Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
Roselainy Binti Abdul Rahman a, J.H. Mason b, Yudariah Binti Mohamad Yusof c
a
Business and Advanced Technology Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, International Campus, Kuala
Lumpur
b
Open University, UK.
c
Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bharu Campus
Abstract
I will be discussing a model that describes factors that would influence a teaching and learning situation. The
model was based on one that was presented by Norman and Prichard (1994) which identified three major
components of the teaching and learning situation, which were, Entry Mastery, Student Motivation and
Opportunity to Learn. However, Norman and Prichard were primarily concerned with the Entry Mastery
category as they believed that this is where many cognitive obstacles originated. I have used the model to
focus on the other two components: Opportunity to Learn and Students’ Motivation in the teaching of
Engineering Mathematics to Engineering undergraduates at UTM. Changes were made to my teaching practice
in an attempt to support my engineering undergraduate students’ learning that would inculcate independence
and better problem solving skills. The nature of the changes in my teaching was to provide suitably designed
educational opportunities for students to use their mathematical thinking powers and communicate their
mathematical knowledge, and record how these activities supported changes in students’ attitudes towards
learning mathematics. I had no influence in changing the Entry Mastery component but gathered data through
various tools to identify the students’ mastery of their prior mathematical knowledge. The data I have collected
through research carried out over a number of years, has added depth to the model and will present naturalistic
data of the interaction between lecturer and students in the classroom, out of it and how these interactions
could influence students’ motivation which in turn, could influence students’ attitudes towards learning. In the
discussion, I will first briefly identify the factors that shaped and affected my teaching practice, present an
analysis of factors affecting students’ learning and will propose some additional elements to the categories of
Opportunity to Learn and Students’ Motivation in the model.
1
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
We have seen our students struggling with new changes to the curriculum which were modified
concepts in Advanced Calculus, unable to recall the accordingly.
necessary prior knowledge and unsure of how to
Ongoing analysis of the data collected had
choose suitable mathematical techniques to solve
contributed to changes made to teaching materials
problems. They worked on many problems to
and tasks during the various phases, however the
increase their understanding but still found non-
basic ideas were kept intact but the tasks and
routine questions difficult. We have conducted
delivery was modified and adapted. Some particular
many remedial classes and given extra tuition to
examples, was the use of worksheets which then
‘weak’ students and have come to realize that one
became a workbook. When ‘rapport’ was identified
of the most typical problem was that these students
as a significant factor by students, some personal
could not ‘see’ the ‘generality’ nor ‘see’ the
connection and negotiation helped to support some
‘particular’ in the general. They could not recognise
of the students’ efforts at making changes in the
essential features of a technique especially when
way they worked with the mathematics.
presented in different forms.
A particular mathematical pedagogy was
We strongly felt that a most effective way to
developed and implemented to achieve those
help is to empower students with skills to learn and
objectives with changes in teaching practice to
think about the mathematics. Thus, the purpose of
support students’ to become more aware of their
the research was to bring about improvements to
own ability in mathematical learning (Roselainy,
the teaching of Engineering Mathematics that will
2009). In order to appreciate the motivation of the
develop students facility with mathematical
change, several issues culled from research about
concepts and techniques. The research method was
students’ learning of mathematics will be presented.
chosen so that the study was in a natural setting.
Information from that every encounter with our
3. Review of Research on Students’
students, within and beyond the classroom, was
Learning
noted and used in the reflection about teaching, in
the review of the strategies and consequently, in the
Findings on students learning and difficulties
way the we teach and interact with the students.
are widely documented. Of significant interest is
the finding that students had difficulties in the
Views from our peers were actively sought,
learning of specific mathematical concepts. Among
within the Department of Mathematics as well as
these were some concepts that were basic to
from the various Faculties of Engineering to add
Engineering Mathematics such as functions, the
variety to perceptions of students learning and
limiting process and the ability to use various
development. The findings to be reported here will
representations of functions, numerically,
touch on the various factors that affect students
symbolically and graphically (Bennet, 1977;
learning. The research covered was carried out in
Eisenberg, 1991; Md. Nor Bakar, 1991; Tall, 1996,
various semesters from the academic sessions
Artigue, 1991, Maselan Ali, 1996). In terms of
2001/2002 to 2007/2008.
students’ facility with algebraic manipulation and
problem solving, Tall & Razali (1993) have
2. Description of the Students
identified possible qualitative differences between
the able and less able students in mathematics. The
The students were generally made up of two
more able students could flexibly manipulated
main categories, those who had entered UTM
concepts as objects or processes but the less able
before July 2002 and those who came after. Two
had a tendency to concentrate on coordinating
main differences between the categories were their
processes. Thus, they preferred routine processes
entrance qualifications and medium of
but were less likely to be able to relate ideas in a
communication. Pre-July 2002 students had the
meaningful way. They also faced difficulties in
Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM, Malaysian
organizing known facts and could not master the
Certificate of Education) which are equivalent to
mathematical language and symbols. Furthermore,
the GCE O-Level qualifications as an entry
their main strategy in answering questions was to
qualification. They were also taught in Bahasa
accumulate procedures and they showed a tendency
Malaysia (Malay Language), the official medium of
to over generalize the use of certain mathematical
communication of UTM. Meanwhile, post-July
procedures. Some students were unable to select
students had post-SPM qualifications such as
and use appropriate mathematical representations,
Matriculation qualifications, Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran
such as, visual, numerical, symbolic, algebraic and
Malaysia (STPM, Higher School Certificate of
analytical. Another finding to be considered was
Education), Diplomas from local colleges or other
that many students, even the good ones, were
qualifications recognised as of similar standing.
unable to solve non-routine problems (Selden,
These qualifications are equivalent to the GCE A-
Mason & Selden, 1994).
Levels. The other significant change was that
English Language became the medium of
communication. These changes also brought about
2
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
Teaching and learning methods that promoted Gray et al (2001) discussed the differences on
understanding were effectively undermined by the the construction of mathematical knowledge in
students' beliefs that mathematics was best learned elementary and advanced mathematics; the
by rote and exercises. On the other hand, students different emphases as well as the different manner
who felt that mathematics was useful and would in which knowledge was presented. Thus, it has
bring much benefit were more likely to persevere, been suggested that the confusion and
put in more effort and were more motivated in their inconsistency in mathematical learning seen
studies (Schoenfeld, 1989; Anthony, 2000). Such amongst first year students can be attributed to the
positive attitudes would also help to improve their above reasons and that these could become
ability to learn (Tall & Razali, 1993, Mohd. Yusof significant barriers to advanced mathematical
& Tall, 1996). Successful students believed that thinking. The first encounter in the move from
hard work was the key to success whereas students elementary to more advanced mathematical
with poorer achievements believed that it was their thinking through the different mathematical topics
inability that contributed to their failure. Schoenfeld has been described as the transition phase. For
(1989) had also identified a strong correlation example, the move into calculus involves the idea
between students' positive self-concept and success of approximation, which is different from the
related behaviours, such as persistence and efforts, concept of equality previously learnt. In advanced
to their achievements. There was a strong algebra, concepts such as vector product violates
indication that motivation was also correlated to the commutative law of multiplication and the idea
success. The better student was less likely to of four or more dimensions, break the visual link
believe that mathematics was mostly memorizing between equation and geometry. This transition
and problems were always solved in step-by-step would require students to engage in a cognitive
procedures. They were also more likely to find reconstruction. This can been seen from their initial
mathematics interesting and perceived themselves struggle to understand the concepts being taught.
as working harder in mathematics than most other Indeed, the move from elementary to advance
students. The weaker students believed that mathematical thinking as described by Tall (1995),
success was attributed to luck or inherent ability “involves a significant transition, in particular,
and that their failure was mainly due to their fault. from describing to defining, from convincing to
In addition, conclusions from research (Tall & proving in a logical manner based on definitions. It
Razali, 1993; Mohd. Yusof, 1995, Anthony, 2000) is the transition from the coherence of elementary
indicated that positive attitudes and good study mathematics to the consequence of advanced
skills could improve students' learning. There were mathematics, based on abstract entities which the
suggestions that changes to the learning
3
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
students must construct through deductions from These frameworks were used in developing the
formal definitions”. implemented teaching strategies, in turning ideas
into classroom tasks and activities.
Was it possible to identify strategies to support
students to to adopt more successful ways of 4. A Model of Teaching and Learning
learning and thinking about mathematics? Mason,
The basic model was first introduced by
Burton & Stacey (1982) described mathematical
Cocking and Chipman (1988) who attempted to
thinking as a way to improve understanding and
identify linguistic and cultural variable to explain
extending control over the study of mathematics. In
the poorer performance of language minority
particular, three aspects, namely, the operations,
students in mathematics when compared to students
processes and dynamics of mathematical thinking
who spoke English as a primary language. They
was discussed. Certain operations were identified
proposed a model that categorises the factors that
as mathematical such as enumeration, iteration,
influences mathematical learning at school
ordering, making correspondence, forming
expanded along the lines of Input to the children
equivalence classes, combining or substituting one
and Output or Mastery which is child performance.
from another to transform into a new state. These
The input consists of (1) Entry Mastery – the
operations were independent of content area but
cognitive ability patterns in terms of mathematical
very necessary for understanding and using
concepts, language skills, reading and learning
mathematical ideas. Four processes were identified
ability, (2) Educational Opportunity – the teaching:
as central to mathematical thinking, specialising,
time on task, quality of instruction, appropriate
conjecturing, generalising and convincing.
language and parental or other assistance and (3)
Specialising is the exploration of meaning by
Motivation to Engage – cultural/parental values,
looking at particular cases to make clear some
expectation of awards, and motivational nature of
common properties. Conjecturing should naturally
instructional interaction. The output consists of
follow as a student search for relationships that
Mastery evaluation looking at students’
connects the examples and tries to express and
achievement and performance.
substantiate any underlying patterns. Generalisation
was the ability to recognize those patterns or However, the model was also used by Norman
regularity and making an attempt in expressing it and Prichard (1994) in their study of cognitive
mathematically. Convincing oneself and then obstacles in the learning of Calculus. In their
another about the conjecture of the generalization project, they were primarily concerned with the
that has been made encourages students to examine Entry Mastery category as they said that this is
their ideas and explicitly communicate it first to where many cognitive obstacles originate. The
themselves and then to others. In a book about Input part of the model is given below:
developing strategies and skills to enhance
problem-solving powers, Mason (1988 & 1999)
Language
showed how learning mathematics involved
Mathematics
adopting a particular perspective of maximal
involvement which he summarised as “learning is
by doing”. Entry Mastery
4
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
the learning opportunities provided as well as included as an important base for advanced
respond to any overtures made by the lecturer for mathematical thinking.
personal connection or support. Or, they can choose
to ignore or limit their participation.
6
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
between the students and the lecturer were manner of study or the way they work on the
important in giving some room to negotiate or mathematics. We will always bring back their
mediate with them to at least try to participate attention to the mathematics being taught. We
during the lessons as well as encourage them to needed to get them through the subject. Good
share what their problems or difficulties with the students who were already coping very well and did
mathematics were. Not all the students were like not want to participate in exploring their thinking
this, some were more responsive and decided to powers, were coaxed to try out some of the tasks or
participate in the lessons by themselves and they perhaps try to verbalise their understanding so that
were a small number that did not appreciate the they could increase their own awareness of their
teaching changes although they went through the own skills. Students who always needed answers at
lessons without too many complaints. the back of the book were persuaded that they could
look at the working and discuss with their peers to
In terms of measuring change, students who
try to make judgements whether they thought their
had come to appreciate that they had powers to use
answers were reasonably right. In the case of Lily, a
were considered as those who had changed their
student who had a bevy of personal problems as
attitudes. The measures that were used to evaluate
well as problems with the mathematics, we
change was mainly based on students’ own
persuaded her to spend more time revising and
reflections, their responses in questionnaires and
reviewing the mathematics with me so that she
the way they worked on mathematical tasks. We
could pass her course. We also had made some
have not as yet undertake any study to ascertain
arrangements for her to get professional
whether the changes were permanent or was carried
counselling. Thus, we used the students’ own
forward to other subjects.
concerns and their motivation to ‘negotiate and
mediate’ for more mathematics learning in the
5.4 Obstacles to Students Changing environment that was initiated, sustained and
established.
The main obstacle to change was obviously the
nature of motivation itself. As mentioned above, 6 Intensification of the Input Model
motivation was in the students’ domain of
influence. They decided what they would like to do,
Data from the research has added more
felt or believed in. Much of the data showed that
information about the details in each of the
there was a mismatch of objectives between what
categories of the Input Model. The following will
the lecturer wanted or believed in and what they
present some the suggestions to strengthen the
wanted or believed in. For instance, we believed
model.
that understanding mathematical processes and
developing thinking skills were important. Students
6.1 Entry Mastery
believed that ‘drill and practise’ was enough for
them to get through the course. All they needed was
At tertiary level, prior knowledge was an
to do a lot of problems so that they could answer
important base but it is not necessarily a fixed
the tests and examinations papers. We were
commodity. Students are able and can increase their
thinking of the skills that they might need as
mastery through self learning or during the learning
engineers, professional traits such as critical
sessions at university. As each new topic has to
thinking, problem solving skills and the ability to
depend on earlier knowledge, some revision will be
work in a team. They only wanted to get through
required and soetimes carried out in class.
the course, and if they had to work in groups then
However, if there exist a significant misconception
they would work in groups. Some wanted
then some counteractive means must be put in place
‘formulas’ for solving problems and we quote
to help students overcome this particular difficulty.
Midah’s request, ‘give a question, show the method,
the formula. This question, this is the technique.
6.2 Student Motivation
This will help me remember the technique’. Others
had personal problems that hindered their progress
in class and needed some personal support to help Students motivation is within a private domain
them face these issues. Some students were quite and shaped by various factors. A lecturer can only
good but believed that they were not good enough. react to demonstrated behaviour or information
They set their own standards and against that, they shared by students. However, students can reshape
labelled themselves, ‘average’ or ‘slightly above and modify their views, values and expectations.
average’. Through conversations, they were afraid Generally, students who decide to come to
to say ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ just in case they could university are highly motivated but might have
not sustain their performance in the future. some difficulties with certain personalities amongst
lecturers, non-academic staff or colleagues. They
Throughout our interactions with the different
might have some difficulties with some subjects or
kinds of students, we had used their trust and their
a transient difficulty in coming to terms with a new
feelings of rapport to negotiate changes in their
environment and knowledge. Success in the
7
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
mathematics class in the sense of knowing what attention to the mathematics being taught. We
they were doing was sometimes enough to needed to get them through the subject. Good
rejuvenate their interest and increase their students who were already coping very well and did
participation. Concern for their academic and not want to participate in exploring their thinking
personal wellbeing was also important in getting powers, were coaxed to try out some of the tasks or
students’ trust. Thus, support and facilitating perhaps try to verbalise their understanding so that
learning were important aspects to persuade they could increase their own awareness of their
students to participate in the lessons. own skills. Students who always needed answers at
the back of the book were persuaded that they could
look at the working and discuss with their peers to
try to make judgements whether they thought their
In terms of measuring change, students who
answers were reasonably right. In the case of Lily, a
had come to appreciate that they had powers to use
student who had a bevy of personal problems as
were considered as those who had changed their well as problems with the mathematics, we
attitudes. The evaluation was based on students’ persuaded her to spend more time revising and
own reflections, their responses in questionnaires
reviewing the mathematics with me so that she
and the way they worked on mathematical tasks.
could pass her course. We also had made some
We have not as yet undertake any study to ascertain
arrangements for her to get professional
whether the changes were permanent or was carried
counselling. Thus, we used the students’ own
forward to other subjects. concerns and their motivation to ‘negotiate and
mediate’ for more mathematics learning in the
6.4 Obstacles to Students Changing environment that was initiated, sustained and
established.
The main obstacle to change was obviously the
nature of motivation itself. As mentioned above, 6.5 Educational opportunities
motivation was in the students’ domain of
influence. They decided what they would like to do, We had endeavoured to create learning
felt or believed in. Much of the data showed that sessions where students could engage with the
there was a mismatch of objectives between what mathematics,whilst developing an awareness of
the lecturer wanted or believed in and what they their own sense-making of the concepts and
wanted or believed in. For instance, we believed techniques. The teaching also included activities
that understanding mathematical processes and that required students to relate and work with their
developing thinking skills were important. Students peers and communicate their ideas especially in
believed that ‘drill and practise’ was enough for verbal form. We found that you could design any
them to get through the course. All they needed was task but it can only contribute to meaningful
to do a lot of problems so that they could answer learning if the students participate. Students
the tests and examinations papers. We were participation is within their domain of influence,
thinking of the skills that they might need as based on their attitudes and values. Thus an
engineers, professional traits such as critical environment of learning where there is mutual
thinking, problem solving skills and the ability to respect and some form of relationship became an
work in a team. They only wanted to get through important impetus for better students participation
the course, and if they had to work in groups then and willingness to share their views about their
they would work in groups. Some wanted learning and other personal information that could
‘formulas’ for solving problems and we quote be important for the lecturers to know. Thus, in
Midah’s request, ‘give a question, show the method, creating educational opportunities to learn, the
the formula. This question, this is the technique. lecturers plays various roles; teacher, facilitator,
This will help me remember the technique’. Others mediator as well as lay counselor. For the students,
had personal problems that hindered their progress rapport and trust were important to encourage
in class and needed some personal support to help participation and communication.
them face these issues. Some students were quite The summary of our findings is visualised in a
good but believed that they were not good enough. modified version of the Input Model as shown in
They set their own standards and against that, they Figure 2, which shows influences of lecturers’
labelled themselves, ‘average’ or ‘slightly above actions to the students’ motivation.
average’. Through conversations, they were afraid
to say ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ just in case they could
not sustain their performance in the future.
Throughout our interactions with the different
kinds of students, we had used their trust and their
feelings of rapport to negotiate changes in their
manner of study or the way they work on the
mathematics. We will always bring back their
8
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
9
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
Dubinsky, E. (eds.) Research Issues in 30. Watson, A. & Mason, J., Questions and
Undergraduate Mathematics Learning. Prompts for Mathematical Thinking. ATM,
Preliminary Analyses and Results, MAA Derby, 1998.
Notes No 33, MAA, 1994.
18. Roselainy A. Rahman, Yudariah Mohd. Yusof
& Mason, J. H., Invoking Students’
Mathematical Thinking in the Classroom: The
Teaching of Differentiation. Prosiding
Persidangan Kebangsaan Pendidikan
Matematik 2002, Kuala Lumpur, 2002(a),
287-291.
19. Roselainy Abd. Rahman, Mohd Rashidi, Md
Nor, Yudariah, Ali Hassan, Maslan, Ong
Chee Tiong & John H. Mason, Students’
Appreciation of Generality: What is general
about a general technique? Proceedings Tenth
National Symposium of Mathematical
Sciences, Johor Bahru, 23-24 December,
2002(b), 563 – 567,
20. Roselainy Abdul Rahman, Changing My Own
and My Students Attitudes Towards Calculus
Through Workin on Mathematical Thinking,
Unpublished PhD Thesis, Open University,
UK, 2009.
21. Schoenfeld, A. H., Mathematical Problem
Solving, Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, 1985.
22. Schoenfeld, A. H., Explorations of Students'
Mathematical Beliefs and Behavior, Jnl. For
Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 20,
No. 4, 1989, 38-355.
23. Selden, J., Mason, A., & Selden, A., Even
Good Calculus Students Can't Solve Non-
routine Problems. In Kaput, J. and Dubinsky,
E. (eds), Research Issues in Undergraduate
Mathematics Learning, MAA, 3, 1994, 19-26.
24. Skemp, R., The Psychology of Learning
Mathematics.Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, 1987.
25. Tall, D., The Psychology of Mathematical
Thinking. In Tall, D. (ed.), Advanced
Mathematical Thinking, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991.
26. Tall, D., Cognitive Growth in Elementary and
Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Plenary
Lecture, Conf. of International Group of
PME, Recife, brazil, Vol. 1, 1995, 161-175.
27. Tall, D., Functions and Calculus. In Bishop,
A.J, Clements, K, Keitel, C, Kilpatrick, J &
Laborde, C. (eds), International Handbook of
Mathematics Education, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996, 289-325.
28. Tall, D. O. & Vinner, S., Concept Image and
Concept Definition in Mathematics with
Particular Reference to Limits and Continuity,
Educational studies in Mathematics, 12 (2),
1981, 151-169.
29. Tall, D. & Razali, M. R., Diagnosing
Students' difficulties in Learning
Mathematics, Int Jnl of Math Edn in Sc &
Tech, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1993, 209-222.
10
RCEE & RHEd2010
Kuching,Sarawak
7 – 9 June 2010
11