershkowitz, R., Hadas, N., Dreyfus, T., & Schwarz, B. (2007). Abstracting processes from individual constructing of knowledge to a groups’ “shared knowledge. Mathematical Education Research Journal: Special Issue Abstraction in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes, P. (2002). A model for teaching numeracy strategies. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. O. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics in the South Pacific: proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol.1, pp. 350–357). Auckland: MERGA.Google Scholar
  19. Hughes, P., & Peterson, L. (2003). Constructing and using a personal numeracy teaching model in a classroom setting. In L. Bragg, B. C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Merino: proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Group of Australasia (Vol.pp. 444–451). Geelong: MERGA.Google Scholar
  20. Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., & Curtis, C. (2003). Developing an understanding of measurement in the elementary grades. In D. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 100–121). Reston, VA.: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, L. C. (2008). Folding back and the dynamical growth of mathematical understanding: elaborating the Pirie–Kieren theory. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 64–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, L., & Pirie, S. (2003). Making images and noticing properties: the role of graphing software in mathematical generalisation. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin, L., Towers, J., & Pirie, S. (2006). Collective mathematical understanding as improvisation. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 149–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meel, D. E. (2003). Models and theories of mathematical understanding: comparing Pirie and Kieren’s model of the growth of mathematical understanding and APOS theory. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 12, 132–181.Google Scholar
  25. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: the emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry of Education (2003). Material Master 7–4: Percentage Strips. Retrieved 15 January, 2013, from. http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/sites/default/files/Numeracy/2007matmas/Bk7/MM%207_4.pdf.
  27. Ministry of Education. (2007). Numeracy Projects. Retrieved 15 January 2013, from http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/information-about-ndp?parent_node=.
  28. Ministry of Education. (2008a). Book 3: Getting started. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved 15 January, 2013, from.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of Education. (2008b). Book 6: Teaching multiplication and division. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved 15 January, 2013, from.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Education. (2008c). Book 7: Teaching fractions, decmals and percentages. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved 15 January, 2013, from. http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/sites/default/files/Numeracy/2008numPDFs/NumBk7.pdf
  31. Ministry of Education. (2012). Book 5: Teaching addition, subtraction and place value. Wellington: Learning Media. Retrieved 15 January, 2013, from. http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/sites/default/files/Numeracy/numPDFs/NumBk5.pdf
  32. Mitchell, A., & Horne, M. (2009). There are more than part-whole strategies at work in understanding non-equal-parts fraction-area-models. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell, & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol.1, pp. 371–378). Wellington: MERGA.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchelmore, M., & White, P. (2007). Mathematical Education Research Journal: Special Issue Abstraction in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moody, B. (2010). Connecting the points: cognitive conflict and decimal magnitude. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia(Vol.1, pp. 422–429). Freemantle: MERGA.Google Scholar
  35. Ozmatar, M. F., & Monaghan, J. (2007). A dialectical approach to the formation of mathematical abstractions. Mathematical Education Research Journal: Special Issue Abstraction in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perkins, D. N., & Saloman, G. (1994). Transfer of learning. In T. Husen & T. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 11). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  37. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For The Learning of Mathematics, 9(3), 7–11.Google Scholar
  38. Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1992). Watching Sandy’s understanding grow. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 243–257.Google Scholar
  39. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994a). Growth in mathematical understanding: how can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994b). Beyond metaphor: formalising in mathematical understanding within constructivist environments. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  41. Pirie, S., & Martin, L. (2000). The role of collecting in the growth of mathematical understanding. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Royer, J. M., Mestre, J. P., & Dufresne, R. J. (2005). Framing the transfer problem. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. vii–xxvi). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: a theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  48. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organisations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 343–371.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stacey, K., Helme, S., Archer, S., & Condon, C. (2001). The effect of epistemic fidelity and accessibility on teaching with physical materials: a comparison of two models for teaching decimal numeration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Streefland, L., & Fennema, E. (1993). Rational numbers: an integration of research. In T. P. Carpenter & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Holt-Wilson, P., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.Google Scholar
  55. Tall, D., Thomas, M., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 18(2), 223–241.Google Scholar
  56. Thom, J. S., & Pirie, S. E. B. (2006). Looking at the complexity of two young children’s understanding of number. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 25, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas, G., & Tagg, A. (2005). The impact of the Numeracy Development Project on mathematics achievement. In S. Slaughter (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy development Projects 2004 (pp. 35–46). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, G., & Tagg, A. (2007). Do they continue to improve: tracking the progress of a cohort of longitudinal students. In S. Slaughter (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2006 (pp. 8–15). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  59. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Vergnaud, G. (1988). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 141–161). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Vergnaud, G. (1994). Multiplicative conceptual field: what and why? In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 41–59). New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  62. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3–18). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  63. Warner, L. B. (2008). How do students’ behaviours relate to growth of their mathematical ideas? The Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 27, 206–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wittman, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a ‘design science’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wright, V. (2011). The development of multiplicative thinking and proportional reasoning: Models of conceptual learning and transfer. Unpublished PhD, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  67. Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (Vol. 1, pp. 111–121). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Yoshida, K. (2004). Understanding how the concept of fractions develops: a Vygotskian perspective. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.4, pp. 473–480). Bergen, Norway:PME.Google Scholar
  69. Yoshida, H., & Sawano, K. (2002). Overcoming cognitive obstacles in learning fractions: equal partitioning and equal-whole. Japanese Psychological Research, 44(4), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young-Loveridge, J. (2005). Patterns of performance and progression: analysis of 2004 data. In S. Roach (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Project 2004 (pp. 5–20, 115–129). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  71. Young-Loveridge, J. (2006). Patterns of performance and progress on the numeracy Development Project: looking back from 2005. In S. Slaughter (Ed.), Findings from the Numeracy Development Project (pp. 6–21, 137–155). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  72. Young-Loveridge, J. (2007). Patterns of performance and progress on the Numeracy Development Project: findings from 2006 for years 5–9 students. In S. Slaughter (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2006 (pp. 16–32, 154–177). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  73. Young-Loveridge, J. (2009). A decade of reform in mathematics education: results for 2009 and earlier years. In D. Holton (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Projects 2009 (Vol. 1, pp. 15–35). Wellington, NZ.: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  74. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Chernoff, E. (2008). The role of examples in forming and refuting generalisations. ZDM The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 40(1), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options