Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 381–403 | Cite as

Making sense of double number lines in professional development: exploring teachers’ understandings of proportional relationships

  • Chandra Hawley Orrill
  • Rachael Eriksen Brown
Article

Abstract

This study presents a qualitative analysis of the knowledge teachers in one professional development course used to reason about proportional relationships with double number lines. We work from the knowledge-in-pieces perspective to consider the existing knowledge the participants did or did not invoke when learning to reason with this new-to-them representation. We analyzed videotaped sessions of a group of urban middle-grade teachers across five class meetings. Our findings include discussion of the two pieces of knowledge that emerged as important for reasoning about proportions with the representation and three knowledge pieces that deterred meaning making. Implications for professional development are discussed as are the implications for conceptualizing teachers’ understanding through a knowledge-in-pieces lens.

Keywords

Middle grades Professional development Proportional reasoning Drawn representations Teacher knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Work on this project was supported by the National Science Foundation (DRL-0633975 and DRL-1036083). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. The authors wish to thank Gunhan Caglayan for his work on the data analysis as well as the Does it Work team, the participating teachers, and the facilitator for their support with data collection.

References

  1. Abels, M., Wijers, M., Pligge, M., & Hedges, T. (2006). Models you can count on. In Wisconsin Center for Education Research & Freudenthal Institute (Eds.), Mathematics in context. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010). The construction, refinements, and early validation of the equipartitioning learning trajectory. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: ICLS 2010 conference proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 968–975). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Corina, J. L., Zhao, Q., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2004). Supporting students’ reasoning with inscriptions. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), ICLS 2004: Embracing diversity in the learning sciences (pp. 142–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Putall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dufour-Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 109–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Harel, G., & Behr, M. (1995). Teachers’ solutions for multiplicative problems. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 3, 31–51.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS Video Study. Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill, H. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Shilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 373–400.Google Scholar
  13. Izsák, A. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching fraction multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 95–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Izsák, A., Orrill, C. H., Cohen, A., & Brown, R. E. (2010). Measuring middle grades teachers’ understanding of rational numbers with the mixture Rasch model. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Küchemann, D., Hodgen, J., & Brown, M. (2011, February). Using the double number line to model multiplication. Paper presented at Seventh Annual Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Rzeszów, Poland.Google Scholar
  16. Lamon, S. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Connecting content and children’s thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamon, S. (1995). Ratio and proportion: Elementary didactical phenomenology. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.), Providing a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 167–198). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems on representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Lobato, J., Ellis, A., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment support individual students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing childrens’ understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Post, T., Harel, G., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1988). Intermediate teachers knowledge of rational number concepts. In E. Fennema (Ed.), Papers from first Wisconsin symposium for research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 194–219). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  25. Riley, K. R. (2010). Teachers’ understanding of proportional reasoning. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32 nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 6, pp. 1055–1061). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  26. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simon, M. A., & Blume, G. W. (1994). Mathematical modeling as a component of understanding ratio-as-measure: A study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh, P. (2000). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(3), 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A Constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2009). Children’s fractional knowledge. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 179–234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandra Hawley Orrill
    • 1
  • Rachael Eriksen Brown
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Knowles Science Teaching FoundationMoorestownUSA

Personalised recommendations