An Investigation of Primary School Teachers’ Experiences in Teaching Division

Öz

Primary school mathematics education places significant emphasis on the teaching of arithmetic operations. Among these, the instruction of division has a structure that requires careful and sensitive handling by classroom teachers. The aim of this study is to examine classroom teachers’ experiences regarding the teaching of division. The research was designed using a qualitative approach and employed a phenomenological research method. The study group consisted of 20 experienced classroom teachers working in the provinces of Afyonkarahisar and Kütahya. Criterion sampling and convenience sampling methods were used. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview form consisting of six questions developed by the researchers. Thematic analysis was employed in the data analysis process. The findings indicate that only a limited number of teachers used problem statements and real-life connections in the teaching of division. Although teachers considered the use of models necessary for teaching division, they experienced difficulties in establishing meaningful instructional connections through these models. Furthermore, analysis of teachers’ instructional processes and problem constructions related to remainders revealed a predominantly one-dimensional and non-relational structure.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Primary school teacher
• Mathematics education
• Division

Etik Beyan

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT The authors declare that research and publication ethics are followed in this study. The necessary permission to conduct the study was obtained from Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Kütahya Dumlupınar University (April 28, 2025-2025/04) AUTHOR LIABILITY STATEMENT The authors declare that they have done every step of this work themselves. GENERATIVE AI USE DECLARATION The authors declare that GenAI tools were not used in this study.

Kaynakça

1. Aronson, J. (1995). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis: Thematic analysis of qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2069
2. 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://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022487108324554
3. Berliner, D. C. 2004. Describing the Behavior and Documenting the Accomplishments of Expert Teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 24 (3): 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535.
4. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226613
5. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on thematic analysis as a set of phases or steps. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
8. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz, (Çev. A. Alpay), Anı Yayıncılık.

9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. Routledge.
10. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341
11. Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M. S., & Marino, M. S. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in multiplication and division. Journal for research in mathematics education, 16(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.16.1.0003
12. Fox, S. & Surtees, L. (2010). Mathematics across the curriculum. Continuum International Pub. Group.
13. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38(4), 915-945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
14. Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? What is? Research methods. Continuum/Bloomsbury.
15. Haylock, D. (2006). Mathematics explained for primary teachers. SAGE Publications.
16. Hill, H., & Ball, D. L. (2009). The curious—and crucial—case of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100215
17. Husserl, E. (2012). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120330
18. Joutsenlahti, J., & Kulju, P. (2017). Multimodal languaging as a pedagogical model—A case study of the concept of division in school mathematics. Education Sciences, 7(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010009
19. Kinach, B. M. (2002). A cognitive strategy for developing prospective teachers‟ pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathematics methods course: Toward a model of effective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00050-6
20. Korkmaz, E. (2021). Instructional explanations of class teachers and primary school mathematics teachers about division. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.332.3
21. Lamberg, T., & Wiest, L. R. (2012). Conceptualizing division with remainders. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(7), 426-433. https://doi.org/10.5951/TEACCHILMATH.18.7.0426
22. Morgan, C. (2001). The place of pupil writing in learning, teaching and assessing mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 232–244). Routledge
23. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995658
24. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
25. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (2. baskı). (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.), Pegem.
26. Ping, O. W. & Hua, A. K. (2015). Effectiveness of Division Wheel in Basic Mathematics Operation Case Study: Primary School Perspective. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5 (3), 52-56. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-05345256
27. Polat, A. (2022). Nitel araştırmalarda yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları: Soru form ve türleri, nitelikler ve sıralama. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(Özel Sayı 2), 161-182. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227335
28. Pope, S. (2012). The problem with division. Mathematics Teaching, 23, 42-45.
29. Richardson, K., Pratt, S., & Kurtts, S. (2010). Imagery and utilization of an area model as a way of teaching long division: Meeting diverse student needs. Oklahoma Journal of School Mathematics, 2(1), 14-24.
30. Rizvi, N. F., & Lawson, M. J. (2007). Prospective teachers' knowledge: Concept of division. International Education Journal, 8(2), 377-392.
31. Roche, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2013). Primary teachers’ representations of division: Assessing mathematical knowledge that has pedagogical potential. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0060-5
32. Rowland, T. (2008). The purpose, design and use of examples in the teaching of elementary mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 69(2), 149-163. DOİ 10.1007/s10649-008-9148-y
33. Ryan, J., & Williams, J. (2007). Children's mathematics 4-15: learning from errors and misconceptions: Learning from errors and misconceptions. McGraw-Hill Education.
34. Samuel, K. (2010). A quasi-experimental case study involving teaching division to low attaining grade 5 learners using variation theory. [Doctoral dissertation], University of the Witwatersrand). http://hdl.handle.net/10539/9805
35. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
36. Sitrava, R. T., Özel, Z., & Işık, A. (2020). Sınıf Öğretmeni adaylarının bölme işleminin anlamına dair alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(2), 931-946. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.697844
37. Thompson, P. W., Carlson, M. P., & Silverman, J. (2007). The design of tasks in support of teachers’ development of coherent mathematical meanings. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10(4), 415-432.
38. Troutman, A. P., & Lichtenberg, B. K. (2003). Mathematics: A new Beginning. Thomson Wadsworth.