Investigating How and Why Prospective Mathematics Teachers Build Real Life Connections
Author(s):
Aslihan Osmanoglu (submitting) Meriç Özgeldi (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES C 07, Mathematics and Education

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-21
11:00-12:30
Room:
W3.15
Chair:
Pauline Taylor

Contribution

Over decades, some studies in the literature focus on the importance of the real-life connection in mathematics (Moschkovich, 2002; van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2003). Moschkovich (2002) suggests that real life problems should be the starting points for students to understand how to use mathematics in daily life. At this point, it is important to choose problems and activities which require discovery, modelling, proof, and technology use as well as which include experiences students enjoy and have with confidence (Romberg & Kaput, 1999).

Studies related to making connections suggest that real life contexts motivate students and increase their interest in mathematics (Stylianides & Stylianides, 2008), and they also strengthen the relation between school mathematics and real life mathematics (Singletary, 2012). Through connecting problems/activities/projects to real life, students may learn mathematics more easily (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999) and develop their mathematical thinking skills (Beswick, 2011).

At this point, it should be noted that it is critical how teachers use and present real life contexts in their classrooms, since merely using them in classes is not enough for student learning. Mathematical tasks should be challenging, engaging, and full of mathematics (Trafton, Reys, & Wasman, 2001). Teachers should be able to create environments in which students find and/or create real life problems, make generalizations through real life examples, and discuss mathematics through those (Moschkovich, 2002).

While there are several different definitions of the term “real life” in different studies (see Le Roux, 2008; Stylianides & Stylianides, 2008; van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2003), in the present study, Lee’s (2012) definition was used. Accordingly, real life was defined as experiences that include problems, mathematical discussions, representations, visual images, and modelling held in a wide context (especially beyond classroom context) such as science, environment, sport, art, architecture, engineering, banking, and shopping.

When it is taken into account that unless prospective teachers understand the importance of building connection between mathematics and real life, when they become teachers, they will not be able to help their students make connections, reason mathematically, and solve problems (Eli, Mohr-Schroeder,& Lee, 2011). Thus, in the present study, it was aimed to understand how and why prospective teachers build real life connections, and how they reason about the use of connections for student learning. In this regard, what they understood from real life connections, in what contexts they built the connections, what the purpose was while building connections, and in which topics they built the connections were examined.

The study explored the following research questions:

  1. How prospective teachers build real life connections?
  2. In what contexts they build the connections?
  3. For what purposes they build the connections?
  4. In which mathematical topics they find it possible to build connections?

Method

The participants were 57 prospective teachers (40 female and 17 male) educated in the department of mathematics teaching at a medium-sized state university in the eastern part of Turkey. They were taking the Special Teaching Methods-II course in 2015-2016 spring semester during the study. As an end of semester task, they were asked to form groups of two in voluntary basis, and then build connections between one of the secondary school mathematics subjects and real life. Mathematical subjects from the secondary school mathematics course program (5th to 8th grades) were determined by the researchers and distributed to the groups. Then, the groups were required to select one of the acquisitions from their core learning area, and build a connection to real life. They were also asked to record their real-life connection in a 3-minute video. During data collection, a study guide prepared by the researchers from the literature was presented to the groups. There were 3 main titles in the guide to follow. Accordingly, prospective teachers were asked to respond questions related to their preparation process, video content, and real life connections and video taping process. For the analysis of the data, being one of the qualitative analysis techniques, document analysis was employed (Yildirim & Simsek, 2006). Accordingly, the study reports prepared by each group (30 reports in total) were examined to determine how prospective teachers built real-life connections. In order to examine their answers to the research questions, a coding table based on Gainsburg (2008) and Lee’s (2012) studies was created for each question. After the coding process, the frequency and percentage analysis was run in order to interpret the data obtained from the participants’ answers. To increase the reliability of the study, researchers independently coded all responses in prospective teachers' reports. Then, the initial codings were compared and disagreements were identified. After the second individual coding process, 91% consistency was determined, and then the codings were discussed until full consensus was attained.

Expected Outcomes

When the types of real life connections were examined, it was seen that prospective teachers mostly built connections in terms of the discussion of mathematics in society (27%). This was followed by classic word problems (23%), analysis of real data (17%), hands-on representations of mathematics concepts (17%), and simple analogies (10%). When the contexts prospective teachers built the connections was examined, it was seen that the groups had the most associations in the context of sports/games (23%). This was followed by shopping/pricing/eating out (20%), and art/mirrors context (10%). When the purpose of building connections was examined, it was seen that the participants mostly aimed to demonstrate how these concepts were used in students' lives/to create awareness (47%). The participants also aimed to attract and motivate students (30%), and with the same percentage, they claimed that they built the connection since the context was useful. While 27% of the participants aimed to provide students a better, easier, and lasting understanding of mathematics; 13% claimed that they built the connection since the context (given examples) was appropriate for students. The majority of the prospective teachers thought that in all subjects it was possible to build real life connections (63%). Participants who thought that not every subject could be associated with real life constituted 17%. 13% of the participants expressed that they could associate almost every subject to real life. The findings of the study could be valuable for the national context as well as for the European context considering that the national characteristics might have an impact for rendering more precise information about the real-life connections in mathematics.

References

Beswick, K. (2011). Putting context in context: An examination of the evidence for the benefits of 'contextualised' tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 367-390 Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Eli, J. A., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., & Lee, C. W. (2011). Exploring mathematical connections of prospective middle-grades teachers through card-sorting tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 297-319 Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 199-219. Le Roux, K. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of a real-world problem in mathematics: Looking for signs of change. Language and Education, 22(5), 307-326. Lee, J. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of real-life connections reflected in posing and evaluating story problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 429-452. Moschkovich, J. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In Brenner, M. and Moschkovich, J. (Eds), Everyday and academic mathematics in the classroom (pp. 1-11). JRME Monograph Number 11, Reston, VA, NCTM. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Studying the implementation of tasks in classroom settings: High-level mathematics tasks embedded in “real-life” contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 859-875. Trafton, P. R., Reys, B. J., & Wasman, D.G. (2001). Standards-based mathematics curriculum materials: A phrase in search of a definition. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 259-264. 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(1), 9-35. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yöntemleri. Seckin Yayincilik.

Author Information

Aslihan Osmanoglu (submitting)
Trakya University, Turkey
Meriç Özgeldi (presenting)
Mersin University
Elementary Mathematics Education
Mersin

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • 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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.