Abstract
In this article, we aim to provide a glimpse of what is counted as good mathematics instruction from Taiwanese perspectives and of various approaches developed and used for achieving high-quality mathematics instruction. The characteristics of good mathematics instruction from Taiwanese perspectives were first collected and discussed from three types of information sources. Although the number of characteristics of good mathematics instruction may vary from one source to another, they can be generally organized in three phases including lesson design before instruction, classroom instruction during the lesson and activities after lesson. In addition to the general overview of mathematics classroom instruction valued in Taiwan, we also analyzed 92 lessons from six experienced teachers whose instructional practices were generally valued in local schools and counties. We identified and discussed the characteristics of their instructional practices in three themes: features of problems and their uses in classroom instruction, aspects of problem–solution discussion and reporting, and the discussion of solution methods. To identify and promote high-quality mathematics instruction, various approaches have been developed and used in Taiwan including the development and use of new textbooks and teachers’ guides, teaching contests, master teacher training program, and teacher professional development programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All the names used in this article are pseudonyms.
References
Clarke, D. J., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (2006). Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insiders’ perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Huang, R., & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 279–298. doi:10.1007/s10857-006-9002-z.
Kelly, D. I., Mullis, I. V. S., & Martin, M. O. (2000). Profiles of student achievement in mathematics at the TIMSS international benchmarks US performance and standards in an international context. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
Li, Y. (2004). Learning from curriculum materials for developing mathematical instruction. In Proceedings of the seminar on best practices and innovations in the teaching and learning of science and mathematics at the secondary level (pp. 134–144). Pennang, 18–22 July 2004.
Li, Y., Huang, R., Bao, J., & Fan, Y. (2009). Facilitating mathematics teachers’ professional development through ranking and promotion practices in the Chinese mainland. In N. Bednarz, D. Fiorentini, & R. Huang (Eds.). The professional development of mathematics teachers: Experiences and approaches developed in different countries. Canada: Ottawa University Press (in press).
Li, Y., & Li, J. (2009). Mathematics classroom instruction excellence through the platform of teaching contests. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0168-6.
Lin, J. C. (2000). Effective instruction—Theory and practice (in Chinese). Taipei: Wu-Nang.
Lin, P. J. (2002). On enhancing teachers’ knowledge by constructing cases in classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 317–349. doi:10.1023/A:1021282918124.
Lin, P. J. (2008). Pursuing excellence in mathematics classroom instruction to meet curriculum reform in Taiwan. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of 32nd annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 30th of the North American chapter (Vol. 1, pp. 167–172). Mexico: Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo.
Lin, P. J., & Tsai, W. H. (2006). TIMSS 2003 fourth-grade students’ achievement in mathematics and its possible contributing factors. C. N. Chang (Ed.), National report of TIMSS 2003 trends in international mathematics and science study (pp. 114–151). Science Education Center of National Normal University.
Lin, P. J., & Tsai, W. H. (2007). The establishment and development of processional standards of mentors. Journal of Hsinchu University of Education, 24(2), 57–88.
Liu, M.L. (2007). Professional standards of mathematics instruction. In P. Lin (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference on the teacher development of the mathematics and science mentors and interns (in Chinese). (pp. 198–206). National Hsinchu University of Education.
Martin, K. D., Mullis, I. V. S., & Chrostowski, S. J. (Eds.). (2004). TIMSS 2003 technical report. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
Ministry of Education. (1975). Curriculum standards for elementary mathematics. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1993). Curriculum standards for elementary mathematics. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (1998). The nine-year school curriculum. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2003). The Nine-year school curriculum: reissue version. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Teacher professional development evaluation. Retrieved 16 September 2008 from http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/index.jsp.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, K. D., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (Eds.). (2004). TIMSS 2003 International mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eight grades. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: The Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competence for tomorrow’s world executive summary. Retrieved 16 September 2008 from http://pisa2006.acer.edu.au/.
Pang, J. S. (2008). Good mathematics instruction and its development in South Korea. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of 32nd annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 30th of the North American chapter, (Vol. 1, pp. 173–178). Mexico: Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo.
Shimizu, Y. (2008). Exploring indispensable elements of mathematics instruction to be excellent: A Japanese perspective. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of 32nd annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and the 30th of the North American chapter, (Vol.1, pp.161–166). Mexico: Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo.
Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS Video Studies. Educational Psychologist, 35, 87–100. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_3.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Tsieng, S. J, Chang, S. J., Chang D. J., Shiu, Y. L. (2006). The pilot study of the criteria of grade 1–12 teacher professional development evaluation. Research report of the Ministry of Education of Taiwan (in Chinese). National Hsinchu University of Education.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to the teachers in the professional development program for their time and sharing their instruction. We would also like to thank three reviewers and the journal editor for their thoughtful comments on prior drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lin, PJ., Li, Y. Searching for good mathematics instruction at primary school level valued in Taiwan. ZDM Mathematics Education 41, 363–378 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0175-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0175-7