Advertisement

Concept Cartoons as a Representation of Practice

  • Libuše Samková
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

The chapter focuses on using Concept Cartoons as a representation of practice in pre-service primary school teachers’ education, especially on the possibility to employ them as a tool for investigating informal foundations of pedagogical content knowledge. The chapter introduces Concept Cartoons, and reports qualitative empirical research with a preparatory study. The preparatory study suggests the form of the Concept Cartoons environment suitable for investigating pedagogical content knowledge, and the main study analyzes displays of pedagogical content knowledge revealed in data collected from pre-service primary school teachers before their entering the course on didactics of mathematics. The results confirmed that Concept Cartoons were suitable for the studied purpose.

Keywords

Concept Cartoons Pedagogical content knowledge Pre-service primary school teachers Representation of practice Teacher education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation, project No. 14-01417S.

References

  1. Ashlock, R. B. (2002). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to improve instruction. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Ashlock, R. B. (2010). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to help each student learn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Bana, J., Farrell, B., & McIntosh, A. (1995). Error patterns in mental computation in years 3–9. In B. Atweh, & S. Flavel (Eds.), Galtha: Conference Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of MERGA (pp. 51–56). Darwin: MERGA.Google Scholar
  4. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115–131.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Dabell, J., Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (2008). Concept Cartoons in mathematics education (CD-ROM). Sandbach: Millgate House.Google Scholar
  7. Depaepe, F., Torbeyns, J., Vermeersch, N., Janssens, D., Janssen, R., Kelchtermans, G., et al. (2015). Teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge on rational numbers: A comparison of prospective elementary and lower secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hatano, G. (1988). Social and motivational bases for mathematical understanding. In G. B. Saxe & M. Gearhart (Eds.), Children’s mathematics. New directions for child development (pp. 55–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1993). Learning in science: Another way in. Primary Science Review, 26, 22–23.Google Scholar
  12. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept Cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., et al. (2013). Teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: Validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 873–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2010). Concept Cartoons in science education (2nd ed.). Sandbach: Millgate House Education.Google Scholar
  16. Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Řídká, E. (2015, September). Současný stav maturit z matematiky. [In Czech: The current state of matriculation exam in mathematics]. Paper presented at the 64th Academic Forum of the Expert Group of Czech Physical Society of the Union of Czech Mathematicians and Physicists, Praha.Google Scholar
  18. Ryan, J., & Williams, J. (2011). Children’s mathematics 4-15. Learning from errors and misconceptions. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Samková, L. (2017). Using Concept Cartoons to investigate future teachers’ knowledge—new findings and results. In S. Zehetmeier, B. Rösken-Winter, D. Potari, & M. Ribeiro (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ERME Topic Conference on Mathematics Teaching, Resources and Teacher Professional Development (ETC3, October 5 to 7, 2016) (pp. 207–216). Berlin, Germany: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Samková, L., & Hošpesová, A. (2015). Using Concept Cartoons to investigate future teachers’ knowledge. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 9 (pp. 3241–3247). Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Pedagogická fakulta.Google Scholar
  21. Samková, L., & Tichá, M. (2015) Investigating future primary teachers’ grasping of situations related to unequal partition word problems. In C. Sabena & B. Di Paola (Eds.), Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica (Mathematics), n. 25, Supplemento n. 2. Proceedings CIEAEM 67, Teaching and learning mathematics: Resources and obstacles (pp. 295–303), Palermo, Italy: G.R.I.M.Google Scholar
  22. Samková, L., & Tichá, M. (2016a). Developing views of proof of future primary school teachers. In L’. Balko, D. Szarková, & D. Richtáriková (Eds.), Proceedings, 15th Conference on Applied Mathematics Aplimat 2016 (pp. 987–998). Bratislava: STU.Google Scholar
  23. Samková, L., & Tichá, M. (2016b). On the way to develop open approach to mathematics in future primary school teachers. ERIES Journal, 9(2), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Samková, L., & Tichá, M. (2017a). Observing how future primary school teachers reason about fractions. In M. Houška et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference Efficiency and Responsibility in Education 2017 (pp. 363–371). Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences.Google Scholar
  25. Samková, L., & Tichá, M. (2017b). Observing how future primary school teachers reason and generalize: The case of number triangles and Concept Cartoons. In D. Szarková et al. (Eds.), Proceedings, 16th Conference on Applied Mathematics Aplimat 2017 (pp. 1354–1368). Bratislava: STU.Google Scholar
  26. Samková, L., Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2015). Error patterns in computation in Concept Cartoons. In J. Novotná, & H. Moraová (Eds.), International Symposium Elementary Maths Teaching SEMT ‘15. Proceedings (pp. 390–391). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N. F., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mathematical problem posing. From research to effective practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Tichá, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2010). Problem posing and development of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service teacher training. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 6 (pp. 1941–1950). Lyon: INRP.Google Scholar
  30. Vondrová, N., & Žalská, J. (2015). Ability to notice mathematics specific phenomena: What exactly do student teachers attend to? Orbis Scholae, 9(2), 77–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of South Bohemia in České BudějoviceČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations