Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Building teachers’ expertise in understanding, assessing and developing children’s mathematical thinking: the power of task-based, one-to-one assessment interviews

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we outline the benefits to teachers’ expertise of the use of research-based, one-to-one assessment interviews in mathematics. Drawing upon our research and professional development work with teachers and students in primary and middle years in Australia and the research of others, we argue that the use of the interviews builds teacher expertise through enhancing teachers’ knowledge of individual and group understanding of mathematics, and also provides an understanding of typical learning paths in various mathematical domains. The use of such interviews also provides a model for teachers’ interactions and discussions with children, building both their pedagogical content knowledge and their subject matter knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball, D. L., & Hill, H. C. (2002). Learning mathematics for teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behr, M., & Post, T. (1992). Teaching rational number and decimal concepts. In T. Post (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research-based methods (2nd ed., pp. 201–248). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R., & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behr, M. J., Wachsmuth, I., & Post, T. R. (1985). Construct a sum: A measure of children’s understanding of fraction size. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobis, J., Clarke, B. A., Clarke, D. M., Gould, P., Thomas, G., Wright, R., et al. (2005). Supporting teachers in the development of young children’s mathematical thinking: Three large scale cases. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, B. (2008). A framework of growth points as a powerful teacher development tool. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education, pp. 235–256). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Clarke, B. A. (2004). A shape is not defined by its shape: Developing young children’s geometric understanding. Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(2), 110–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, B. A., & Clarke, D. M. (2004). Using questioning to elicit and develop children’s mathematical thinking. In G. W. Bright & R. N. Rubenstein (Eds.), Professional development guidebook for perspectives on the teaching of mathematics (pp. 5–10). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Clarke, B. A., Clarke, D. M., & Cheeseman, J. (2006). The mathematical knowledge and understanding young children bring to school. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 81–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. M. (2001). Understanding, assessing, and developing young children’s mathematical thinking: Research as a powerful tool for professional growth. In J. Bobis, M. Mitchelmore, & B. Perry (Eds.), Numeracy and beyond. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 9–26). Sydney: MERGA.

  • Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., Gervasoni, A., Gronn, D., Horne, M., McDonough, A., et al. (2002). Early numeracy research project final report. Melbourne: Mathematics Teaching and Learning Centre, Australian Catholic University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. M., & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. M., Roche, A., Mitchell, A., & Sukenik, M. (2006). Assessing student understanding of fractions using task-based interviews. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group of Psychology of mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 337–344). Prague: PME.

  • Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s conceptions of space. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. (1995). Assessing the effectiveness of pencil-and-paper tests for school mathematics. In B. Atweh & S. Flavel (Eds.), Galtha: MERGA 18. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 184–188). Darwin: MERGA.

  • Department of Education & Training. (2001). Early numeracy interview booklet. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/preptoyear10.htm.

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students as sources of teacher presentations of the subject matter. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.

  • Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing fractions, decimals and percents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, H. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: Children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52, 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, H., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children’s mathematical thinking: connecting research with practice. In I. E. Siegel & K. a. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice, pp. 23–26). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Graeber, A., & Tirosh, D. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 117–132). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics profession. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Ball, D., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, M., & Rowley, G. (2001). Measuring growth in early numeracy: Creation of interval scales to monitor development. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 3-161–3-168). Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.

  • Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook on research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–668). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonough, A., Clarke, B. A., & Clarke, D. M. (2002). Understanding assessing and developing young children’s mathematical thinking: The power of the one-to-one interview for preservice teachers in providing insights into appropriate pedagogical practices. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, A., & Horne, M. (2010). Gap thinking in fraction pair comparisons is not whole number thinking: Is this what early equivalence thinking sounds like? In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 414–421). Freemantle: MERGA.

  • Pearn, C., & Stephens, M. (2004). Why you have to probe to discover what year 8 students really think about fractions. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 430–437). Townsville: MERGA.

  • Post, T., Behr, M. J., & Lesh, R. (1986). Research-based observations about children’s learning of rational number concepts. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 8(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, T., & Cramer, K. A. (2002). Children’s strategies in ordering rational numbers. In D. L. Chambers (Ed.), Putting research into practice in the elementary grades (pp. 141–144). Reston, VA: National Council of the Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Roche, A. (2005). Longer is larger—or is it? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 10(3), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, A. (2010). Decimats: Helping students to make sense of decimal place value. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2004). When does successful comparison of decimals reflect conceptual understanding? In I. Putt, R. Farragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millenium: Towards 2010 (Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 486–493). Townsville, Queensland: MERGA.

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sowder, J. (2007). The mathematics education and development of teachers. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157–223). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinle, V., & Stacey, K. (2003). Grade-related trends in the prevalence and persistence of decimal misconceptions. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, pp. 259–266). Honolulu: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., & Mulligan, J. (2001). Moving beyond physical models in learning multiplicative reasoning. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.). Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 233–240). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.

  • Swan, P. A. J. (2002). The computation choices made by students in Years 5 to 7. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Western Australia: Edith Cowan University.

  • Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2001). Children learn mathematics. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.

  • Webb, N., & Romberg, T. A. (1992). Implications of the NCTM standards for mathematics assessment. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Mathematics assessment and evaluation: Imperatives for mathematics education (pp. 37–60). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleagues in the Early Numeracy Research Project team (Jill Cheeseman, Ann Gervasoni, Donna Gronn, Pam Hammond, Marj Horne, and Andrea McDonough, from Australian Catholic University, and Glenn Rowley and Peter Sullivan from Monash University), and our collaborator in our rational number work: Annie Mitchell (Australian Catholic University).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia

    Doug Clarke & Anne Roche

  2. Monash University, PO Box 527, Frankston, 3199, Australia

    Barbara Clarke

Authors
  1. Doug Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Roche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Doug Clarke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarke, D., Clarke, B. & Roche, A. Building teachers’ expertise in understanding, assessing and developing children’s mathematical thinking: the power of task-based, one-to-one assessment interviews. ZDM Mathematics Education 43, 901–913 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0345-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0345-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation