Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 59–75 | Cite as

Preservice teachers’ problem-solving processes

  • Margaret Taplin
Articles

Abstract

The purpose of the study reported in this paper is to explore some of the common difficulties with mathematical word problems experienced by preservice primary teachers. It examines weaknesses in students’ content and procedural knowledge, with a particular focus on how they apply these aspects of knowledge to solving closed word problems. The SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982, 1991) is used to classify the processes used by students who attempted to solve a group of word problems of varying difficulty. Other characteristics of the students’ processes that are analysed include the way they used the cues provided in the problem, the way they brought in additional concepts or processes, and the types of errors they made.

Keywords

Preservice Teacher Student Teacher Word Problem Interim Result Easy Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (1983).Mathematics profile series: Review test [Test booklet]. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Education Council (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian. schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.),Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  4. Battista, M. T., Wheatley, G. H., Grayson, H., & Talsma, G. (1989). Spatial visualization, formal reasoning, and geometric problem-solving strategies of preservice elementary teachers.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(4), 17–30.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In H. A. H. Rowe (Ed.),Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Bitter, G. G. (1987). Microcomputer-based mathematics fitness.Technical Horizons in Education, 15, 106–109.Google Scholar
  8. Bitter, G. G., & Cameron, A. (1988). A microcomputer-assisted mathematics diagnosis and remediation program.Computers in Adult Education and Training, 1(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  9. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 194–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chick, H., Watson, J., & Collis, K. F. (1988). Using the SOLO Taxonomy for error analysis in mathematics.Research in Mathematics Education in Australia, May, 34–47.Google Scholar
  11. Cobb, P. (1986). Contexts, goals, beliefs and learning mathematics.For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 2–9.Google Scholar
  12. Cockcroft, W. H. (Ed.) (992).Mathematics counts: Report of the committee of enquiry into the teaching of mathematics in schools. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  13. Collis, K. F., Watson, J., & Campbell, K. (1991, November).Cognitive functioning in mathematical problem solving during early adolescence. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Educational Research, Gold Coast, QLD.Google Scholar
  14. Collis, K. F., & Watson, J. (1991). A mapping procedure for analysing the structure of mathematics responses.Journal of Structural Learning, 11, 65–87.Google Scholar
  15. Cooney, T. (1994). Research and teacher education: In search of common ground.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 608–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1989).Discipline review of teacher education in mathematics and science. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  17. Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge falls through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teach mathematics for understanding.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 8–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaramillo, J. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula.Education, 11, 133–141.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, D. (1995). Making the transition: Tensions in becoming a (better) mathematics teacher.Mathematics Teacher, 88, 230–234.Google Scholar
  20. Leinhardt, G. (1988). Getting to know: Tracing students’ mathematical knowledge from intuition to competence.Educational Psychologist, 23, 199–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991).Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. Reeves, T. C. (1993). Research support for interactive multimedia: Existing foundations and new directions. In C. Latchem, J. Williamson, & L. Henderson-Lancett (Eds.),Interactive Multimedia: Practice and Promise (pp. 79–96). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, M. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of division.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  26. Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Spandel, U., & Wallbridge, M. (1992).Using content-specific open questions as a basis of instruction: A classroom experiment. Oakleigh, VIC: Australian Catholic University, Mathematics Teaching and Learning Centre.Google Scholar
  27. Tall, D. (1995). Cognitive growth in elementary and advanced mathematical education. In L. Meiro and O. Carraher (Eds.),Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 61–75). Recife, Brazil: Program Committee.Google Scholar
  28. Taplin, M. (1994). Development of a model to enhance managerial strategies in problem solving.Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 79–93.Google Scholar
  29. Taplin, M. (1995). Mathematics remediation requirements for preservice teachers.New Horizons in Education, 92, 3–19.Google Scholar
  30. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ explicit beliefs about multiplication and division.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tirosh, D., Tirosh, C., Graeber, A, & Wilson, J. (1991). Computer-based intervention to correct preservice teachers’ misconceptions about the operation of division.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 10, 71–78.Google Scholar
  33. Watson, J. M., Campbell, K. J., & Collis, K. F. (1993). Multimodal functioning in understanding fractions.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 45–62.Google Scholar
  34. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Taplin
    • 1
  1. 1.The Open University of Hong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations