Achieving Quality Mathematics Classroom Instruction through Productive Pedagogies

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 1 - 18, 01.11.2016

İliya Joseph Bature , Bill Atweh

https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.2.1.1

Öz

This paper seeks to investigate the implementation of the Productive Pedagogies Framework in Nigerian mathematics classroom setting. The researcher adopted a qualitative case study approach to seeking data for the three research questions postulated for the study. Three mathematics teachers taught mathematics in two secondary schools in two Central states of Nigeria using the Productive Pedagogies framework introduced to them by the researcher. Two major instruments (observation and reflective interviews) were employed to seek information from the teachers and the students. While the researcher uses the grounded theory approached to interpret and or analyzed the data collected. The findings of this study suggest that the teachers made attempts to used Productive Pedagogies framework to achieved quality mathematics classroom instructions. This was demonstrated in their effort to used problem-solving to achieve intellectual quality classrooms instructions, making mathematics classroom instruction relevant to the world around their students, developing an atmosphere of friendship during classroom instruction and identifying and recognizing the differences existed among students during classroom instruction. It was observed that the used of the Productive Pedagogies can increase students’ engagement, collaborations, interactions, substantive conversations and effective inclusion during mathematics classroom instruction in which the research finally recommended the adoption of the Productive Pedagogies framework in the Nigerian mathematics classroom.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pedagogies, productive pedagogies, quality classroom instruction, classroom teaching strategies

Kaynakça

• Abanihe, I., Ifeoma, M., John, L., & Tandi, I. (2010). Evaluation of the methodology aspect of the science teacher education curriculum in Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 170-176.
• Afolabi, S. S. (2008). Effective pedagogical skills for result-oriented implementation of new Mathematics curriculum. Workshop for primary School In-Service Teachers Empowerment Program, Ogun State, Nigeria.
• Alghamdi, Hamdan A. K. (2013). Pre-service Teachers’ Preferred Methods of Assessment: A Perspective from Saudi Arabia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n4.6
• Alsharif, K & Atweh, B. (2012). Productive Pedagogies as Framework to Improve Preservice Teachers’ Practices; The international Journal of learning, 18(4), pp.223-235
• Anderson CW, Brophy JE (1998). Relationship between Classroom Behaviors and student Outcomes in Junior High School Mathematics and English Classes. American Educational Journal, 17: 43-60.
• Atweh, B. (2007). The social turn in understanding learning and its implications for facilitating learning: ripples for change. A journey of preservice teacher education reforms in the Philippines Commission for Higher Education. Print house, Quezon City.
• Aveling, N., & Hatchell, A. (2007). Good intentions are not enough: promoting quality teaching and Productive Pedagogies in teacher education programs. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle. Retrieved May 24, 2010, from http://aare.edu.au/07pap/ave07116.pdf
• Azuka, B. (2006). Active learning in the mathematics classroom implications to secondary mathematics and UBE. Proceeding of Annual national conference of MAN September 181-187.
• Bacon, C. (2012). Implementing Social Justice in Maths during the Standard Era. Rising tide; 5 pp. 1-22
• Bajah, S. I. (1999). The challenges of science technology and teacher education in Nigeria; beyond the year 2000. African Journal of Education, 1(91), 43-49.
• Bartell, T. G. (2011). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Bature, I. J. (2014). Productive pedagogies for reforming secondary school mathematics classroom practice in Nigeria. Ph.D. Curtin University, Science and Mathematics Education Centre. Bestley Western Australia
• Bature, I.J. & Jibrin, A.G. (2015). The perception of preservice mathematics teachers on the role of scaffolding in achieving quality mathematics classroom instruction. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(4), 275-287.
• Bature I. J., James J. J., Aramide, K., Danladi, R. S.& Nengak, S. (2015). Introducing Productive Pedagogies to Nigerian Mathematics Classroom through Collaborative Action Research Using a Community of Practice Approach. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 41-58, May 2015
• Baxtel, P & Jack S (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report Volume 13 Number 4 December 2008 544-559 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/baxter.pdf
• Blackhall, T. 2002, Pedagogy and Curriculum (online) available accessed 27 October 2015: http://www.saibislass.qld.–edu.au/toddmaster/position/pedagogy&curriculum.html.
• Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, social class and survival of the fittest. British Educational Research Journal: 23(5), 575-595
• Chinnappan, M. (2006). Using the productive pedagogies framework to build a community of learners online in mathematics education. Distance Education, 27 (3), 355-369.
• Chinnappan, M. (2008). Productive Pedagogies and Deep Mathematical Learning in a Globalized World. In Alsharif, K & Atweh, B. (2012). Productive Pedagogies as Framework to Improve Preservice Teachers’ Practices; The international Journal of learning, 18(4), pp.223-235
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
• Cohen, E., & Latan, R. (Eds.). (1997). Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms : Sociological Theory in Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Cooper, S. (1998). Towards Enhancing Mathematics Activities in Classroom. Ohio: Ohio University
• Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon, Boston: MA
• Education Queensland (2003), Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: Productive Pedagogies http://education.qld.gov.au/publicmedia/reports/curriculumframework/qsrls/ html/ keyipp.html – (online), available accessed: 31 October 2015
• Elmore, R.E. (2005). School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
• Emaikwu, S. O. (2012). Assessing the effect of prompt feedback as a motivational strategy on students’ achievement in secondary school mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), 371-379.
• Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2004). National Policy on Education (4th Ed.). Lagos: Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council Press.
• Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Productive Pedagogies: Teacher, and schooling making a difference: Productive Pedagogies, Assessments and Performance. Allen and Unwin 83 Alexander Street, Crows Next NSW 2065, Australia, 32-81.
• Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers. McGraw-Hill, Open University Press: Berkshire.
• Kaka, M. O. (2007). Games assisted instructional materials – A strategy for enhancing students’ achievement in integrated sciences. Journal of Research in Curriculum and Teaching, 2 (1), 120 – 128.
• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Lingard, B., Hayes, D., &. Mills, M. (2003). Teachers and Productive Pedagogies: Contextualising, conceptualising, utilising. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), 397-422
• Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., Ailwood, J., Capeness, R., Christie, P., Gore,J., Hayes, D. & Luke, A. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
• Matsumara, L. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207–229.
• Meyer, L., Wardrop, J., Hastings, C., & Linn, R. (1993). Effects of ability and settings on kindergarteners’ reading performance. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 142–160.
• Mouly G. J. (1982). Psychology for Teaching. Boston Ally and Bacon, Inc
• Newmann, F. M. and Associates. (1996.) Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality, San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
• Okwo, F.A. (2000). Quality control of computer science courses for trainee-teachers in the University of Nigeria Nsukka. Information Technology and Education. A publication of Institute of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
• Odilli, G.A. (2006). Mathematics in Nigeria Secondary Schools; A teaching perspective. . Port-Harcourt; Rex Charles & Patrick.
• Pianta, R., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2008a). Classroom effects on students’ achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.
• Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119.
• Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study. (2001). School reform longitudinal study: Theoretical rationale for the development of productive pedagogies: A literature review. St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland.
• Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education. New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.
• Ryder, M. (2009). Instructional Design Models. Downloaded from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html 13/09/2016
• Sewell, B. (1984). Adults Mathematical Ability & Performance. London: Leicester, Advisory Council for Adult & Continuing Education (ACACE).
• Simon M. A. (1995) reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145
• Sorin, R., & Klein, M. (2002). Walking the walk and talking the talk: adequate teacher preparation in these uncertain times? Paper presented to AARE, Brisbane, Australia.
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Technique (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Tanko, M. G. (2012). Teaching practical numeracy through social justice pedagogy: case study of Abu Dhabi women’s college (unpublished Doctoral dissertation), Curtin University, Perth Australia.
• Tanko, M. G. & Atweh B. (2012) Using Productive Pedagogy to Improve the Teaching and Learning of Practical Numeracy with Adult Learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(16), pp. 88-95
• Usman, M. L. (2001). Analysis of Nigeria’s nomadic education policy on the socio-economic development of Fulbe women and girls (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
• Way, J. (2008). Using Questioning to Stimulate Mathematical Thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(3), 22-27.
• Wilson, E. & Klein, M (2000). Promoting Productive Pedagogies: Preservice Teacher Education for New Times in Queensland State Schools. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education. Sydney.
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zyngier, D. (2005). Choosing our ideas, words and actions carefully: Is the language of Productive Pedagogies intelligible for pre-service teachers? Issues in Educational Research, 15(2), 225-248. http://www.iier.org.au/iier15/zyngier.html