Action Research on the Application of Variation Theory in Mathematics Teacher Education

Leicha Ann Bragg

Abstract


This article reports on action research that was undertaken while teaching a mathematics education subject to a series of cohorts of final-year primary pre-service teachers at a university in Australia. My aim was to increase the understanding of an assessment task, as well as its intrinsic value. Each action research cycle involved the introduction of a variation in the assessment task’s instructions, a process informed by variation theory. The variations were introduced through cycles of planning, action, data collection, and reflective analysis related to clarification of the assessment task. The two theories (variation theory and action research) proved to be mutually supportive. Cycles of action research served well to identify the critical features that needed to be the focus of small variations in my presentation of the assessment task. Variation theory provided guidance as to a most effective way of highlighting these features, especially with regard to foregrounding varied requirements of the task.


Keywords


preservice teacher education; open-ended problems; assessment tasks; Variation Theory; action research

Full Text:

PDF

References


Author & Other (2013).

Author, & Other (2008).

Author, & Other. (2011).

Other (2011).

Other & Author (2009).

Åkerlind, G., McKenzie, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). The potential of combining phenomenography, variation theory and threshold concepts to inform curriculum design in higher education, In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research II (International perspectives on higher education research series) (Vol. 10, pp. 227–247). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Assessment Reform Group, UK (2002). Assessment of learning. Retrieved July 7, 2014 from http://www.assessmentforlearning.edu.au/professional_learning/intro_to_afl/introduction_key_questions.html

Black, P. J. & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King’s College.

Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–71.

Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, social class and survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 575–595.

Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (1998). Students’ experiences of ability grouping — disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631–648.

Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning. Beyond quality and competence. London: Kogan Page.

Burns, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38(2), 57–74.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.

Dahllöf, U. (1971). Ability grouping, content validity and curriculum process analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development [DEECD] (2013). Teacher support Resources: Module 3: Assessment FOR learning. Retrieved August 1, 2014 from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/default.aspx

Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 167–180.

Kemmis, S. (1960, November). Action research in retrospect and prospect. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, November 6-9.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R., (Eds.) (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.

Ling, M. L., & Marton, F. (2012). Towards a science of the art of teaching: Using variation theory as a guiding principle of pedagogical design. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 7–22.

Lingefjärd, T. (2011). Students constructing modeling tasks to peers. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowlands, E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of CERME 7, Rzeszów. Retrieved June 7, 2014 from www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~erme/doc/cerme7/CERME7.pdf

Lloyd, M. E. R. (2013). Transfer of Practices and Conceptions of Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Action in Teacher Education, 35(2), 103-124.

Lo, M. L. (2012). Variation theory and the improvement of teaching and learning. Goteborg, Sweden: Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Lo, M. L., Pong, W. Y., & Chik, P. P. M. (Eds.) (2005). For each and everyone: Catering for individual differences through Learning Studies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Marton, F. (2006). Sameness and difference in transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marton, F., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom of learning (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Masters, J. (2000). The history of action research. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from http://casino.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow//arer/00

McClure, L., & Piggott, J. (2007). Meeting the needs of your most able pupils: Mathematics. Milton Park, Oxon: Routledge.

McKernan, J. (1996). Curriculum action research (2nd edn.). London: Kogan Page.

McTaggart, R. & Garbutcheon-Singh, M. (1988). A fourth generation of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research reader (3rd edn.), (pp. 409–428). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Mousley, J., Sullivan, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Alternate learning trajectories. In I. Putt, R. Farragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010. Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 374–382), Townsville, Queensland: MERGA.

Sagor, R. (2014). Guiding school improvement with action research. Retrieved July 21, 2014, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100047.aspx

Sanford, N., (1970). Whatever happened to action research? Journal of Social Issues, 26, 3–23.

Smedslund, J. (1953). The problem of “what is learned?” Psychological Review, 60, 157–158.

Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

Sullivan, P. (2005). Teaching Mathematics to Classes of Diverse Interests and Backgrounds. In L. A. Bragg, J. Mousley, C. Campbell & H. Mays (Eds.). Professional practice and mathematics: designing an inclusive program [electronic resource]. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.

Sullivan, P., & Lilburn, P. (1998). Open-ended maths activities: Using "good" questions to enhance learning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., Zevenbergen, R., & Turner Harrison, R. (2003). Being explicit about aspects of mathematics pedagogy. In N. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Navigating between theory and practice. Proceedings of the 27th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th conference of PME-NA, (pp. 267–274). Honolulu, Hawai’i: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Turner Harrison, R. (2003). Being explicit about aspects of mathematics pedagogy. In L. A. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.). Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking, opportunity. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 70–77). Geelong, Victoria: MERGA.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.