Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 325–354 | Cite as

Do textbooks address known learning challenges in area measurement? A comparative analysis

  • Dae S. Hong
  • Kyong Mi Choi
  • Cristina Runnalls
  • Jihyun Hwang
Original Article

Abstract

This study compared area lessons from Korean textbooks and US standard-based textbooks to understand differences and similarities among these textbooks, as well as how these textbooks address known learning challenges in area measurement. Several well-known challenges have been identified in previous studies, such as covering, array structure, and linking array structure to area formula. We were interested in knowing if textbooks addressed these issues in their treatments of area measurement and, in doing so, provided students with opportunities to overcome or become familiar with known challenges. The results show that both countries’ textbooks demonstrated similar limitations; only few area and area-related lessons are covered and three important learning challenges in area measurement are not covered well, which need to be informed to practicing teachers.

Keywords

Area measurement Textbooks Curriculum 

References

  1. Alkhrausi, H. (2012). Generalizability theory: An analysis of variance approach to measurement problems in educational assessment. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 184–196.Google Scholar
  2. Battista, M. (1999). Fifth Graders’ enumeration of cubes in 3D arrays: conceptual progress in an inquiry-based classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 417–448.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battista, M. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students’ development of understanding of area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 185–204.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battista, M. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  5. Battista, M., & Clements, D. (1996). Students’ understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 258–292.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battista, M., Clements, D., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & Caroline Van Auken, B. (1998). Students' spatial structuring of 2D arrays of squares. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 503–532.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baturo, A., & Nason, R. (1996). Student teachers’ subject matter knowledge within the domain of area measurement. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(3), 235–268.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00376322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving?: Impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(2), 135–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.03.004.Google Scholar
  9. Cai, J. (2005). U.S. and Chinese teachers’ constructing, knowing, and evaluating representations to teach mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 135–169.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0702_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, J., & Howson, G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 949–974). New York: Springer New York.Google Scholar
  11. Cai, J., Lo, J. J., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Intended treatments of arithmetic average in U.S. and Asian school mathematics textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 102(8), 391–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17891.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai, J., & Nie, B. (2007). Problem solving in Chinese mathematics education: research and practice. ZDM, 39(5), 459–473.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0042-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H.-Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903460070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clements, D., & Stephan, M. (2004). Measurement in pre-K to grade 2 mathematics. In D. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 299–320). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Ding, M. (2016). Opportunities to learn: inverse relations in U.S. and Chinese textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(1), 45–68.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1107819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dossey, J., Soucy McCrone, S., & Halvorsen, K. (2016). Mathematics education in the United States 2016: a capsule summary fact book. VA: Retrieved from Reston.Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., & Jacobs, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Retrieved from Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Hiebert, J., & Lefvre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: an introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Hong, D. S., & Choi, K. M. (2014). A comparison of Korean and American secondary school textbooks: the case of quadratic equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(2), 241–263.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9512-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, H.-M. E. (2017). Curriculum interventions for area measurement instruction to enhance Children’s conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1323–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9745-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang, R., & Cai, J. (2011). Pedagogical representations to teach linear relations in Chinese and U.S. classrooms Parallel or hierarchical? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(2), 149–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamii, C., & Kysh, J. (2006). The difficulty of “length×width”: Is a square the unit of measurement? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(2), 105–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, J. (2010). Children’s strategies for measurement estimation of rectangular covering tasks. Journal of the Korean Society of Mathematical Education series A, 49(3), 375–487.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, K., & Smith, J. P. (2011). What is different across an ocean? How Singapore and US elementary mathematics curricula introduce and develop length measurement. ZDM, 43(5), 681.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0339-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 179–192). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  27. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). The TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  28. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Retrieved from Boston College: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/.
  29. Murphy, C. (2012). The role of subject knowledge in primary prospective teachers’ approaches to teaching the topic of area. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(3), 187–206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9194-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Na, G. (2012). Examining Students’ conceptions about the area of geometric figures. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea, 16(3), 451–469.Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston: NCTM, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, [2014] ©2014.Google Scholar
  32. Neidorf, T. S., Binkley, M., Gattis, K., & Nohara, D. (2006). Comparing mathematics content in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 Assessments. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Clark, D. L. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.857802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Outhred, L., & Mitchelmore, M. (2000). Young children’s intuitive understanding of rectangular area measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 144–167.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pang, J. (2012). Current Elementary Mathematics Textbooks. In J. Kim, I. Han, & J. Lee (Eds.), Mathematics Education in Korea - Vol. 1 Curricular and Teaching and Learning Practices (pp. 43–61): World Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Remillard, J. T., Harris, B., & Agodini, R. (2014). The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning. ZDM, 46(5), 735–749.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0585-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM, 46(5), 705–718.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sahm, C. (2015). Curriculum counts: NYC public schools and the Common Core. Civic Report. Retrieved from New York, NY: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/curriculum-counts-nyc-public-schools-and-common-core-6360.html.
  41. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, J. P., Males, L. M., Dietiker, L. C., Lee, K., & Mosier, A. (2013). Curricular treatments of length measurement in the United States: do they address known learning challenges? Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 388–433.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.828728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, J. P., Males, L. M., & Gonulates, F. (2016). Conceptual limitations in curricular presentations of area measurement: one Nation’s challenges. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(4), 239–270.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1219930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Son, J.-W., & Hu, Q. (2016). The initial treatment of the concept of function in the selected secondary school mathematics textbooks in the US and China. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(4), 505–530.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2015.1088084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Son, J.-W., & Kim, O.-K. (2016). Curriculum enactment patterns and associated factors from teachers’ perspectives. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 585–614.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0181-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Son, J.-W., & Senk, S. L. (2010). How reform curricula in the USA and Korea present multiplication and division of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(2), 117–142.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9229-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Valverde, G., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valverde, G., & Schmidt, W. H. (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other nations in the quest for ‘world-class standards’ in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 651–687.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270050116932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vasilyeva, M., Ganley, C. M., Casey, B. M., Dulaney, A., Tillinger, M., & Anderson, K. (2013). How children determine the size of 3D structures: investigating factors influencing strategy choice. Cognition and Instruction, 31(1), 29–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.742086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang, Y., Barmby, P., & Bolden, D. (2017). Understanding linear function: a comparison of selected textbooks from England and Shanghai. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 131–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9674-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zacharos, K. (2006). Prevailing educational practices for area measurement and students’ failure in measuring areas. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 224–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dae S. Hong
    • 1
  • Kyong Mi Choi
    • 2
  • Cristina Runnalls
    • 3
  • Jihyun Hwang
    • 3
  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations