International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden
APA
In-text citation: (Samuelsson, 2010)
Reference: Samuelsson, J. (2010). The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Samuelsson J. The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2010;5(2), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250
Chicago
In-text citation: (Samuelsson, 2010)
Reference: Samuelsson, Joakim. "The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2010 5 no. 2 (2010): 61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250
Harvard
In-text citation: (Samuelsson, 2010)
Reference: Samuelsson, J. (2010). The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), pp. 61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250
MLA
In-text citation: (Samuelsson, 2010)
Reference: Samuelsson, Joakim "The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 5, no. 2, 2010, pp. 61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Samuelsson J. The Impact of Teaching Approaches on Students’ Mathematical Proficiency in Sweden. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2010;5(2):61-78. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/250

Abstract

The present study examines the effect of two differently structured methods, traditional and problem-solving, of teaching children mathematics the first five years in school as well as differences between boys’ and girls’ achievement depending on teaching approaches. The progress made by these students is presented by the five component measures of their mathematical proficiency; productive disposition, conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence and adaptive reasoning. The tests (test in pre-school and national test in school year five) employed in this study were developed by an expert group contracted by the National Council of Education in Sweden. Differences between School A and School B, and boys and girls, on mathematical skills at 11 years of age were examined using t-tests for independent samples. The t-test was performed on raw scores across the entire sample. The results show that there are no significant differences between teaching methods when assessing procedural fluency. Students’ progress in conceptual understanding, strategic competence and adaptive reasoning is significantly better when teachers teach with a problem-based curriculum. In order to develop aspects of self-efficacy, the results show that pupils would better benefit from a traditional curriculum. Boys and girls who have been taught with similar methods perform equivalent in both the traditional and the problem solving group.

References

  • Abdi, H (2007). Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics (pp. 1-8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Aitkin, M., & Zukovsky, R. (1994). Multilevel interaction models and their use in analysis of large-scale school effectiveness studies. School and School Improvement, 5(1), 45-73.
  • Bandura, A. (2000). Social cognitive theory. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 234-276). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Becker, J. P., & Selter, C. (1996). Elementary school practices. In A. J. Bishop et al. (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 511-564). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Boaler, J. (1997). Reclaiming school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting. Gender and Education, 9(3), 285-306. doi: 10.1080/09540259721268
  • Boaler, J. (1999). Participation, knowledge, and beliefs: A community perspective on mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3), 259-281.
  • Boaler, J. (2002). The development of disciplinary relationships: Knowledge, practice, and identity in mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(1), 42-47.
  • Borich, G. (1996). Effective teaching methods (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  • Brophy, J. (1986). Teaching and learning mathematics: where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(5), 232-346.
  • Brophy, J., & Good T. L. (1986). Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 157-175). New York: MacMillan.
  • Burton, L. (1995). Moving towards a feminist epistemology of mathematics. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.). Equity in Mathematics Education: Influences of Feminism and Culture (pp. 209-225). London: The Falmer Press.
  • Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. In D. R. Olsson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling (pp. 75-99). London: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1997). A longitudinal study of beginning reading achievement and reading self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 279-291.
  • Clark, D. M. (1997). The changing role of the mathematics teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 278-308.
  • Cobb, P. (1998) Analyzing the mathematical learning of classroom community: The case of statistical data analysis. In Olivier, A. & Newstead, K. (Eds.) Proceedings of 22nd Conference of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp.1, 33-48). South Africa: The University of Stellenbosch.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (Second ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cooney, T. J. (1994). Research and teacher education: In search of common ground. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 608-636.
  • Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: The Falmer Press.
  • Ernest, P. (1998). Social constructivism as a philosophy of mathematics. Albany: State University of New. York Press.
  • Evertsson, C. M., Andersson, C. W., Andersson, L. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviours and student outcomes in junior high mathematics and English classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 43-60.
  • Francis, B. (2000). Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London: Routledge Falmer.
  • Goods, M., & Gailbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 229-260. doi: 10.1007/BF00304567
  • Granström, K. (2006). Group phenomena and classroom management. A Swedish perspective. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook for Classroom Management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp. 1141-1160). New York: Erlbaum.
  • Griffin, G. A., & Barnes, S. (1986). Using research findings to change school and classroom practice: Results of an experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 71-94.
  • Hyde, J. S., Fenneman, E., H., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Sex differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139-155.
  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
  • Lampert, M. (1988). What can research on teacher education tell us about improving quality in mathematics education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 157-170. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(88)90015-7
  • Leiken, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Facilitating student interaction in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28 (3), 331-254.
  • Magnusson, D. (2007). Testteori. Stockholm: Psykologiförlaget AB.
  • Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of selfhandicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 389-411. doi: 10.1177/0272431695015004001
  • Mortimer, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: The junior years. Wells, Somerset: Open Books.
  • National Agency of Education. (2009). National test in mathematics in grade 5. Stockholm: National Agency of Education.
  • OfSTED. (1996). Succesful teaching of literacy and numeracy in primary schools: A starting point: For the 1996 GEST proposals. London: OfSTED. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/AnnualReport/1996-97
  • Onatsu-Arvillomi, T. P., & Nurmi, J-E. (2002). The development of achievement strategies and academic skills during the first year of primary school. Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 509-527.
  • Oppendekker, M-C. and Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher Characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008
  • Reynolds, D., & Muijs, D. (1999). The effective teaching of mathematics: A review of research. School Leadership & Management, 19, 273-288. doi: 10.1080/13632439969032
  • Ridley, D. R., & Novak, J. D. (1983). Sex related differences in high school science and mathematics enrolments: Do they give males a critical headstart toward science- and math-related careers? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29(4), 308-318.
  • Rodd, M. & Bartholomew, H. (2006). Invisible and special: Young women’s experiences as undergraduate mathematics students. Gender and Education, 18(1), 35-50. doi: 10.1080/09540250500195093
  • Rogers, P. (1995). Putting theory into practice. In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser (Eds.), Equity in Mathematics Education: Influences of Feminism and Culture (pp.187-209). London: The Falmer Press.
  • Samuelsson, J. (2008). The impact of different teaching methods on students’ arithmetic and self-regulated learning skill. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(3), 237-250. doi: 10.1080/02667360802256790
  • Scott-Hodgetts, R. (1986). Girls and mathematics: The negative implications of success. In L. Burton (Ed.), Girls into Maths Can Go (pp. 61-76). London: Rinehart & Winstone.
  • Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language and achievement in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 225-256). New York: MacMillan.
  • Suchman, L. (1997). Centres of coordination. In L. Resnick, R, Säljö, C, Pontecorvo & B, Burge (Eds.), Discourse, Tools and Reasoning – Essays on Situated Cognition (pp. 336- 354). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). International handbook of school effectiveness. London, UK: Falmer.
  • Terlwilliger, J. S., Titus, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in attitudes and attitude changes among mathematically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 29-35. doi: 10.1177/001698629503900105
  • Tobias, S. (1987). Succeed with math. The College Board Publication. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/store_help.html
  • Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. doi: 10.1111/1467- 8624.00406
  • Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1619-1628.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.