Advertisement

Teacher Actions to Maximize Mathematics Learning Opportunities in Heterogeneous Classrooms

  • Peter Sullivan
  • Judith Mousley
  • Robyn Zevenbergen
Research Article

Abstract

The basic unit of school based mathematics teaching is the lesson. This article is a contribution to understanding teacher actions that facilitate successful lessons, defined as those that engage all students, especially those who may sometimes feel alienated from mathematics and schooling, in productive and successful mathematical thinking and learning. An underlying assumption is that lessons can seek to build a sense in the students that their experience has elements in common with the rest of the class and that this can be done through attention to particular aspects of the mathematical and socio-mathematical goals. We examine three teacher actions that address the mathematical goals: using open-ended tasks, preparing prompts to support students experiencing difficulty, and posing extension tasks to students who finish the set tasks quickly; as well as actions that address the socio-mathematical goals by making classroom processes explicit. To illustrate and elaborate these actions, we describe a particular lesson taught to a heterogeneous upper primary (age 11–12) class.

Key Words

classroom research heterogeneous class teaching lesson structure mathematics teaching teacher actions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Johnson, D. & Wiliam, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy (Final report). London: King's College.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boaler, J. (2003). Studying and capturing the complexity of practice: The case of the dance of agency. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (pp. 3–16). University of Hawai'i, Hawai'i: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Brophy, J.E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinker Kent, L. (2000). Connecting introduced to meaningful contexts. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(1), 62–66.Google Scholar
  7. Building Perspectives (1994). Apple education series, maths bundle. New York: Sunburst Communications.Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen, B. & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A.G. Howson & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordretcht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, D., et al. (2002). Early numeracy research project report. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Education and Training, Catholic Education Office, and Association of Independent Schools.Google Scholar
  10. Cobb, P. & McClain, K. (2001). An approach for supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F.-L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 207–233). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, B. & Dunne, M. (1998). Anyone for tennis? Social class differences in children's responses to national curriculum mathematics testing. Sociological Review, (Jan) 115–148.Google Scholar
  12. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298.Google Scholar
  13. Department of Education and Skills (Available online November, 2004). The National Numeracy Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/numeracy/teaching_resources/reception_to_year6/?leaf=0&subleaf=4.
  14. Department of Education, Employment and Training (2001). Early Years Numeracy Strategy. Available online October 4, 2004, http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/eys/num/index.htm.
  15. Dweck, C.S. (2000). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ernest, P. (1994). Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Ginsburg, H.P. (1997). Mathematical learning disabilities: A view for developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 20–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin, S. & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school with curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  19. Jaworski, B. (2004). A reaction to the background document: Joy and challenge in mathematics teacher development. In R. Strässer, G. Brandell, B. Grevholm & O. Helenius (Eds.), Educating for the Future: Proceedings of an International Symposium on Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 59–67). Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Lovitt, C. & Clarke, D. (1988). Mathematics curriculum and teaching program: Activity Bank–Volumes 1 and 2. Canberra: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Lubienski, S.T. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 454–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Middleton, J.A. (1995). A study of intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A personal construct approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 254–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mousley, J., Sullivan, P. & Mousley, P. (1997). Learning about teaching. CD-ROM. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  25. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon, A. & Boyer, E.G. (1968). Mirrors for behavior. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools and the Centre for the Study of Teaching.Google Scholar
  27. Stephens, M. & Sullivan, P. (1997). Developing tasks to assess mathematical performance. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.), People in Mathematics Education. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 470–477). Rotorua, NZ: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  28. Sullivan, P. (1999). Seeking a rationale for particular classroom tasks and activities. In J.M. Truran & K.N. Truran (Eds.), Making the Difference. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Mathematics Educational Research Group of Australasia (pp.15–29). Adelaide: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  29. Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R. & Mousley, J. (2002). Contexts in mathematics teaching: Snakes or ladders? In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific (pp. 649–656). Auckland: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  30. Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., Zevenbergen, R. & Turner Harrison, R. (2003). Being explicit about aspects of mathematics pedagogy. In N.A. Pateman, B.J. Dougherty & J.T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (pp. 267–275). University of Hawai'i, Hawai'i: PME.Google Scholar
  31. Sullivan, P., Mousley, J. & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Describing elements of mathematics lessons that accommodate diversity in student background. In M. Johnsen Joines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 4-257–4-265). Bergen: PMEGoogle Scholar
  32. Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R. & Mousley, J. (2005). Planning and teaching mathematics lessons as a dynamic, interactive process. In H. Chick &; J. Vincent (Eds.) Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol4 pp. 249-256), Melbourne.Google Scholar
  33. Thornton, C., Langrall, C. & Jones, G. (1997). Mathematics instruction for elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 142–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. (1998). Teaching efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.Google Scholar
  35. Watson, A. (2003). Opportunities to learn mathematics. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, Networking, Opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th Annual; Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 29–41). Geelong: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  36. Wood, T. (2002). What does it mean to teach mathematics differently? In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific (pp. 61–71). Auckland: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  37. Zevenbergen, R. (1998). Language, mathematics and social disadvantage: A Bourdieuian analysis of cultural capital in mathematics education. In C. Kanes, M. Goos & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching mathematics in new times (pp. 716–722). Gold Coast: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  38. Zevenbergen, R. (2000). “Cracking the code” of mathematics: School success as a function of linguistic, social and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 201–223). New York: JAI/Ablex.Google Scholar
  39. Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Ability grouping in mathematics classrooms: A Bourdieuian analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(3), 5–10.Google Scholar
  40. Zevenbergen, R., Mousley, J. & Sullivan, P. (2004). Disrupting pedagogic relay in mathematics classrooms: Using open-ended tasks with Indigenous students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(4), 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Sullivan
    • 1
  • Judith Mousley
    • 1
  • Robyn Zevenbergen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationLa Trobe UniversityBendigoAustralia

Personalised recommendations