Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The development and application of an interview structure on determining preservice mathematics teachers’ competence in proportional reasoning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determining preservice teachers’ competence in proportional reasoning is a very complex task, and existing research methods do not provide effective tools in doing that. This study describes an interview structure and application of it in determining preservice teachers’ competence in proportional reasoning. The interview structure consists of in-depth questioning and cognitive conflicts and is situated in the knowledge-in-pieces epistemological perspective. The preservice teachers’ competence in proportional reasoning was determined by examining the knowledge resources that they drew upon when reasoning about proportional and nonproportional situations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six preservice teachers to demonstrate the effectiveness of the interview structure. The case analysis indicated the preservice teachers’ attention to the various fine-grained knowledge resources. However, they mostly drew upon the qualitative relationships, cross-multiplication, and across-multiplication. The preservice teachers’ over-attention to these three knowledge resources hindered their ability to distinguish proportional relationships from nonproportional relationships. Furthermore, the productivity of knowledge resources was easily influenced by the relationships presented in problems and participants’ past learning experiences. Implications of the application of the interview structure in teacher education programs and further research suggestions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

This study did not involve software applications.

References

  • Atabas, S., & Oner, D. (2017). An examination of Turkish middle school students’ proportional reasoning. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 33(1), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). F-10 curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/mathematics

  • Arican, M. (2018). Preservice middle and high school mathematics teachers’ strategies when solving proportion problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,16(2), 315–335.

  • Arican, M. (2019). Preservice mathematics teachers’ understanding of and abilities to differentiate proportional relationships from nonproportional relationships. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1423–1443.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, S., & Izsák, A. (2015). Two perspectives on proportional relationships: extending complementary origins of multiplication in terms of quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B. (2007). Designing and implementing authentic investigative proportional reasoning tasks: the impact on preservice mathematics teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 333–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. E., Weiland, T., & Orrill, C. H. (2019). Mathematics teachers’ use of knowledge resources when identifying proportional reasoning situations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–20.

  • Burke, J. P., Brown, R. E., Weiland, T., Orrill, C., & Nagar, G. (2017). Teacher knowledge resources for proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA) research conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.

  • Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: a framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, K., & Lesh, R. (1988). Rational number knowledge of preservice elementary education teachers. In M. Behr (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology in Mathematics Education (pp. 425–431). DeKalb, IL.

  • De Bock, D., Van Dooren, W., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). Improper use of linear reasoning: an in-depth study of the nature and the irresistibility of secondary school students’ errors. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105–225.

  • diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: treads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–281). Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L. C. (1988). Strategies used by secondary mathematics teachers to solve proportion problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1998). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: the cognitive value of peer interaction. In D. Faulkner, K. Littleton, & R. Woodhead (Eds.), Learning relationships in the classroom (pp. 189–206). Routledge.

  • Glassmeyer, D., Brakoniecki, A., & Amador, J. M. (2021). Identifying and supporting teachers’ robust understanding of proportional reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 62, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, Physics Education Research Supplement, 68(S1), S52–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: implications for the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., & Goos, M. (2016). Promoting students’ proportional reasoning skills through an ongoing professional development program for teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(2), 193–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, L. S. H. (2000). Teachers’ mathematical understanding of proportionality: links to curriculum, professional development, and support (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izsák, A. (2005). “You have to count the squares”: applying knowledge in pieces to learning rectangular area. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 361–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izsák, A., & Jacobson, E. (2017). Preservice teachers’ reasoning about relationships that are and are not proportional: a knowledge-in-pieces account. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), 300–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. (2017). A study of pre-service teachers use of representations in their proportional reasoning. In Galindo, E., & Newton, J., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education conference (pp. 551–558). Indianapolis, IN.

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: toward a theoretical research method for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Lim, K. (2009). Burning the candle at just one end: using nonproportional examples helps students determine when proportional strategies apply. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(8), 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 357–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livy, S., & Herbert, S. (2013). Second-year pre-service teachers’ responses to proportional reasoning test items. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(11), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, J., & Ellis, A. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics: Grades 6–8. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191–1502.

  • Lobato, J., Orrill, C., Druken, B., & Jacobson, E. (2011, April). Middle school teachers’ knowledge of proportional reasoning for teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.

  • Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Students’ improper proportional reasoning: a result of the epistemological obstacle of “linearity.” Educational Psychology, 27(1), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  • Orrill, C. H., Brown, R. E., Burke, J. P., Millett, J., Nagar, G. G., Park, J., & Weiland, T. (2017). Extending appropriateness: further exploration of teachers’ knowledge resources for proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA) research conference, Indianapolis, Indiana.

  • Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: the central problem of intellectual development. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, T., Harel, G., Behr, M., & Lesh, R. (1991). Intermediate teachers’ knowledge of rational number concepts. In E. Fennema, T. Carpenter, & S. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 177–198). State University of NY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, K. R. (2010). Teachers’ understanding of proportional reasoning. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1055–1061). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.

  • Scheiner, T. (2020). Dealing with opposing theoretical perspectives: knowledge in structures or knowledge in pieces? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., & Blume, G. (1994). Mathematical modelling as a component of understanding ratio-as-measure: a study of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(2), 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P. (2000). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(3), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Depaepe, F., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The illusion of linearity: expanding the evidence towards probabilistic reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(2), 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Pupils’ overreliance on linearity: a scholastic effect? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1–71.

  • Waxer, M., & Morton J. B. (2012). Cognitive conflict and learning. In Seel N. M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer, Boston, MA.

  • Weiland, T., Orrill, C. H., Brown, R. E., Nagar, G. G., & Burke, J. P. (2016). Formulating a robust understanding of proportional reasoning for teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, Washington, DC.

  • Weiland, T., Orrill, C. H., Nagar, G. G., Brown, R. E., & Burke, J. (2020). Framing a robust understanding of proportional reasoning for teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1–24.

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr. Wim Van Dooren and Dr. Lieven Verschaffel for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Funding

This work was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey

    Muhammet Arican

Authors
  1. Muhammet Arican
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammet Arican.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arican, M. The development and application of an interview structure on determining preservice mathematics teachers’ competence in proportional reasoning. Math Ed Res J 35 (Suppl 1), 55–79 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00388-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00388-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation