ERG SES D 06, Education and Pre-Service Teachers
In recent decades, there has been a widespread change in mathematics curriculums in all over the world. These curriculum changes are broadly in agreement on the idea that mathematics should be taught as a web of interrelated concepts and procedures, not isolated rules and facts. Basing on this premise, curriculum standards about problem solving shifted toward a process oriented view from one-correct answer view, with asserting the use of multiple strategies to solve problems. In this regard, NCTM’s curriculum standards emphasize that students should be able to apply and adapt variety of appropriate strategies (NCTM, 1991). The mathematics curriculum in Turkey also proposes the importance of using multiple strategies in mathematics classrooms (MEB, 2013). Therefore, teachers are expected to understand, appreciate and use variety of problem solving strategies and facilitate students to understand different strategies and the interconnections between them, and apply these strategies while problem solving. Previous researches focusing preservice teachers use of multiple strategies (Silver, Ghoussseini, Gosen, Charalambous, Font Strawhun, 2005; Bingölbali, 2011; Lynch and Star, 2013) indicated that preservice teachers’ openness to different solutions in their future mathematics classroom has not been fully explored (Silver, Ghoussseini, Gosen, Charalambous, Font Strawhun, 2005; Bingölbali, 2011; Lynch and Star, 2013). We know little about whether preservice teachers are ready to use these strategies in their future classrooms when they had an opportunity to make their instructional decisions. In this study, we aimed to investigate the elementary pre-service teachers’ views about multiple solution strategies. The research question addressed was “What are the elementary pre-service teachers views on multiple solution strategies of a multiplication problem?” For this reason, pre-service teachers were asked to state their views about different solution strategies for a multiplication problem considering the reasonability of each strategy and their preference of particular strategy or strategies with indicating reasons of their preferences.
Ambrose, R., Philipp, R., Chauvot, J., & Clement, L. (2003). A web-based survey to assess prospective elementary school teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics learning: An alternative to Likert scales. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 2: 33-39), Hawai’i. Bingölbali, E. (2011).Multiple solutions to problems in mathematics teaching: Do teachers really value them? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (1).18-31. Dooren, W. V, Verschaffel, L. & Onghena, P. (2002). The Impact of Preservice Teachers' Content Knowledge on Their Evaluation of Students' Strategies for Solving Arithmetic and Algebra Word Problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 33, No. 5 (Nov., 2002), pp. 319-351. Lynch, K. and Star, J. (2013). Teachers' views about multiple strategies in middle and high school mathematics: Perceived advantages, disadvantages, and reported instructional practices. Perceived advantages, disadvantages, and reported instructional practices. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Silver, E. A., Ghoussseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Font Strawhun, B. T. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24 (2005) 287–301. Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB) (2013).Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı (Elementary School Mathematics Lesson: Grades 5-8) Retrieved February 1, 2014, from, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari/icerik/72.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.