A case study of a teacher's mathematics teaching practice:the analysis “students at the front” in lesson event

• Main Authors: Bo-Yuan Jen, 鄭博元
• Other Authors: 張淑怡教授
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/d4885w

碩士 === 國立臺北教育大學 === 數學暨資訊教育學系(含數學教育碩士班) === 98 === This study aims to explore the practice types and the problem solving practice sequences of a third grade primary mathematics class, where “students at the front” pattern was adopted by the teacher. The fundamental issue of this study is teacher’s mathematics teaching practice approaches. It is also considered that one approach may derive from different beliefs. Therefore “video taping in the classroom” and “video taping of after-class interview” are used to collect data. The source of the study analysis is based on eighteen working transcripts, which were transcribed and edited from the videotapes of six mathematics classes teaching. This study discovers that in order to “understand the students’ learning situation”, “prepare for the follow-up materials”, “adjust the speed of teaching rhythm”, and “gather students’ attention”, the teacher invited the students to come to the front to write answers, explain reasons, draw, receive and dispatch books, clean the blackboard. The teacher might also, depending on the situations, invite those students who usually write correct answers or incorrect answers to write at the front In addition, the teacher applied “student at the front” to implement mathematics problem solving practice sequences with the results as the follows: 1. After student A wrote at the front, the teacher had the whole class find the mistakes by giving hints. The other students corrected the mistakes consequently. 2. The teacher encouraged the students to try to explain a new concept as much as possible. 3. If a student could not explain very explicitly, then came to the front to draw. If he/she couldn’t not draw very well, the teacher helped. 4. The low-level students came first. The high-level students came later. 5. The teacher invited those who probably knew the correct answers to came at front in turns. 6. The teacher continuously hinted those students who had obvious mistakes and waited for them to make corrections. 7. The teacher stopped the laughs at those who wrote wrong answers. 8. The teacher hinted if the drawing could not be completed. Other students substituted if the mark was not clear. 9. The teacher directly spoke out the answers if the break time bell rang. 10. If there was not enough time, the teacher invited high-level students to answer the questions and then explained. According to the content of the sequences, five roles of students are found: “sacrifices of wrong answers”, “pure answer presenters”, “reasons explainers”, “supplement explainers” and “self-correctors”. As to the teacher, three kinds of roles are divided: “a mistake shower and reminder”, “a summary interpreter and” and “an active hinter.”