EXPLORING THE EXPLANATION OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHER IN MATHEMATICS TEACHING PRACTICE

Wasilatul Murtafiah, Moh. Zayyadi, Abdur Rahman Asari, Cholis Sadijah, Tjang Daniel Candra, Susiswo Susiswo

Abstract


This study aims to describe the types of explanations made by pre-service teachers in mathematics learning. In this research, the types of explanations are used to describe the explanatory trends used by pre-service teachers in mathematics teaching. The descriptive qualitative research was chosen in this research. The research subjects are pre-service teacher as the students of Mathematics Education of PGRI Madiun University and Madura University who are studying Field Experience Practice. Of the 105 mathematics student, five students with a cumulative grade achievement of more than 3.50 were observed during the teaching practice at the school for approximately five meetings. The research data was obtained from observation, video recording, and interview. Data analysis was done through data condensation, data presentation, and conclusion/verification focused on pre-service teacher explanation on mathematics learning activity. The research findings indicate that the explanation used by the pre-service teacher in the mathematics learning starting from the most frequently used is the descriptive explanation (51,7%), giving of reason (36,2%) and interpretative (12,1%). Descriptive explanations are used to describe mathematical procedures. The type of reason-giving explanation is used to explain reasons based on mathematical principles. While the interpretative explanation is used to explain the concepts and facts of mathematics.


Keywords


Explanation; Pre-service Teacher; Mathematics Teaching.

References


Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Bardini, C., Pierce, R., Vincent, J., & King, D. (2014). Undergraduate mathematics students’ understanding of the concept of function. Journal on Mathematics Education, 5(2), 85–107.

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157

Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to Teach Hard Mathematics: Do Novice Teachers and Their Instructiors Give up Too Easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194–222.

Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Research (Vol. 4). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing Students’ Helping Behavior during Peer-Mediated Instruction with Conceptual Mathematical Explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97(3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1086/461863

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The Conditioning of Learning and Theory of Instruction 4th Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hargie, O. (2006). The Handbook of Communication Skills. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20185-6

Isoda, M., & Katagiri, S. (2012). Mathematical Thinking. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35(4), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9008-z

Kunter, M., Kleickmann, T., Klusmann, U., & Richter, D. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. In Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers: Results from the COACTIV Project (pp. 1–378). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5

Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nückles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher? Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional Science, 44(3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9376-y

Lachner, A., & Nückles, M. (2016). Tell me why! Content knowledge predicts process-orientation of math researchers’ and math teachers’ explanations. Instructional Science, 44(3), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9365-6

Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowlege in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18–25.

Levenson, E., Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2010). Mathematically based and practically based explanations in the elementary school: Teachers’ preferences. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(4), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9142-z

Li, Y., & Smith, D. (2007). Prospective Middle Teachers’ Knowledge in Mathematics and Pedagogy for Teaching-The case of Fraction Division. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 185–192).

Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. European Journal of Science Education (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528790010406

Mohr-Schroeder, M., Ronau, R. N., Peters, S., Lee, C. W., & Bush, W. S. (2017). Predicting student achievement using measures of teachers’ knowledge for teaching geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(5), 520–566.

Odora, R. J. (2014). Using Explanation as a Teaching Method : How Prepared Are High School Technology Teachers in Free State Province , South Africa ? Journal of Social Science, 38(1), 71–81.

Perry, M. (2000). Explanations of Mathematical Concepts in Japanese, Chinese, and U.S. First- and Fifth-Grade Classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802

Raman, M. (2002). Coordinating informal and formal aspects of mathematics: Student behavior and textbook messages. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00119-0

Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the Conceptual Structure of Mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667065

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When Good Teaching Leads to Bad Results: The Disasters of “Well-Taught” Mathematics Courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.

Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers and Education, 46(4), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011

Stacey, K. (2009). What Is Mathematical Thinking and Why Is It Important?, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/apec2007/paper_pdf/Kaye Stacey.pdf

Szydlik, J. E. (2000). Mathematical Beliefs and Conceptual Understanding of The Limit of A Function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/749807

Tsamir, P., & Sheffer, R. (2000). Concrete and formal arguments: The case of division by zero. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217078

Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420

Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1999). The interactive constitution of mathematical meaning in one second grade classroom: An illustrative example. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00003-6




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.9.2.5388.%25p

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



Journal on Mathematics Education
Program S3 Pendidikan Matematika FKIP Universitas Sriwijaya
Kampus FKIP Bukit Besar
Jl. Srijaya Negara, Bukit Besar
Palembang - 30139
email: rully.jme@gmail.com

p-ISSN: 2087-8885 | e-ISSN: 2407-0610
Journal on Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

View My Stats

Indexed in: