Teaching and learning fractions

Mastery of fractions is the foundation for many more advanced mathematical and logical reasoning skills, including proportional, probabilistic and algebraic thinking. The degree of early year fraction understanding often correlates with secondary school mathematical achievement (Siegler, Fazio, Bailey, & Zhou, 2013). At the same time, fractions present a wide range of teaching and learning challenges that have been the subject of educational research (Petit, Laird, Marsden, & Ebby, 2015).

In the first part of this post, issues surrounding the teaching and learning of common fractions are described and linked to teaching and learning strategies that can address these. In the second part, implications for the teaching and learning in diverse classrooms are investigated and addressed by the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework, with particular reference to opportunities that modern information and communication technology (ICT) can offer. Drawing on both parts, a logical sequence is developed detailing conceptual and procedural steps for teaching and learning the fraction equivalence concept.

Issues surrounding the teaching and learning of common fractions

In primary school, learners move from non-fractional, through early fractional and transitional strategies, to mastery in applying fractional knowledge to magnitude, unit fraction and benchmark reasoning, and in operations (OGAP, 2012). In the Australian Curriculum, teaching and learning of fractions starts in Year 1 with content descriptor ACMNA016recognise and describe one-half as one of two equal parts of a whole”, and it progresses to Year 6, where students are expected to have developed procedural fluency in all operations with fractions, decimals and percentages, with the capacity to solve authentic problems (ACARA, 2017).

Fractions, ratios and proportions are the most cognitively challenging concepts encountered in primary school mathematics (Booker, Bond, Sparrow, & Swan, 2015). For students, fractions often mark the transition from concrete to formal operational mathematical thinking (Siegler et al., 2013), where numbers do not anymore relate to whole objects, or the size, shape and arrangements of their parts, but instead to part-whole relationships between two quantities composed of equal parts of a whole (Pantziara & Philippou, 2012). One difficulty in expanding whole-number to rational-number thinking is that both share overlapping cerebral processing areas in the intraparietal sulcus of the prefrontal parietal cortex (Siegler et al., 2013). Additional difficulties are encountered with the notation system used to represent fractions (Brizuela, 2006). Explicit teaching of fraction notation is essential, since “one whole number written above another whole number, do not transparently communicate the meaning of fractions” (Gould, 2013. p.5). The relational action associated with the symbols is not an intrinsic property of the symbols. Learners first need to experience the symbols as an expression of the relational outcomes of actions that they have carried out or observed (Dörfler, 1991). Finally, there is the concept of changing units, where one whole can refer to both multiple objects or composite units within a single object; partition fractions or quantity fractions. Students need to learn to move between different representations, including multiple symbols referring to the same amount (Booker et al., 2015).

In teaching fractions, it is essential to explain and establish fraction terminology first, explicitly addressing language and conceptual misunderstandings that surround rational-number thinking. The links between terminology, symbology, notations and concepts such as whole-number and part-whole relationships must be established before moving on to mathematical operations involving fractions. Mastery requires that students develop both conceptual and procedural knowledge and understanding of fraction concepts (Pantziara & Philippou, 2012). Therefore, teachers need to value and at least initially prioritise deep conceptual understanding over automatic procedural skills (Booker et al., 2015).

Visual models are a central component in teaching fractions at all stages of conceptual development, rational-number thinking, procedural and operational problem solving (Petit et al., 2015). Provision of a variety of visual representations of identical fractions that differ in perceptual features, such as the location and shape of shaded areas (numerator), were demonstrated to be important in the development of a multi-dimensional understanding of fractions. However, it is important that teachers guide learners in developing the knowledge about how visual representations relate to the fraction concept (Rau, 2016).

There are three common visual fraction models: linear, area, and discrete. These can be taught using a variety of representations (e.g. rectangular and circular segments, arrays, object collections) and physical and virtual manipulatives. Recent research into cognitive numerical development highlights the importance of teaching students that fractions represent magnitudes that can be located on a number line. Number lines, where equal parts are defined by equal distance, can serve as a conceptual bridge between whole numbers, proper, improper and mixed fractions, decimals and percentages, and highlight the concepts of equivalence and continuous quantities of fractions (Booth & Newton, 2012; Siegler et al., 2013). Gould recommends focussing on the linear aspects of fraction models as the primary representation of fractions in younger years (2013). Nevertheless, traditional area models, where equal parts are defined by equal area, continue to play an important role in the conceptualisation of numerator and denominator, fraction division, the relationship between unit of measure and reference unit, and equivalence (Lamberg & Wiest, 2015; Booker et al., 2015). Discrete models or ‘set of objects’ arrays, where equal parts are defined by equal number of objects with countable sets and subsets of discrete entities, visualise the mapping of distinct countable sets onto numerators and denominators (Rapp, Bassok, DeWolf, & Holyoak, 2015) and help students to understand equipartitioning (Petit et al., 2015).

All three visual fraction models can be used in different learning modes, including group discussions (verbal, aural), kinesthetic activities, and even through music (Courey, Balogh, Siker, & Paik, 2012). Physical manipulatives are a valuable resource stimulating hands-on learning that can make abstract mathematical ideas more tangible (Petit et al., 2015). Access to a variety of representations and activities support students in building the foundations for solving complex questions and real problems that involve rational-number thinking which cannot be achieved by rote learning alone.

Learners need guidance and practice to expand their conceptual numerical understanding to include rational numbers (Petit et al., 2015). Procedural fluency and algorithmic operational problem-solving skills are best learned by moving back and forth between conceptual and procedural knowledge and practice. Individual students have different learning styles and learning preferences. Student diversity can be accommodated by empowering learners to make choices between different activities and task designs, including group, paired and individual work, different modalities and types of questions, resulting in increased motivation and persistence (Landrum & Landrum, 2016). A degree of choice of tasks, task sequence and stimulus can be introduced into the classroom through blended learning, where students engage part-time with online content and instructions using learning platforms such as Mathletics (see below). Blended learning also provides a degree of flexibility over time, place, path and pace, and can be implemented as station-rotation, flipped classroom, or flex model among others (Staker & Horn, 2012), depending on the opportunities and constraints of individual teaching and learning environments.

There is also a cultural dimension to how students learn mathematics in general and fractions in specific. Mathematics is a cultural construct with its own epistemology. It cannot simply be assumed to constitute a “universal language”. Indigenous Australian mathematician and head of the ‘Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Mathematics Alliance’ Chris Matthews developed a model for culturally-responsive mathematics that links students’ perceived reality with curriculum mathematics through a hermeneutic circle of abstraction and critical reflection based on practical problem-solving (Sarra, Matthews, Ewing, & Cooper, 2011).

It has long been argued that Indigenous Australian students prefer kinesthetic learning experiences with physical manipulatives, narrative learning, valuing group discussions and explicit guidance (Kitchenham, 2016). It is therefore important to link formal mathematical concepts to something concrete endowed with real meaning. In reference to the Maths as Storytelling (MAST) pedagogical approach (Queensland Studies Authority, 2011), the fraction concept could for example be learned by acting out, using groups of students to represent fractions in terms of varying parts of the class (e.g. boys vs girls), or perhaps more dynamically by connecting fractions with rhythm and dance (Campbell, 2014).

At the same time, it is important that students also learn that there are differences between everyday colloquial expressions and empirical understanding of fractions, such as in acts of sharing and distributing, and formal mathematical equivalents. Mathematical definitions are developed through theoretical or operative generalisation and abstraction and use symbols (verbal, iconic, geometric or algebraic) to describe the conditions or schemata of actions (Dörfler, 1991). Therefore, explicit teaching of the meaning behind the symbolic mathematical language through exposure to multiple representations and models is essential for student learning of mathematical concepts including rational-number concepts.

Providing a creative and active learning environment, offering choice and variation in learning activities, mathematical representations, and task and assessment modes, will foster student engagement and the development of a positive disposition to mathematics. Similar to the fraction understanding itself (Siegler et al., 2013), a positive mathematical self-belief is another key predictor of middle years students’ mathematics achievement (Dimarakis, Bobis, Way, & Anderson, 2014).

Implications for the teaching and learning in diverse classrooms

Australia is a multicultural country and home to the world’s oldest continuous cultures. Nearly half of the population have an overseas-born parent, 5% identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, and 20% speak a language other than English at home (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). This diversity translates to classrooms with diverse social, cultural, religious and linguistic approaches to learning (Shahaeian, 2014). The Australian-wide promotion of an inclusive education policy emphasises the right of students of all abilities to participate in all aspects of the mainstream education, adding an additional dimension of physical, sensory and intellectual diversity (Konza, 2008). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 5% of all primary school-aged children have disabilities resulting in significant core-activity limitations and schooling restrictions (2012). At the other end of the ability spectrum are the 10% of gifted and talented students, often unidentified and significantly underachieving (Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee, 2012).

It is therefore the legal, moral and professional obligation of teachers to embrace all learners in their diversity and make reasonable adjustments to facilitate their full participation towards achieving their best potential (Cologon, 2013; Poed, 2015). There are a number of models for responsive teaching that addresses all learning needs in diverse classrooms. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a set of principles guiding teachers towards developing universally accessible learning environments and instructional practices (Flores, 2008). The fundamental idea is to make the curriculum delivery as accessible as possible to all students, limiting the need for additional modifications and individual support. The design focuses on providing equitable access to the curriculum by offering multiple means of representation, expression and action (Basham & Marino, 2013). Students are offered choice over curriculum content, learning activities and resources to best meet individual skill levels, learning preferences and interests. Assessments offer learners multiple ways of demonstrating acquired skills and knowledge. While UDL can cater for most students in the diverse classroom, preferential intervention and special provisions is given to small groups, including access to resources (e.g. teacher aide) materials (e.g. manipulatives) or equipments (e.g. calculator) for task completion, including additional time or accelerated curriculum, alternative input and response formats (Ashman, 2015). A third level of prevention and intervention offers short-term intensive and explicit instruction for individuals (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001), for example explicit practice of mathematical terminology and symbols for new EAL/D students.

Utilisation of ICT, including augmented and alternative communication devices that can support students with physical impairments, has great potential to help addressing all individual learning needs in a diverse classroom (Blum & Parete, 2015). Modern teaching and learning devices such as the iPad have been designed with disabilities in mind and can be easily configured to support the visually, hearing and physically impaired (Apple Inc., 2016). The iPad provides quick and simple access to a wide range of mathematics apps. Preliminary research highlights the potential of using iPads in primary school Mathematics classrooms to motivate and engage students (Hilton, 2016). Mathematics teaching and learning software, such as Mathletics developed by the Australian company 3P Learning provides teachers with tools to custom-design learning sequences for any topic in alignment with the Australian Curriculum, even activities with year level and content descriptors, lesson plans and ebooks (3P Learning, 2016). Australian schools that use Mathletics are performing significantly better in NAPLAN numeracy tests irrespective of socio-economic and regional status (Stokes, 2015).

The reported positive outcomes for all students, including students with learning support needs as well as gifted and talented students, could be a result of the combination of design features in the software:

  • student-led design that encourages learning at individual pace and at multiple difficulty levels (easier, core, harder)
  • instant and encouraging feedback to learners highlighting mistakes and solutions without teacher intervention
  • powerful formative assessment capabilities allowing teachers to monitor student progress and to identify learning gaps
  • tools that allow teachers to develop individual student learning pathways
  • app and web-based access allows Mathletics to be used as a flipped classroom tool and assign individual homework
  • gamified character in modules including class, school and world challenges (LIVE Mathletics)

Apps can also provide virtual manipulatives that enable more creative work with objects. For fractions, the educational graphing calculator GeoGebra is discussed below for building fraction bar models (Cooper, 2014).

As powerful as some apps and technology can be, ICT should only complement the teaching and learning of mathematics side by side with explicit teaching and multi-modal activities that encourage verbal and written communication, group discussions and the use of physical manipulatives that encourage kinesthetic learning. Also, apps are not always designed in alignment with UDL and can include barriers for students with disabilities (Smith & Harvey, 2014). Particularly in intervention instruction, it is advised to make use of both virtual and physical manipulatives to teach fractions (Westenskow & Moyer-Packenham, 2016).

Teaching and learning steps for acquisition of the equivalence concept

Fraction equivalence is one of the most important mathematical ideas introduced in primary school and know to cause difficulties for many students (Pantziara & Philippou, 2012). The big idea behind teaching equivalent fractions is for students to understand that fractions of a given size can have an infinite number of different names and corresponding symbols, and to develop efficient procedures for finding equivalent fractions. Finding equivalent fractions enables students to compare, order and operate with fractions (Petit et al., 2015).

The curriculum is the starting point for the design of teaching and learning units by defining the learning objectives and expected outcomes for each year level. The Australian Curriculum (AC) follows a spiral-based approach that gradually builds mastery of skills and concepts by sequentially increasing the cognitive demands (Lupton, 2013). Equivalence is introduced in the AC v8.3 in Year 4, where students are expected to “recognise common equivalent fractions in familiar contexts and make connections between fraction and decimal notations up to two decimal places”. In Year 5, equivalence of fractions is not specifically addressed but students are expected to develop the capacity to “... order decimals and unit fractions and locate them on number lines. They add and subtract fractions with the same denominator”. The equivalence concept is expanded in Year 6, where students are expected to “connect fractions, decimals and percentages as different representations of the same number”, more specifically detailed in content descriptor ACMNA131Make connections between equivalent fractions, decimals and percentages”. Full mastery of equivalence of fractions is not expected until Year 8 (ACARA, 2017).

In the learning continuum encountered in diverse classrooms, it is critical to develop an understanding of the sequence of teaching and learning steps of mathematical concepts and establish prior understanding of conceptual knowledge and procedural skills in all students.

  1. Step One starts with diagnostic assessment to establish existing foundational knowledge of common fractions, notation conventions, the relation between fractions to whole numbers, including proper/improper fractions and mixed numbers. Explicit teaching and practice of terminology and revisiting previously learned concepts might be required to establish critical conceptual understanding without which any further learning would be only procedural and rely on rote learning.
  2. Step Two explores new concepts and terminology by making use of physical manipulatives and encouraging student discussion. One example would be having students folding paper rectangles that have been vertically subdivided into equal, partially-shaded parts lengthwise in two, three, four bars of equal thickness The shaded fraction remains the same while the total number of equal parts as outlined by the creases increases. Students count shaded and unshaded parts and discuss equivalence (Booker et al., 2015, p.184).
  3. Step Three elaborates and reinforces equivalence fractions through multiple representations working from the visual-concrete towards the symbolic-abstract. The activities help to develop procedural fluency, the accurate, efficient and flexible use of mathematical skills in renaming equivalent fractions (Petit et al., 2015). Fraction games, ideally focusing on equivalent fraction grouping, are employed using material (Booker et al., 2015) or online virtual resources (e.g. Math Playground Triplets). A “fractional clothesline” can be used to establish the magnitude of fractions, sort and locate equivalent fractions, improper fractions and mixed numbers (Heitschmidt, n.d.). This activity involves kinesthetic and visual learning, and can encourage verbal learning through student discussions. It also serves as a formative assessment tool. Number lines illustrate the big idea that equivalent fractions share the same value (Petit et al., 2015) and are highly recommended as a representation that can conceptually bridge whole-number and rational-number thinking (Booth & Newton, 2012; Gould, 2013).

Fraction clothesline example

  1. Step Four integrates the acquired procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge by looking for patterns and developing rules, progressing from concrete presentations towards symbolic presentations and abstract algorithms. The focus is on finding the next, rather than any equivalent fraction, making use of “fraction bars” as graphical representations. Fraction bars can be build using Lego blocks and extended by educational dynamic mathematics software (Cooper, 2014). Alternatively, an innovative lesson sequence works with stacks of papers of different thickness (Brousseau, Brousseau, & Warfield, 2014).

Example for Lego fraction bars that can be used to investigate equivalent fractions.

  1. Step Five extends the learned knowledge and understanding of equivalent fractions to real-world scenarios. This includes investigating the relationships between alternative representations of fractions (e.g. decimals, percentages) in wide variety of cross-curriculum contexts (e.g. Science, Economics and Business, Music). At this stage, a summative assessment of learning is important to evaluate the achieved mastery of the concept.

Conclusion

Quality teaching is based on proficient subject-matter and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers need to understand the full spectrum of individual challenges and potential barriers that students can face with cognitively challenging mathematical concepts such as rational-number thinking. It is important to invest the time to allow students to gain deep conceptual understanding before moving on towards procedural fluency. This will require well-sequenced teaching and learning steps, supported by multiple representations, modes and questions, working from physical and visual towards more symbolic and abstract problem-solving activities. Both hands-on manipulatives and appropriate use of ICT can support the learning process, especially at both ends of the ability spectrum. Offering variety and choice will help to engage all learners and establish students’ confidence and positive dispositions towards mathematics.

References

Continue reading

Teaching and learning Maths: learning sequence catering for diversity

This post is addressing the Year 6 content strand ‘measurement and geometry’, substrand ‘using units of measurement’ and content descriptor ACMMG137solve problems involving the comparison of lengths and areas using appropriate units” (ACARA, 2017), which were discussed in the previous posts on Maths unit and lesson planning process, rubric construction, multiple representation of mathematical concepts, and using Math apps. The achievement standards are mapped to the proficiency strands and include:

  • students are to understand and describe properties of surface area and length,
  • develop fluency in measuring using metric units,
  • solve authentic problems, and
  • be able to explain shape transformations

A short learning sequence of comparison of lengths and areas – major steps

Booker et al. detail the conceptual and procedural steps required to master length and area (2015). Applied toACMMG137, these include three major steps:

  1. Perceiving and identifying the attributes ‘area’ and ‘length’
  2. Comparing and ordering areas and lengths (non-standard units => standard units)
  3. Measuring areas and lengths (non-standard units => standard units), including covering surfaces without leaving gaps

This sequence is introduced using multiple representations, progressing from hands-on experiences with manipulatives towards abstract logical thinking and transformation tasks (see examples).

Activities to aid the learning sequence

The steps are mapped to a range activities that cater for diverse classrooms in alignment with the framework of Universal Design of Learning (UDL) (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001):

  • Students cut their own tangram puzzle (with or without template) and explore how small shapes can create larger shapes
  • Students order tangram shapes by area and perimeter and establish base units: smallest shape (small triangle) as area unit, side of small square and hypotenuse of small triangle as length units
  • Students colour tangram pieces and puzzle range of objects (with and without colour, line clues), exploring how larger geometric shapes can be covered by smaller and making statistical observations on the number of units within each shape and corresponding perimeter. Non-standard units are measured and used for calculations.

(The activities are detailed with examples in the post on multiple representations of mathematical concepts)

Adjustments for a child with learning difficulties

Student with very limited English knowledge (e.g. EAL/D beginning phase). ACARA provides detailed annotated content descriptors (ACARA, 2014). The language and cultural considerations are specifically addressed by keeping discussion relevant to the tasks, offering alternatives to ‘word problems’ in both activities and assessment (as highlighted in the rubric design). Teaching strategy considerations are followed by explicitly teaching the vocabulary, making explicit links between terminology, symbols and visual representations (e.g. by pausing explanatory movie and writing out and illustrating on the whiteboard using colours (e.g. area = blue, equal sides = green, hypotenuse = red, labelling the count of units). The EAL/D student is provided with opportunities to develop cognitive academic language proficiency through mixed-ability group work. All content knowledge can be demonstrated by the student using physical manipulatives, charts and algorithms.

Adjustments for a child with advanced abilities

Children with advanced abilities can only develop their potential if provisions are made to deliver a challenging, enriched and differentiated curriculum, and a supportive learning environment
(Gagné, 2015). Maker’s updated recommendations on the four dimensions of curriculum modifications (2005) are applied as follows:

  • Content – content is framed in an interdisciplinary way, using tangram that connects to Japanese culture and art
  • Process – design emphasises self-directed learning, choice, variety and discovery of underlying patterns by offering a range of tangram puzzle options at multiple levels of difficulty to be explored in abstract terms (i.e. sorting by ratio of area to perimeter)
  • Product – high-ability students are encouraged to work on expert puzzles and transform learned concept knowledge by designing their own tangrams with constraints (e.g. tangrams with identical perimeter, sequence reduced by one length unit, …) and present their products to the class
  • Environment -high-ability students are provided access to spreadsheet software (e.g. for statistical observations, to graph relationships between area and perimeter) and allowed time to work independently

References

Teaching and learning Maths: using Math apps

Benefits of apps to the Maths teaching and learning process

With the widespread introduction of mobile learning technology to Australian classrooms (i.e. iPads), an unprecedented development of educational software (apps) takes aim to complement traditional teaching. The potential benefits of apps need to be critically appraised for their pedagogical content, learning-area specific knowledge and technological requirements and ease of implementation (Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, & Petocz, 2016). The emerging research suggests that the use of iPads in primary school Mathematics classrooms has great potential to develop and maintain positive student attitudes (Hilton, 2016) and support self-paced learning. However, research also points out that individual apps can have both supportive and inhibitive consequences on students’ learning performance and efficiency, depending on the student, prior instruction and the phase in the learning and teaching cycle (Moyer-Packenham, 2016).

Examples of three Math apps

  1. Mathletics by 3P Learning Australia, Sydney. Mathletics is the most widely used app in Australian primary schools with comprehensive modules that complement for the K-12 Maths curriculum. (see more detail below)

Screenshot of Live Mathletics challenge

  1. Khan Academy, Mountain View, California.
    Khan Academy started out as a content provider of free educational movies and since evolved into student-centred learning app with a strong focus on Maths, with recent initiatives towards more international curriculum alignments (Khan Academy, 2017).

Khan Academy Maths opening page

  1. LÜK-App by Westermann Gruppe, Braunschweig, Germany.
    German curriculum-aligned quality app with a unique gamified approach towards learning, including all areas of Maths covered in primary schools (no German knowledge required)
LÜK app Maths task example

LÜK app Maths task example

Detailed description of Mathletics

Mathletics software is developed in Sydney since 2004 and is marketing itself by stating that Australian schools that use Mathletics are performing significantly better in NAPLAN tests, irrespective of their socio-economic and regional status (Stokes, 2015). While running as an app, Mathletics is more of a comprehensive cloud-based educational platform offering school and class management tools, individual student learning pathways, global online competitions, and professional teacher training courses. The author has been using this app with his daughter throughout F-Year 3 and is particularly impressed with the pedagogical quality that went into the sequential buildup of mathematical concepts, the comprehensive content and close alignment with the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2017), the quality of technological implementation and support. It is one of the few Math apps that combines declarative, procedural and conceptual knowledges (Larkin, 2015).

References

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). Home/ F-10 Curriculum/ Mathematics.
  • Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., & Petocz, P. (2016). Characterising the perceived value of mathematics educational apps in preservice teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 199-221.
  • Hilton, A. (2016). Engaging Primary School Students in Mathematics: Can iPads Make a Difference?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-21. DOI 10.1007/s10763-016-9771-5
  • Khan Academy. (2017). An uncommon approach to the Common Core.
  • Larkin, K. (2015). “An App! An App! My Kingdom for An App”: An 18-Month Quest to Determine Whether Apps Support Mathematical Knowledge Building. In Digital Games and Mathematics Learning (pp. 251-276). Springer Netherlands.
  • Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Bullock, E. K., Shumway, J. F., Tucker, S. I., Watts, C. M., Westenskow, A., … & Jordan, K. (2016). The role of affordances in children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathematics touch-screen apps. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 79-105.
  • Stokes, T. (2015). National Numeracy Study Mathletics and NAPLAN. 3P Learning Australia Pty Ltd.

Teaching and learning Maths: multiple representations of mathematical concepts

Multiple representations

The representation of mathematical concepts and objects plays an important discipline-specific role. Doing Maths relies on using representations for otherwise inaccessible mathematical objects. The concept of multiple representations (MR) has been introduced to teaching and learning of mathematics in the 1980’s (i.e. Janvier, 1987). Some primary school curricula (e.g. Germany) highlight MR as a key mathematical idea (Leitidee) (Walther, Heuvel-Panhuizen, Granzer, & Köller, 2012), while the Australian Curriculum (v8.2) includes specific references to some year-level proficiency standards (ACARA, 2016). This could reflect that different mathematical content domains apply particular kinds of representations (Dreher & Kuntze, 2015).

Benefits and difficulties

Research emphasises both the importance of MR to developing mathematical understanding and the difficulties that can be faced by learners (Ainsworth, 1999). Multiple representations can make all facets of mathematical objects visible. The ability to move between different representations is key to develop multi-faceted conceptual mathematical thinking and problem solving skills (Dreher & Kuntze, 2015). The difficulty with MR is that no single representation of a mathematical object is self-explanatory. Each representation requires understanding of how this representation is to be interpreted mathematically, and how it is connected to corresponding other representations of the object. These connections must be made explicit and require learning that engages higher cognitive levels. Interpreting individual representations, making connections between MR of corresponding mathematical objects, and changing between MR can present significant obstacle to learners (Ainsworth, 1999).

Sequencing the introduction of multiple representations

Booker, Bond, Sparrow & Swan (2015) highlight the importance of gradually sequencing the introduction of MR from the concrete to the abstract over time and identify the functions that MR can serve in developing mathematical understanding.

One such sequence is illustrated for content domain ‘geometry’ (compare ACMMG137) by applying the five ways of working (Battista, 2007).

Step 1: Visualisation of spatial arrangements – Students are provided with the following A4 template and are asked to cut out Tangram pieces along the blue lines and arrange them in one row by size.

A4 tangram template for students to cut out

Step 2: Development of verbal and written communication skills – Students are asked to discuss and describe their size order using explicitly taught concepts of ‘area’ and the small triangle as ‘1 unit’.

Tangram pieces sorted by size

Step 3: Symbolic representation through drawing and model making – Students are asked to colour their tangram pieces and puzzle the objects of projected image below (rotation, transformation)

Example colours for student tangrams

Step 4: Concrete and abstract logical thinking – Students are asked to create a column chart of the number of units (triangles) within each shape (colour). Students are allowed to cut one set of shapes into triangles (working in pairs).

Column chart depicting number of triangle units for each (coloured) tangram piece

Step 5: Application of geometrical concepts and knowledge – Students are asked to investigate how many different parallelograms they can form and the number of units required. Next, they measure and calculate the base unit and apply multiplication to calculate the areas.

Examples:

Smallest possible parallelogram consisting of 2 small triangle units

2 units, 2 x 8 cm2 = 16 cm2

Largest possible parallelogram consisting of 16 small triangle units

16 units, 16 x 8 cm2 = 128 cm2

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131-152.
  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). Home/ F-10 Curriculum/ Mathematics.
  • Booker, G., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2015). Teaching primary mathematics. Fifth edition. Pearson Higher Education AU.
  • Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In Lester, F.K.Jr. (Eds) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Volume 2. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 843-908.
  • Dreher, A., & Kuntze, S. (2015). Teachers’ professional knowledge and noticing: The case of multiple representations in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(1), 89-114.
  • Janvier, C. E. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche sur l’Apprentissage et le Développement en Education, Université du Quebec, Montréal. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Walther, G., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. V. D., Granzer, D., & Köller, O. (2012). Bildungsstandards für die Grundschule: Mathematik konkret. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen.

Teaching and learning Maths: constructing a rubric

Purpose of a rubric

A rubric is a tabular set of criteria for assessing student knowledge, performance or products, informing the teaching and learning practice. Each line details criteria that are being assessed, each column the expected or achieved quality of learning (depth of understanding, extent of knowledge and sophistication of skill) by the student.

Rubrics are an assessment and reporting tool used to make expectations explicit to students, identify areas that require practice, and for self-assessment purposes (State of Victoria, Department of Education and Training, 2013). Rubrics are used to report learning outcomes to students, parents and carers, and can guide them towards flipped-classroom activities to improve individual results.

Key points in constructing a rubric

Formal grade achievements follow the five letter ratings, where ‘C’ indicates that a student is performing at the standard expected of students in that year group (ACARA, 2012).

Descriptors can be adapted and simplified for formative assessment purposes. The teacher selects aspects that are being assessed (criteria) and describes how achievements will be measured. ‘SMART’ criteria (O’Neill, 2000) (‘S’ – specific, ‘M’ – measurable, ‘A’ – attainable and agreed, ‘R’ – relevant to curriculum, ‘T’ – time-bound which means year-level appropriate) and Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001) can guide this process. Rubrics need to be designed and written in a language accessible to students, parents and carers.

Setting SMART goals for your students

Example

This is an example for a 3-criteria, 3-descriptor rubric Year 6 lesson based on content descriptor ACMMG137 “solve problems involving the comparison of lengths and areas using appropriate units“. It is designed for formative teacher assessment, and to provide students with feedback on how they currently meet expectations and what differentiated homework tasks will help them to improve results.

 
excellent satisfactory practice more!
‘Area’ conceptual understanding

Excellent understanding, demonstrated in designing tangram shapes of equal area

Homework: Solve expert puzzles

You can define and explain ‘area’ but need more practice in applying your knowledge

Homework: Watch tangram movie and play more tangram

Your understanding of area needs more practice

Homework: Review area movie and tangram movie

‘Area’ problems with simple units

You are fluent in generalising any tangram puzzle in terms of parts and multiples of units

Homework: Design a tangram puzzle for the class to solve next lesson

You competently calculate basic areas as parts or multiples of tangram triangles. Practice applying this understanding to more creative tangram figures

Homework: Create figures 1, 3 and 4 and write down the number of small triangles required for each animal head

You can describe the shapes but need more practice to calculate how they relate to each other in terms of ‘area’

Homework: Complete worksheet by writing down the number of small triangles required for each shape

‘Area’ problems with metric units

You are fluent in reframing geometric shapes in ways that allow you to calculate their area

Homework: Work on area calculations for more complex shapes in this worksheet

You can calculate areas of simple geometric forms by describing them as parts or multiples of rectangles. Work towards extending your understanding to complex shapes

Homework: Complete area calculation worksheet

You can measure the sides of geometric shapes but need more practice calculating their related ‘areas’

Homework: Review area movie and calculate these areas of shapes

Structuring slides of associated lesson

References

Teaching and learning Maths: unit and lesson planning process

Purpose of mathematics planning

Unit and lesson planning are critical steps in the teaching and learning cycle among assessment, programming, implementation, evaluation and reflection. The objective of the planning process is to provide all students with appropriate learning experiences that meet the demands of the curriculum in terms of expected learning outcomes.

Major steps in the planning process

  1. Relate teaching and learning goals to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2016) relevant year-level descriptions, content and proficiency strands
  2. Check year-level achievement standards and illustrations of graded work sample portfolios to inform assessment criteria guiding planning process
  3. Develop challenging but achievable goals, considering the individual learning needs of all students based on diagnostic and formative assessments
  4. Design sequence of activities, instructional scaffolding and learning extensions that build on existing student knowledge following the ‘gradual release of responsibility’ model (Fisher & Frey, 2007)
  5. Evaluate achieved learning outcomes to inform subsequent lesson planning and to ensure that all students are on a trajectory to achieve best possible outcomes

Personal reflection on the process

The described back-mapping approach makes teaching and learning goals explicit and central to the planning process. By making learning intentions and expected outcomes explicit to the students at the beginning of each lesson and reviewing both at the end, students can develop a clear understanding of expectations and a reflective practice.

Planning is essential to deliver effective lessons that engage all students with appropriate learning activities. These can be informed by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001), as well as Gardner’s multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2006) to cater for the full spectrum of abilities with group work, targeted teacher aide support, differentiated homework and modifications to assessments.

Blooms taxonomy applied to Maths

Blooms taxonomy applied to teaching and learning Maths (Resource can be downloaded for free on Tes Global Ltd)

References

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). Home/ F-10 Curriculum/ Mathematics.
  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Scaffolded Writing Instruction: Teaching with a Gradual-Release
    Framework. Education Review//Reseñas Educativas.
  • Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. Basic books.
  • Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2016). P–10 Mathematics Australian Curriculum and resources.