Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 105–129 | Cite as

Moving beyond a traditional algorithm in whole number subtraction: Preservice teachers’ responses to a student’s invented strategy

Article

Abstract

Although students’ invented strategies typically prove to be meaningful and effective in improving the students’ mathematical understanding, much remains unexplored in the current literature. This study examined, through a teaching-scenario task, the nature of 80 preservice teachers’ reasoning and responses to students’ informal and formal strategies for whole number subtraction. This study also examined challenges reported by preservice teachers attempting to connect students’ informal strategies to a traditional method. The broader implications of this study for the international community are discussed, and recommendations for teacher education programs are presented in accordance with the findings of the study.

Keywords

Whole number subtraction Preservice teacher education Student-invented strategy 

References

  1. Anghileri, J., Beishuizen, M., & van Putten, K. (2002). From informal strategies to structured procedures: Mind the gap! Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (1988/1989). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education (Doctoral dissertation, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(02), 416.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(3), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, H. C. (1926). Some values of algebra. The Mathematics Teacher, 19(7), 395–399.Google Scholar
  7. Bass, H. (2003). Computational fluency, algorithms, and mathematical proficiency: One mathematician’s perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(6), 322–327.Google Scholar
  8. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.Google Scholar
  10. Bofferding, L. (2010). Addition and subtraction with negatives: Acknowledging the multiple meanings of the minus sign. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the North American chapter of the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 703–710). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, P. F., Rowan, T. E., & Suarez, A. R. (1998). What criteria for student-invented algorithms? In L. J. Morrow (Ed.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics (pp. 49–55). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Cognitively guided instruction: Building the primary mathematics curriculum on children’s informal mathematical knowledge. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  13. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., Fennema, E., & Empson, S. B. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students in a standards-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll, W. M., & Porter, D. (1997). Invented strategies can develop meaningful mathematical procedures. Teaching Children Mathematics, 3, 370–374.Google Scholar
  16. Cooney, T. J., & Wiegel, H. G. (2003). Examining the mathematics in mathematics teacher education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 795–828). Great Britain: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Empson, S., & Junk, D. (2004). Teachers’ knowledge of children’s mathematics after implementing a student-centered curriculum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(2), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flowers, J., Kline, K., & Rubenstein, R. N. (2003). Developing teachers’ computational fluency: Examples in subtraction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(6), 330–334.Google Scholar
  20. Fuson, K. (2003). Developing mathematical power in whole number operations. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Marin, D. Schifter, & NCTM (Eds.), A research companion to principals and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  21. Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Hiebert, J., Murray, H., Human, P., Oliver, A., et al. (1997). Children’s conceptual structures for multidigit numbers and methods of multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 130–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallardo, A., & Rojano, T. (1994). School algebra: Syntactic difficulties in the operativity with negative numbers. In D. Kirshner (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 159–165). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  23. Graeber, A. O. (1999). Forms of knowing mathematics: What preservice teachers should learn. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harkness, S. S., & Thomas, J. (2008). Reflections on “Multiplication as Original Sin”: The implications of using a case to help preservice teachers understand invented algorithms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(2), 128–137.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 330–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huinker, D., Freckman, J. L., & Steinmeyer, M. B. (2003). Subtraction strategies from children’s thinking: Moving toward fluency with greater numbers. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(6), 347–353.Google Scholar
  27. Isiksal, M., & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). The nature of prospective mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: The case of multiplication of fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krass, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamb, L. L., Bishop, J. P., Phillip, R. A., Schappelle, B. P., Whitacre, I., & Lewis, M. L. (2012). Developing symbol sense for the minus sign. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(1), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lampert, M. (1986). Teaching multiplication. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 5, 241–280.Google Scholar
  31. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. McClain, K. (2003). Supporting preservice teachers’ understanding of place value and multidigit arithmetic. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  35. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
  36. Prediger, S. (2010). How to develop mathematics-for-teaching and for understanding: The case of meanings of the equal sign. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers’ seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Russell, S. J. (1999). Making meaning of operations. Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour.Google Scholar
  41. Selter, C. (2002). Addition and subtraction of three-digit numbers: German elementary children’s success, methods and strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Son, J. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Son, J., & Crespo, S. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning about students’ non-traditional strategies when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 236–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Son, J., & Sinclaire, N. (2010). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student geometric errors. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
  46. Streefland, L. (1996). Negative numbers: Reflections of a learning researcher. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thanheiser, E. (2009). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 251–281.Google Scholar
  48. Thanheiser, E. (2010). Investigating further preservice teachers’ conceptions of multidigit whole numbers: Refining a framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(3), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, P. W., & Dreyfus, T. (1988). Integers as transformations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: The case of division of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2006). Developmental changes of children’s adaptive expertise in the number domain 20 to 100. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 219–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2007). Whole number concepts and operations. In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 557–628). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  54. Vlassis, J. (2004). Making sense of the minus sign or becoming flexible in “negativity”. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 469–484. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vlassis, J. (2008). The role of mathematical symbols in the development of number conceptualization: The case of the minus sign. Philosophical Psychology, 21(4), 555–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of EducationUniversity at Buffalo – The State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations