School Mathematics (대한수학교육학회지:학교수학)

The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics (대한수학교육학회)
권호 표지

Exploring How Middle-School Mathematics Textbooks on Functions Provide Students an Opportunity-To-Learn

중학교 수학교과서가 학생에게 제공하는 함수 학습기회 탐색

  • Received : 2017.05.09
  • Accepted : 2017.06.21
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to explore how Korean middle-school mathematics textbooks on functions provide students an opportunity-to-learn [OTL]. For this purpose, we investigate 3 textbooks in terms of mathematics content and practice, the level of cognitive demands of mathematical tasks, types of student responses, types of context-based tasks, and connections among the tasks. The findings from the data analysis suggest as follows: a) an opportunity-to-learn to connect procedures to functional concepts and new ideas of functions to the existing one is very limited; b) the textbooks seem to provide students an OTL to understand functions as definitions, rules and conventions and to experience repeatedly procedural executions through worked examples and mathematics tasks; c) students may not experience to explain their own ideas/thinking by using mathematical sentence or justify their own cognitive processes; and d) students can be exposed to get a sense of mathematics as a set of fragmented and isolated facts or procedures, rather than to encourage to expand and deepen their understanding of functions.

이 연구에서는 우리나라 중학교 수학 교과서의 함수 단원에서 학생에게 어떠한 학습 기회를 제공하는지를 탐색한다. 구체적으로, 교과서가 제시하는 수학 내용과 실행, 수학 과제의 인지적 노력수준, 학생 응답의 유형, 문제 상황의 형태 및 특징 등의 측면을 탐구하여서 교과서가 학생들에게 어떠한 학습기회를 제안하며 구조화하는가를 살펴본다. 이를 위해서 2009 개정 교육과정에 따른 중학교 수학교과서 3종을 분석하였다. 그 결과로 교과서가 학생에게 제공하는 함수에 대한 학습기회는 다음과 같이 요약된다. 첫째, 절차적 지식과 개념 간의 연결성이 매우 약하며 함수의 내용 간의 의미를 연결하는 기회가 매우 제한되어 있다. 둘째, 학생들은 함수를 정의, 규칙, 법칙만으로 학습하게 되며 예제와 수학과제를 통해서 계산의 절차 수행을 반복적으로 경험하게 될 가능성이 크다. 셋째, 학생들은 문제를 해결하는 과정에 대해서 수학적으로 설명하거나 추론하는 과정을 경험할 가능성이 매우 적다. 넷째, 수학과제와 상황과제를 통해 학생의 인지적 사고 과정이 확장되거나 심화되기 보다는 분절적이고 파편화된 지식으로 받아들일 수 있는 여지가 많다.

Keywords

References

  1. 교육과학기술부 (2009). 2009 개정 수학과 교육과정.
  2. 교육과학기술부 (2010). 2011년 주요 업무계획: 창의인재와 선진과학기술로 여는 미래 대한민국. Retrieved from http://if-blog.tistory.com/939
  3. 권지현․김구연 (2013). 중학교 수학 교과서에 제시된 기하영역의 수학 과제 분석. 수학교육, 52(1), 111-128.
  4. 김구연 (2011a). How teachers use mathematics curriculum materials in planing and implementing mathematics lessons. 학교수학, 13(4), 485-500.
  5. 김구연 (2011b). The impact of enacted curriculum on student learning in mathematics classrooms. 한국학교수학회논문집, 14(1), 31-42.
  6. 김대영 . 김구연 (2014). 중등 수학교사의 교과서 수학과제 이해 및 변형 능력. 학교수학, 16(3), 445-469.
  7. 김미희․김구연 (2013). 고등학교 교과서의 수학과제 분석. 학교수학, 15(1), 37-59.
  8. 김민혁 (2014). 수학 교사의 교과서 및 교사용 지도서 활용도 조사. 학교수학, 16(3), 503-531.
  9. 마민영․신재홍․이수진․박종희 (2016). 중학생들의 함수의 그래프에 대한 이해와 발달. 학교수학, 18(3), 457-478.
  10. 문진수․김구연 (2014). 중등 수학교사의 함수에 대한 지식(MKT)측정 및 분석. 학교수학, 17(3), 469-492.
  11. 박종희․신재홍․이수진․마민영 (2017). 그래프 유형에 따른 두 공변 추론 수준 이론의 적용 및 비교. 수학교육학연구, 27(1), 23-49.
  12. 이광상․조민식․류희찬 (2006). 엑셀의 활용이 일차함수 문제해결에 미치는 효과. 학교수학, 8(3), 265-290.
  13. 이혜림 . 김구연 (2013). 수학교과서 문제에 대한 예비중등교사의 이해 및 변형 능력. 수학교육학연구, 23(3), 353-371.
  14. 전미현․김구연 (2015). 예비교사들의 수학교수지식(MKT) 측정 및 분석 연구. 수학교육학연구, 25(4), 691-715.
  15. 홍창준․김구연 (2012). 중학교 함수 단원의 수학 과제 분석. 학교수학, 14(2), 213-232.
  16. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006
  17. Bell, A. (1993). Principles for the design of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273293
  18. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, S., Hsu, H., & Mesa, V. (2010). A comparative analysis of the addition and subtraction of fractions in textbooks from three countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 117-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903460070
  19. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103, 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1086/499727
  20. Cooney, T. J., Beckmann, S., & Lloyd, G. M. (2010). Developing essential understanding of functions for teaching mathematics in grades 9-12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  21. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  22. Day, L. (2015). Mathematically rich, investigative tasks for teaching algebra. Mathematics teacher, 108(7), 512-518 https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.108.7.0512
  23. Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 403-421. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026003403
  24. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks in England, France and Germany: Some challenges for England. Research in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520106
  25. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-Based Factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
  26. Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 559-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.716978
  27. Kilpatrick, J. (2003). What works? In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula. What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 471-493). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Lappan, G., Phillips, E. D., Fey, J. T., & Friel, S. N. (2014). Connected Mathematics 3: Grade 7. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  29. Liu, X. (2009). Linking competence to opportunities to learn: Models of competence and data mining. Springer: New York.
  30. Lloyd, G. M. (1999). Two teachers' conceptions of a reform curriculum: Implications for mathematics teacher development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009965804662
  31. Lloyd, G. M., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Developing essential understanding of expressions, equations, and functions for teaching mathematics in grades 6-8. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  32. Lloyd, G. M., Remillard, J. T., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum materials: An emerging field. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 3-14). Routledge: New York.
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  35. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  36. Remilard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
  37. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Impllications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352-388. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034820
  38. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61-66.
  39. Reys, R. E, Reys, B. J., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of Standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 74-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034700
  40. Schmidt, W. H. (2012). Measuring content through textbooks: The cumulative effect of middle-school tracking. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to 'lived'resources; Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 143-160). Dordrecht: Springer.
  41. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Middle school mathematics curriculum reform. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standardsbased school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 181-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  42. Sherin, M., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers' use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115
  43. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37-55). Routledge: New York.
  44. Stein, M. K., Kim, G., & Seeley, M. (2006). The enactment of reform mathematics curricula in urban settings: A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  45. Stein, M. K., Remilard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007).How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319-370). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
  46. Tarr, J. E., Chavez, O., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping students' opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18075.x
  47. Tornroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005
  48. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Doorman, M. (2015). Opportunity-to-learn contextbased tasks provided by mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9595-1