Advertisement

IMPROVEMENT OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION—THE CASE OF SUBTRACTION

  • Constanta OlteanuEmail author
  • Lucian Olteanu
Article

Abstract

The research study this article is based on aims to implement research knowledge to teaching, that is, the concept of critical aspects and dimensions of variation used in the variation theory. To do this, the researchers worked with willing teachers to explore how to make mathematics teaching more effective. This paper illustrates how teachers make use of a learning theory, the variation theory, as well as their own professional expertise and collaboration to help students improve their mathematical understanding of subtraction as well as their learning of it. The students’ tests, examinations of students’ mathematical work, the teachers’ lessons plan and reports of the instructions for lessons form the data base for the article. The analysis indicates that one of the critical aspects in the process of implementation of the variation theory in the teachers’ practice was to identify the critical aspects in students’ learning. Another critical aspect in the implementation of the variation theory was to open up dimensions of variation in the identified critical aspects of the students. By giving teachers the possibility to develop the ability to identify critical aspects in students’ learning, dimensions of variation are opened up in these aspects, and by applying this knowledge in the daily teaching, they have the possibility to improve students’ learning. The findings suggest that developing an understanding of the students’ critical aspects can be a productive basis in helping teachers make fundamental changes in their instructions and improve students’ learning.

KEY WORDS

critical aspects dimensions of variation learning potential aspects subtraction teaching variation theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Baroody, A. J. (1984). Children’s difficulties in subtraction: Some causes and cures. Arithmetic Teacher, 32, 14–19.Google Scholar
  2. Beishuizen, M. & Anghileri, J. (1998). Which mental strategies in the early number curriculum? A comparison of British ideas and Dutch views. British Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisanz, J. & Lefevre, J.-A. (1990). Strategic and non-strategic processing in the development of mathematical cognition. In D. J. Bjorklund (Ed.), Children’s strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 213–244). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Brush, L. R. (1978). Preschool children’s knowledge of addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant, P., Christie, C. & Rendu, A. (1999). Children’s understanding of the relation between addition and subtraction: Inversion, identity and decomposition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. & Wheatley, G. (1988). Children’s initial understandings of ten. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 10(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, R. G. (1984). Early number development: Discovering number space with addition and subtraction. In C. Sophian (Ed.), The origins of cognitive skill (pp. 157–192). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dowker, A. (2001). Numeracy Recovery: A pilot scheme for early intervention with young children with numeracy difficulties. Support for Learning, 16(1), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellemore-Collins, D. & Wright, R. (2009). Developing conceptual place value: Instructional design for intensive intervention. In R. Hunter, B. Bicknell & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Wellington: MERGA.Google Scholar
  10. Fennema, E. & Franke, M. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Hiebert, J. C., Murray, H. G., Human, P. G., Alwyn, I. O., Carpenter, T. P. & Fennema, E. (1997). Children’s conceptual structures for multidigit numbers and methods of multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 130–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilmore, C. K. (2006). Investigating children’s understanding of inversion using the missing number paradigm. Cognitive Development, 21, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilmore, C. K. & Bryant, P. (2006). Individual differences in children’s understanding of inversion and arithmetic skills. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmore, C. & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2009). Patterns of individual differences in conceptual understanding and arithmetical skill: A meta-analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 11, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hughes, M. (1986). Children and number. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy, M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. NISE Brief, 3(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  18. Lo, M. L. (2009). The Development of the learning study approach in classroom research in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal, Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, CUHK, Vol. 24, No. 1.Google Scholar
  19. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Marton, F., Runesson, U. & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3–42). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., Bell, D., Gardner, S., Gardner, A., et al (2007). The contribution of logical reasoning to the learning of mathematics in primary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Burman, D., Bell, D., Evans, D., Hallett, D., et al (2008). Deaf children’s understanding of inverse relations. In M. Marschark & P. C. Hauser (Eds.), Deaf cognition. Foundations and outcomes (pp. 201–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olteanu, C. & Holmqvist, M. (2009). The concept of function—Critical aspects induced by teaching and textbook. In N. Callaos, J. V. Carrasquero, A. Oropeza, A. Tremante & F. Welsch (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics, Vol. II (pp. 195–200). Florida: International Institute of Informatics and Systematic.Google Scholar
  25. Olteanu, C. & Olteanu, L. (2010). To change teaching practice and students’ learning of mathematics. Education Inquiry, 4(1), 381–397.Google Scholar
  26. Pang, M. F. (2008). Using the learning study grounded on the variation theory to improve students’ mathematical understanding. Paper Presented at Topic Study Group 37, ICME 11 at Monterrey, Mexico, 6–13 July 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Pang, M. F. & Marton, F. (2003). Beyond “lesson study”—Comparing two ways of facilitating the grasp of economic concepts. Instructional Science, 31(3), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10–18.Google Scholar
  30. Sarnecka, B. W. & Gelman, S. A. (2004). Six does not just mean a lot: Preschoolers see number words as specific. Cognition, 92, 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steffe, L. & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siegler, R. S. & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Steinberg, R. A. (1984). A teaching experiment of the learning of addition and subtraction facts. DAI 44A: 3313; May l984.Google Scholar
  34. Stern, E. (2006). Transitions in mathematics: From intuitive quantification to symbol-based mathematics. Paper presented at the ISSBD Meeting, July, Melbourne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linnaeus UniversityKalmarSweden

Personalised recommendations