• Shuhua AnEmail author
  • Zhonghe Wu


This study focuses on teacher learning of student thinking through grading homework, assessing and analyzing misconceptions. The data were collected from 10 teachers at fifth–eighth grade levels in the USA. The results show that assessing and analyzing misconceptions from grading homework is an important approach to acquiring knowledge of students’ thinking. By engaging in the inquiry process of the 4 steps of identifying errors, analyzing reasons for the errors, designing approaches for correction, and taking action for correction, the teachers made obvious progress in their knowledge of students’ thinking, understood the difficulties and challenges their students had in learning mathematics, and enhanced their pedagogical content knowledge.

Key words

analysis of misconceptions assessment grading homework knowledge of student thinking pedagogical content knowledge teacher learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. An, S. (2000). A comparative study of mathematics programs in the U.S. and China: The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics in the U.S. and China. Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
  2. An, S. (2004). The middle path in math instruction: Solutions for improving math education. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar
  3. An, S., Kulm, G. & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. An, S. & Wu, Z. (2008). Approaches to assessing students’ thinking from analyzing errors in homework. In C. E. Malloy (Ed.), Mathematics for every student: Responding to diversity, grades 6–8. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  5. Andrewa, G. R. & Debus, R. L. (1978). Persistence and the causal perception of failure: Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashlock, R. B. (1994). Error patterns in computation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, J. (1976). Do comments on mathematics homework affect student achievement? School Science and Mathematics, 76, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Towards a theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 89, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, J.A. (2001). Homework. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web Site. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from
  11. Cooney, T. J. & Shealy, B. E. (1997). On understanding the structure of teachers’ beliefs and their relationship to change. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 87–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, H. M. (1989a). Homework. New York: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, H. M. (1989b). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 85–91.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, H. M. & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 529–548. Special Issue: Non-Subject-Matter Outcomes of Schooling [II]. (May, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corno, L. & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulter, F. (1979). Homework: A neglected research area. British Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coutts, P. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Empson, S. B. & Junk, D. L. (2004). Teachers’ knowledge of children’s mathematics after implementing a student centered curriculum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falkner, K. P., Levi, L. & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children’s understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 232–236.Google Scholar
  21. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P. & Lamon, S. J. (1991). Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fennema, E. & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Gagne, E. D., Crutcherm, R. L., Joella, A., Geisman, C., Hoffman, V. D., Schutz, P. & Lizcano, L. (1987). The role of student processing of feedback in classroom achievement. Cognition and Instruction, 4(3), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graeber, A. O. (1999). Forms of knowing mathematics: What preservice teachers should learn. In D. Tirosh (Ed.), Forms of mathematical knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics learning Study Committee, Center for education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T. & Walberg, H. J. (1984). The effects of homework on learning: A quantitative synthesis. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  32. Philipp, R. A., Clement, L.L., Thanheiser, E., Schappelle, B. & Sowder, J.T. (2003). Integrating mathematics and pedagogy: An investigation of the effects on elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs and learning of mathematics. Paper presented at the research presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  33. Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 35–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Schifter, D. (2001). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers’ seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schoen, H. L. & Kreye, B. C. (1974). Five forms of written feedback to homework in a mathematics course for elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5(3), 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  37. Sowder, J., Philipp, R., Armstrong, B. & Schappelle, B. (1998). Middle-grade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction. Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar
  38. Stiggins, R. J., Frisbie, D. A. & Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu, Z. (2004). The study of middle school teachers’ understanding and use of mathematical representation in relationship to teachers’ Zone of Proximal Development in teaching fractions and algebraic functions. Dissertation in Texas A&M University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.National UniversityCosta MesaUSA

Personalised recommendations