# ENHANCING MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS’ THINKING FROM ASSESSING AND ANALYZING MISCONCEPTIONS IN HOMEWORK

- 1.6k Downloads
- 12 Citations

## Abstract

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## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 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 - An, S. (2004).
*The middle path in math instruction: Solutions for improving math education*. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - Ashlock, R. B. (1994).
*Error patterns in computation*. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar - Austin, J. (1976). Do comments on mathematics homework affect student achievement?
*School Science and Mathematics, 76*, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Towards a theory of behavior change.
*Psychological Review, 89*, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Butler, J.A. (2001).
*Homework.*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web Site. Retrieved June 14, 2006, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/1/cu1.html. - 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 - Cooper, H. M. (1989a).
*Homework*. New York: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cooper, H. M. (1989b). Synthesis of research on homework.
*Educational Leadership, 47*(3), 85–91.Google Scholar - Cooper, H. M. & Valentine, J. C. (2001). Using research to answer practical questions about homework.
*Educational Psychologist, 36*, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Corno, L. & Xu, J. (2004). Homework as the job of childhood.
*Theory Into Practice, 43*(3), 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Coulter, F. (1979). Homework: A neglected research area.
*British Educational Research Journal, 5*(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Coutts, P. (2004). Meanings of homework and implications for practice.
*Theory Into Practice, 43*(3), 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985).
*Naturalistic inquiry*. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000).
*Principles and standards for school mathematics*. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar - 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 - Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning.
*Theory Into Practice, 41*(2), 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
*Educational Researcher, 15*(2), 4–14.Google Scholar - Sowder, J., Philipp, R., Armstrong, B. & Schappelle, B. (1998).
*Middle-grade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction*. Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar - 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 - 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