Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 55–79 | Cite as

Enhancing Students' Understanding of Mathematics: A Study of Three Contrasting Approaches to Professional Support

  • Geoffrey B. Saxe
  • Maryl Gearhart
  • Na'ilah Suad Nasir
Article

Abstract

This report provides evidence of the influence of professional development and curriculum on upper elementary students' understandings of fractions. Three groups of teachers and their students participated. Two groups implemented a fractions unit that emphasized problem solving and conceptual understanding. The Integrated Mathematics Assessment (IMA) group participated in a program designed to enhance teachers' understandings of fractions, students' thinking, and students' motivation. The Collegial Support (SUPP) group met regularly to discuss strategies for implementing the curriculum. Teachers in the third group (TRAD) valued and used textbooks and received no professional development support. Contrasts of student adjusted posttest scores revealed group differences on two scales. On the conceptual scale, IMA classrooms achieved greater adjusted posttest scores than the other two groups, with no differences between SUPP and TRAD groups. On the computation scale, contrasts revealed no differences between IMA and TRAD, although TRAD achieved greater adjusted scores than SUPP (p < 0.10). Our findings indicate that the benefits of reform curriculum for students may depend upon integrated professional development, one form exemplified by the IMA program.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ball, D.L. (1990a). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D.L. (1990b). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behr, M.J., Lesh, R., Post, T.R. & Silver, E.A. (1983). Rational-number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (92–127). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. California State Department of Education (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L. & Carey, D.A. (1988). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of students' problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L. & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T.P., Lindquist, M.M., Brown, C.A., Kouba, V.L., Silver, E.A. & Swafford, J.O. (1988, December). Results of the fourth NAEP assessment of mathematics: Trends and conclusions. Arithmetic Teacher, 36, 38–41.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., Wood, T. & Yackel, E. (1992). A follow-up assessment of a second-grade problem-centered mathematics project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B. & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobb, P., Yackel, E. & Wood, T. (1991). Curriculum and teacher development: Psychological and anthropological perspectives. In E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter & S.J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 83–120). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corwin, R.B., Russell, S.J. & Tierney, C.C. (1990). Seeing Fractions: Representations of wholes and parts: A unit for the upper elementary grades. Technical Education Research Center (TERC). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., Levi, L. Jacobs & Empson (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fennema, E. & Franke, M.L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (147–164). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  16. Gearhart, M., Saxe, G.B., Seltzer, M. Schlackman, J., Ching, C.C., Nasir, N., Fall, R., Bennett, T., Rhine, S. & Sloan, T. (1999). Opportunities to learn fractions in elementary mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 286–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, R. & Gallistel, C.R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greeno J.G., Riley, M.S. & Gelman, R. (1984). Conceptual competence and children's counting. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 94–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hart, K. (1981). Children's understanding of mathematics: 11–16. London, England: Murray.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, K.M. (1988). Ratio and proportion. In M. Behr & J. Hiebert (Eds.), Number concepts in the middle grades (198–219). Reston VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  21. Heaton, R.M. (1992). Who is minding the mathematics content? A case study of a fifthgrade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J. & P. Lefevre (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Hope, J.A. & D.T. Owens (1987). An analysis of the difficulty of learning fractions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9, 25–40.Google Scholar
  24. Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Children's strategies and errors, a report of the strategies and errors in secondary mathematics project. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  25. Kieren, T.E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J. Hiebert and M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (162–181). Reston VA: The National Council of Teachers ofMathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Kieren, T.E., D, Nelson & G. Smith (1983). Graphical algorithms in partitioning tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 4, 25–36.Google Scholar
  27. Kleiman, G.M. & E.D. Bjork (1991). My travels with Gulliver. Education Development Center. Scotts Valley, CA: Wings for Learning.Google Scholar
  28. Lamon, S.J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Connecting content and children's thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehrer, R. & M.L. Franke (1992). Applying personal construct psychology to the study of teachers' knowledge of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1994, November). Teacher change, staff development, and systemic change: Reflections from the eye of a paradigm shift. Prepared for Reflecting on our work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in Mathematics K-6. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  32. Mack, N.K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maher, C.A. (1988). The teacher as designer, implementer, and evaluator of children's mathematical learning environments. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 6, 295–303.Google Scholar
  34. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: Froma mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 3–11.Google Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council (1990). Reshaping school mathematics: A framework for curriculum. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nik Pa, N.P. (1989). Research on children's conceptions of fractions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 3–25.Google Scholar
  40. Peck, D.M. & S.M. Jencks (1981). Conceptual issues in the teaching and learning of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peterson, P.L., E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter & M. Loef (1989). Teachers' pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Post, T.R. (1981). Fractions: Results and implications from national assessment. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(9), 26–31.Google Scholar
  43. Post, T.R., M. Behr & R. Lesh (1986). Research-based observations about children's learning of rational number concepts. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 8, 39–48.Google Scholar
  44. Post, T.R., G. Harel, M.J. Behr & R. Lesh (1991). Intermediate teachers' knowledge of rational number concepts. In E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter & S.J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (177–198). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  45. Prawat, R.S. (1992). Are changes in views about mathematics teaching sufficient? The case of the fifth-grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putnam, R.T. (1992). Teaching the “Hows” of mathematics for everyday life: A case study of a fifth-grade teacher. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Resnick, L. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. In T. Carpenter, J. Moser & T. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (136–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saxe, G.B., M. Gearhart, M.L. Franke, S. Howard & M. Crockett (1999). Teachers' shifting assessment practices in the context of educational reform in mathematics. Teaching and teacher education, 15, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schifter, D. & M.A. Simon (1992). Assessing teachers' development of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  52. Silver, E.A. (1986). Using conceptual and procedural knowledge: A focus on relationships. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (181–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Silver, E.A. & T.P. Carpenter (1990). In M.M. Lindquist (Ed.), Results from the fourth assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (10–18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, M.A. & D. Schifter (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Simon, M.A. & D. Schifter (1993). Towards a constructivist perspective: The impact of a mathematics teacher inservice program on students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25, 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sparks, D. & S. Loucks-Horsley (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development 10(4), 40–57.Google Scholar
  57. Stipek, D.J., J.M. Salmon, K.B. Givvin, E. Kazemi, G. Saxe & V.L. MacGyvers (1998). The value (and convergence) of practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stipek, D.J., M. Gearhart & W. Denham (1997). Mathematics instruction: What works? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26(6), 22–25.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (127–146). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  60. Tourniaire, F. & S. Pulos (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey B. Saxe
    • 1
  • Maryl Gearhart
    • 2
  • Na'ilah Suad Nasir
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeley
  2. 2.University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley
  3. 3.School of EducationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations