School Mathematics (대한수학교육학회지:학교수학)

The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics (대한수학교육학회)
권호 표지

The Use of Traditional Algorithmic Versus Instruction with Multiple Representations: Impact on Pre-Algebra Students' Achievement with Fractions, Decimals, and Percent

전통적 알고리즘 교수법과 다양한 표상을 활용한 교수법의 비교: 분수, 소수, 퍼센트 내용을 중심으로

  • Received : 2016.04.29
  • Accepted : 2016.06.02
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of multiple representations on students' understanding of fractions, decimals, and percent. The instructional approach integrating multiple representations was compared to traditional algorithmic instruction, a form of direct instruction. To examine and compare the impact of multiple representations instruction with traditional algorithmic instruction, pre and post tests consisting of five similar items were administered with 87 middle school students. Students' scores in these two tests and their problem solving processes were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative results indicated that students taught by traditional algorithmic instruction showed higher scores on the post-test than students in the multiple representations group. Furthermore, findings suggest that instruction using multiple representations does not guarantee a positive impact on students' understanding of mathematical concepts. Qualitative results suggest that the limited use of multiple representations during a class may have hindered students from applying their use in novel problem situations. Therefore, when using multiple representations, teachers should employ more diverse examples and practice with multiple representations to help students to use them without error.

본 연구는 수학의 다양한 표상이 학습자의 분수, 소수 및 퍼센트에 대한 이해에 어떤 영향을 주는지 분석하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 다양한 표상을 활용한 교수법을 전통적 알고리즘 교수법과 비교하고자 87명의 중학교 학생들을 대상으로 사전, 사후 검사를 실시하였다. 사전, 사후 검사는 각각 5개의 비슷한 문항으로 구성되었으며, 문항에 대한 학생들의 답안을 양적, 질적으로 분석하였다. 양적 분석 결과에 따르면, 전통적 알고리즘 교수법으로 지도 받은 학생들이 다양한 표상을 활용한 교수법에 의해 지도받은 학생들에 비하여 높은 점수를 나타내었다. 또한, 다양한 표상을 활용한 교수법이 학생들의 수학적 개념에 대한 이해를 보장해 주지는 못함이 드러났다. 질적 분석 결과에 따르면, 수학 교실에서 다양한 표상을 제한적으로 활용할 경우, 오히려 다양한 수학적 표상은 학생들이 문장제 문제를 푸는 과정에서 응용을 방해하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구결과에 따르면, 교사는 수학 교실에서 다양한 표상을 활용함에 있어서 반드시 여러 가지 예시와 연습을 통해 학습자들이 다양한 표상을 제대로 이해하고, 연습할 수 있도록 도와야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2
  2. Bottoms, G. (2003). Getting students ready for Algebra I: What middle grades students need to know and be able to do (Report No. 02V52). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476617).
  3. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  5. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Washington D. C.: The National Academies Press.
  6. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt &M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3-26). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433998)
  7. Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: constructing fractions, decimals, and percents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  8. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education china lectures, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  9. Greeno, J. G. (1987). Instructional representations based on research about understanding. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 61-88). New York: Academic Press.
  10. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
  11. Heritage, M., & Niemi, D. (2006). Toward a framework for using student mathematical representations as formative assessments. Educational Assessment, 11(3-4), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2006.9652992
  12. Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  13. Jigyel, K., & Afamasaga-Fuata'i, K. (2007). Students' conceptions of models of fractions and equivalence. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(4), 17-25.
  14. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
  15. Lamon, S. J. (2001). Presenting and representing: From fractions to rational numbers. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics (pp. 146-165). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  16. Muzheve, M. T., & Capraro, R. M. (2006). An exploration of the role natural language and idiosyncratic representations in teaching how to convert among fractions, decimals, and percents. The Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 31, 1-14.
  17. Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305-338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  19. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  20. Newton, K. J., & Sands, J. (2012). Why don't we just divide across? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17(6), 340-345. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.17.6.0340
  21. Ng, S. F., & Lee, K. (2009). The model method: Singapore children's tool for representing and solving algebraic word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 282-313
  22. Niemi, D. (1996). Assessing conceptual understanding in mathematics: Representations, problem solutions, justification and explanations. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1996.9941339
  23. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  25. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students' types of generalization, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0501_02
  26. Rasmussen, C., Heck, D. J., Tarr, J. E., Knuth, E., White, D. Y., Lambdin, D. V., . . . Barnes, D. (2011). Trends and issues in high school mathematics: research insights and needs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 204-219. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.3.0204
  27. Saxe, G. B., Taylor, E. V., McIntosh, C., & Gearhart, M. (2005). Representing fractions with standard notation: A developmental analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 137-157.
  28. Shaughnessy, M. M. (2011). Identify fractions and decimals on a number line. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(7), 428-434.
  29. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
  30. SPSS Inc. (2013). SPSS 22.0 for Windows. [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
  31. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00052-4
  32. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  33. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9-35. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000005212.03219.dc
  34. Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Routledge.