The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An analysis of preservice mathematics teachers' reading of curriculum materials: Focused on conditional probability

예비 수학교사들의 교육과정 자료 해석: 조건부확률을 중심으로

  • Received : 2019.05.23
  • Accepted : 2019.07.01
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is important to pay attention to how teachers recognize and use curriculum materials in order to link written curriculum and enacted curriculum. In this study, 90 preservice mathematics teachers were surveyed to identify their perspective and reading of curriculum materials. Especially, we focused on the curriculum documents, textbooks, and teachers' guidebooks containing the concept of conditional probability which is addressed in highschool mathematics curriculum. The various misconceptions of conditional probability were reported in the many researches, and there are multiple methods to introduce conditional probability in mathematics classes. As a result, curriculum materials have some limits to be used as they are and considered to be reconstructable by participants, but their curriculum reading were mainly classified to be descriptive and evaluative, not to be interpretive. However, unlike curriculum documents, textbooks and teachers' guidebooks were partially interpreted by participants using their knowledge of conditional probability. The purpose of this study is to investigate the profession of mathematics teachers in terms of curriculum implementation. We expect that this study will provide a basic framework for analyzing mathematics teachers' works and suggest some implications for the professional development of mathematics teachers.

본 연구에서는 설문조사를 통해 예비 수학교사들이 조건부확률에 대한 교육과정 자료를 어떻게 인식하고 해석하는지에 대해 분석하였다. 예비교사들은 재구성할 수 있는 대상으로서 교육과정 자료를 인식하고 있었으나, 실제로 자신의 지식을 활용하여 교육과정 자료를 적극적으로 해석하기보다는 반복해서 내용을 기술하고 평가하는 경향을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14-17, 20-22, 43-46.
  2. Batanero, C. & Sanchez, E. (2005). What is the nature of High School Students' Conceptions and Misconceptions About Probability?. In Jones, G. A.(Eds.), Exploring probability in school (pp. 241-266). Boston: Springer.
  3. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany: Suny Press.
  4. Brown, M., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways in which teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. Evanston, IL: The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
  5. Chval, K., Heck, D., Weiss, I., & Ziebarth, S. W. (Eds.). (2012). Approaches to studying the enacted mathematics curriculum. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
  6. Cho, C. M. (2010). A study on conditional probability. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 20(1), 1-20.
  7. Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers' understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9170-3
  8. Drake, C. (2006). Turning points: Using teachers' mathematics life stories to understand the implementation of mathematics education reform. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(6), 579-608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9021-9
  9. Earnest, D. & Amador, J. M. (2019). Lesson planimation: Prospective elementary teachers' interactions with mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(1), 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9374-2
  10. Fuentes, S. Q. & Ma, J. (2018). Promoting teacher learning: A framework for evaluating the educative features of mathematics curriculum materials. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1-35.
  11. Gras, R., & Totohasina, A. (1995). Chronologie et causalite, conceptions sources d'obstacles epistemologiques a la notion de probabilite conditionnelle. Recherches en Didactique des Mathematiques, 15(1), 49-95.
  12. Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014-2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002
  13. Jeong, K. S. (2012). Study on the teachers' curriculum literacy. Journal of Curriculum Integration, 6(2), 109-132.
  14. Kim, K. J. (2003). Role definitions and performance ability of elementary school teacher as a curriculum developer and operator. Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 145-161.
  15. Kim, M. H. (2007). A critical review on the research of teachers' empowerment : Trends, prospect, and task. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 24(1), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2007.24.1.31
  16. Kim, N. H., Chong, Y. O., Na, G. S., Lee, K. H., Lim, J. H., Park, K. M., Woo, J. H. (2006). Mathematics Education Research Methodology. Seoul: Kyungmoon.
  17. Land, T. J, & Drake, C. (2014). Enhancing and enacting curricular progressions in elementary mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(2), 109-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.889502
  18. Land, T. J., Tyminski, A. M., & Drake, C. (2015). Examining pre-service elementary mathematics teachers' reading of educative curriculum materials. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.009
  19. Lee, J. Y. (2000). An Analysis of Teacher's Cognition on Textbook and its Practical Use(Master's thesis). Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
  20. Lee, J. Y. (2005). (A)Study on the Understanding of Conditional Probability Concept(Master's thesis). Seoul National University, Seoul.
  21. Lee, J. Y., Woo, J. H. (2009). A didactic analysis of conditional probability. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 19(2), 233-256.
  22. Lee, J. Y., Choi, B. L., Kim, D. J., Han, D. H., Jeon, Y. J., Jang, H. S., …, Park, S. H. (2014). Probability and Statistics. Seoul: Chunjae.
  23. Lee, K. H., Lee, E. J., & Park, M. S. (2016). Task modification and knowledge utilization by Korean prospective mathematics teachers. Pedagogical Research, 1(2), 54.
  24. Lee, K. H., Lee, E. J., Park, M. M., Song, C. G. (2017). Secondary mathematics teachers' perspectives on didactic transposition described in reflective journal writing. The Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 27(3), 469-489.
  25. Lee, K. J. (2005). The meaning of curriculum and the teacher's role focusing on the practical process of curriculum implementation. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(3), 57-80.
  26. Lee, K. S., Hwang, S. K., Kim, B. Y., Sim, S. Y., Wang, K. C., Song, K. S., ..., Kim, W. J. (2014). Probability and Statistics. Seoul: Mirae-n.
  27. Lee, Y. M., Jo, S. Y., Jung, G. S. (2015). The suggestion for the domestic researches about the perspectives of curriculum implementation. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(3), 79-100. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.33.3.201509.004004
  28. Lloyd, G. (2002). Mathematics teachers' beliefs and experiences with innovative curriculum materials. In G.C. Leder, Erkki Pehkonen, Gunter Torner(Eds.), Beliefs: A Hidden Variable in Mathematics Education? (pp. 149-159). Dordrecht:Springer.
  29. Lloyd, G. M., & Behm, S. L. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers' analysis of mathematics instructional materials. Action in Teacher Education, 26(4), 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2005.10463342
  30. Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y
  31. Paik, N. J. (2007). A Comparative study on the form of presentation of educational contents in the subject curriculum: With focus on Korean and American science curriculum(Life Science). The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 129-159. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.25.1.200703.006
  32. Paik, N. J. (2013). Teachers' interpretations of curriculum documents and curriculum potential. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 201-225. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.31.3.201309.009009
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2017). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods(Kim, J. H. et al.. Trans.). Seoul: Kyoyookbook. (Original work published in 2015).
  34. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00130
  35. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1086/499645
  36. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  37. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034820
  38. Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM, 46(5), 705-718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600-4
  39. Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction. New York: Routledge.
  40. Seo, K. H. (2009). Teachers' experience of reconstructing national curriculum. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(3), 159-189. https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.27.3.200909.007007
  41. Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D. A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 465-494). New York, NY, England: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
  42. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers' use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115
  43. Son, J. W., Son, S. S. W., & Senk, S. L. (2014). Teachers' knowledge and the enacted mathematics curriculum. In Thompson, D. R, & Usiskin Z. (Eds.). Enacted Mathematics Curriculum: A Conceptual Framework and Research Needs (pp. 75-96). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
  44. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. Handbook of Research on Curriculum, 40(4), 402-435.
  45. Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2014). The same geometry textbook does not mean the same classroom enactment. ZDM, 46(5), 781-795 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0622-y
  46. Tyminski, A. M., Land, T. J., & Drake, C. (2011). Elementary preservice teachers' critiques, comparisons, and preferences in examining standards-based curricular materials. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
  47. Woo, J. H. (2017). The Educational Foundations of School Mathematics. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.