Abstract
It is easy to dismiss the work of “teaching students to apply formula” as a low-order priority and thus trivialises the professional knowledge associated with this practice. Our encounter with an experienced teacher—through the examination of her practices and elaborations—challenges this simplistic assumption. There are layers of complexities that are as yet under-discussed in the existing literature. This paper reports a case study of her practices that reflect a complex integration of relevant theories in task design. Through examining her praxis around the theme of “recognise the form”, we discuss theoretical ideas that can potentially advance principles in the sequencing of examples for the purpose of helping students develop proficiency in applying formula.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked example research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.
Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115–131.
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777–786.
Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 86, 360–367.
Cheng, E., & Lo, M. (2013). Learning Study: Its origins, operationalisation, and implications, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 94. OECD publishing: Paris.
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34, 344–377.
Flores, R., Koontz, E., Inan, F., & Alagic, M. (2015). Multiple representation instruction first versus traditional algorithmic instruction first: Impact in middle school mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(2), 267–281.
Grouws, D. A., Howald, C. L., & Calangelo, N. (1996). Students’ conception of mathematics: a comparison of mathematically talented students and typical high school algebra students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395783)
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington: National Academy Press.
Klymchuk, S. (2015). Provocative mathematics questions: drawing attention to a lack of attention. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 34(2), 63–70.
Leong, Y.H. (2008). Problems of teaching mathematics in a reform-oriented Singapore classroom. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Melbourne, Australia.
Leong, Y.H., Cheng, L.P., Toh, W.Y., Kaur, B., & Toh, T.L. (2019). Making things explicit using instructional materials: A case study of a Singapore teacher’s practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31(1), 47–66.
Mann, M., & Enderson, M. C. (2017). Give me a formula not the concept! Student preference to mathematical problem solving. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 25, 15–24.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193–220.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: new conceptualisations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121.
Pang, M. F., Marton, F., Bao, J., & Ki, W. W. (2016). Teaching to add three-digit numbers in Hong Kong and Shanghai: illustration of differences in the systematic use of variation and invariance. ZDM, 48, 455–470.
Pawley, D., Ayres, P., & Cooper, M. (2005). Translating words into equations: a cognitive load theory approach. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 75–97.
Phan, H. P., Ngu, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. (2017). Achieving optimal best: Instructional efficiency and the use of cognitive load theory in mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 667–692.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.
Runesson, U. (2005). Beyond discourse and interaction. Variation: a critical aspect for teaching and learning mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–87.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando: Academic Press.
Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
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, 213–226.
Sullivan, P., Borcek, C., Walker, N., & Rennie, M. (2016). Exploring a structure for mathematics lessons that initiate learning by activating cognition on challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 159–170.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Sweller, J., Kalyuga, S., & Ayres, P. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Vale, C., Widjaja, W., Herbert, S., Bragg, L. A., & Loong, E. Y. (2017). Mapping variations in children’s mathematical reasoning: the case of “What else belongs?”. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 872–893.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future direction. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Think and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.
Zaslavsky, O., & Zodik, I. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ choice of examples that potentially support or impede learning. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 143–155.
Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137–166.
Zodik, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 165–182.
Funding
The investigation reported in this paper is part of a larger research project known as “A study of the enacted school mathematics curriculum” (Grant number: OER 31/15 BK) funded by the Office of Educational Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leong, Y., Cheng, L., Toh, W. et al. Teaching students to apply formula using instructional materials: a case of a Singapore teacher’s practice. Math Ed Res J 33, 89–111 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00290-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00290-1