Preservice teachers’ use of contrasting cases in mathematics instruction

Abstract

Drawing comparisons between students’ alternative solution strategies to a single mathematics problem is a powerful yet challenging instructional practice. We examined 80 preservice teachers’ when asked to design a short lesson when given a problem and two student solutions—one correct and one incorrect. These micro-teaching events were videotaped and coded, revealing that fewer than half of participants (43%) made any explicit comparison or contrasts between the two solution strategies. Those who did were still not likely to use additional support strategies to draw students’ attention to key elements of the comparison. Further, correlations suggest that participants’ mathematical content knowledge may be related to whether participants’ showed contrasting cases but not to whether they used specific pedagogical cues to support those comparisons. While these micro-teaching events differ from the interactive constraints of a classroom, they reveal that participants did not immediately orient toward differing student solutions as a discussion opportunity, and that future instruction on contrasting cases must highlight the utility of this practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Please note that because the prompt was originally an item on the CKT-M assessment form b, the student solutions cannot be provided publicly. For more information see Hill et al. (2005, 2008).

References

  1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M. S., Church, R. B., Jacobs, S. A., Johnson Martinez, C., et al. (2014). How teachers link ideas in mathematics instruction using speech and gesture: A corpus analysis. Cognition and Instruction, 32(1), 65–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction on children’s understanding of the” equals” sign. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartell, T. G., Webel, C., Bowen, B., & Dyson, N. (2013). Prospective teacher learning: recognizing evidence of conceptual understanding. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Begolli, K., & Richland, L. E. (2016). Teaching mathematics by comparison: Analog visibility as a double-edged sword. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 194–213. doi:10.1037/edu0000056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Empson, S. B., & Levi, L. W. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf

  10. Dalehefte, I. M., Prenzel, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Reflecting on learning from errors in school instruction: Findings and suggestions from a Swiss-German video study. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human fallibility. The ambiguity of errors for work and learning. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. English, L. D. (Ed.). (1997). Mathematical reasoning: analogies, metaphors, and images. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. English, L. D. (2004). Promoting the development of young children’s mathematical and analogical reasoning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. L. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. L. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 612–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., & Place, N. (2000). Transitions into teaching: Learning to teach writing in teacher education and beyond. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 631–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hadfield, O. D., Littleton, C. E., Steiner, R. L., & Woods, E. S. (1998). Predictors of preservice elementary teacher effectiveness in the micro-teaching of mathematics lessons. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(1), 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study., NCES 2003-013 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking “pedagogical content knowledge”: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kajander, A. (2007). Unpacking mathematics for teaching: A study of preservice elementary teachers’ evolving mathematical understandings and beliefs. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 22–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational studies in Mathematics, 12(3), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lynch, K., & Star, J. R. (2014). Views of struggling students on instruction incorporating multiple strategies in Algebra I: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia, S. W., et al. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1080–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers. Beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy generation in eighth grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(4), 629–639.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Santagata, R. (2004). “Are you joking or are you sleeping”. Cultural beliefs and practices in Italian and U.S. teachers’ mistake-handling strategies. Linguistics and Education, 15, 141–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Santagata, R. (2005). Practice and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 491–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Santagata, R., & Yeh, C. (2014). Learning to teach mathematics and to analyze teaching effectiveness: Evidence from a video-and practice-based approach. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(6), 491–514.

  48. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Seaman, C. E., & Szydlik, J. E. (2007). Mathematical sophistication among preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(3), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Star, J. R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., Larson, M. R., Lyskawa, J., McCallum, W. G., Porath, J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2015). Teaching strategies for improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 2014-4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evalua- tion and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

  54. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Helping teachers learn to better incorporate student thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Stockero, S. L. (2008). Using a video-based curriculum to develop a reflective stance in prospective mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’ interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 571–595.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a National Science Foundation CAREER Award to the second author, NSF#0954222, and an NSF Science of Learning Center, SPE 0541957. We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback on previous versions on this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katerina Schenke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schenke, K., Richland, L.E. Preservice teachers’ use of contrasting cases in mathematics instruction. Instr Sci 45, 311–329 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9408-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Teacher cognition and practices
  • Professional development
  • Mathematics education