[그림 1] 카테시안 곱의 역 모델(Sinicrope, Mick & Kolb, 2002, p. 159) [Fig. 1] Division as the inverse of a cartesian product (Sinicrope, Mick & Kolb, 2002, p. 159)
[그림 2] 문항 1-2 [Fig. 2] Survey question 1-2
[그림 3] 문항 1-6 [Fig. 3] Survey question 1-6
[그림 4] 문항 1-9 [Fig. 4] Survey question 1-9
[그림 5] 문항 2-1 [Fig. 5] Survey question 2-1
[그림 6] 문항 2-3 [Fig. 6] Survey Question 2-3
[그림 7] 코드북 일부 [Fig. 7] A sample of codebook
[그림 8] ‘몫으로서의 분수’ 이해 모델 답안 [Fig. 8] Fractions as a quotient
[그림 9] ‘비로서의 분수’ 이해 모델 이용 답안 [Fig. 9] Fractions as a ratio
[그림 10] ‘부분-전체의 비교로서의 분수’ 이해 모델 이용 답안 [Fig. 10] Fractions as part-whole
[그림 11] 분수의 의미에 대한 높은 수준의 이해 답안 [Fig. 11] Higher-level response to the meaning of fractions
[그림 12] 분수의 의미에 대한 낮은 수준의 이해 답안 [Fig. 12] Lower-level response to the meaning of fractions
[그림 13] 분모를 통분하면 같다. [Fig. 13] Same denominator
[그림 14] ‘부분-전체의 비교로서의 분수’ 모델 (149명 중 7명) [Fig. 14] Part-whole comparison (7/149)
[그림 15] ‘몫으로서의 분수’ 모델 (149명 중 4명) [Fig. 15] Quotient (4/149)
[그림 16] 제수의 역수를 곱하는 방법 사용 예 1 [Fig. 16] Using Multiplying reciprocals 1
[그림 17] 제수의 역수를 곱하는 방법 사용 예 2 [Fig. 17] Using Multiplying reciprocals 2
[그림 18] 문항 2-1 PWC 수준 응답 [Fig. 18] PWC response to 2-1
[그림 19] 문항 2-1 Lower 수준 응답 [Fig. 19] Lower-level response to 2-1
[그림 20] 문항 2-2 PWC 수준 응답 [Fig. 20] PWC response to 2-2
[그림 21] 문항 2-2 LOWER 수준 응답 [Fig. 21] Lower-level response to 2-2
[그림 22] 문항 2-3 PWC 수준 답안 [Fig. 22] PWC response to 2-3
[그림 23] 문항 2-3 LOW 수준 답안 (149명 중 48명) [Fig. 23] Lower-level response to 2-3 (48/149)
[그림 24] 문항 2-4 PWC 수준 답안 (149명 중 1명) [Fig. 24] PWC response to 2-4 (1/149)
[그림 25] 문항 2-4 Lower 수준 답안 (149명 중 61명) [Fig. 25] Lower-level response to 2-4 (61/149)
[표 1] 분수 이해 모델: 개념이해와 절차사용 [Table 1] Making sense of fractions: conceptual understanding and procedural fluency
[표 2] 개념이해 및 절차사용의 수준 [Table 2] Levels of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency
[표 3] 학생 응답 분석틀 (Lower-level) [Table 3] Student response analysis framework (Lower-level)
[표 4] 학생 응답 분석틀 (Higher-level) [Table 4] Student response analysis framework
[표 5] 응답 분석수준 [Table 5] Analysis framework
[표 6] 연구 대상 [Table 6] Participants
[표 7] 검사 문항 구성 [Table 7] Survey questions
[표 8] 2차 코드 [Table 8] Second rounding codes
[표 9] 문항 1-8 답안의 분포 [Table 9] Student response to 1-8
[표 10] 문항 1-1, 1-2, 1-8 답안 분포 [Table 10] Student response to 1-1, 1-2, 1-8
[표 11] 인지적 노력수준에 따른 답안 수준 분석 [Table 11] Student Response Level
[표 12] 분수의 개념이해 수준이 높은 응답 수준 [Table 12] Conceptual understanding of fractions: higher-level response
[표 13] 분수의 개념이해 수준이 낮은 응답 수준 [Table 13] Conceptual understanding of fractions: lower-level
[표14] 분수의 개념이해 수준이 I 수준인 응답 수준 [Table 14] Conceptual understanding of fractions: I-level
[표 15] 2009개정 교육과정 초등 수학교과서 분수 단원 [Table 15] 2009 National Curriculum: Fractions in the elementary mathematics textbook
References
- Kwon, J. & Kim, G. (2013). An analysis of mathematical tasks in the middle school geometry. The Mathematical Education 52(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2013.52.1.111
- Kim, K. M. & Whang, W. H. (2011). An analysis of the relationship between students' understanding and their word problem solving strategies of multiplication and division of fractions. The Mathematical Education 50(3), 337-354. https://doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2011.50.3.337
- 김구연 (2010). The analysis of mathematics curriculum materials: addition and subtraction in grade 3. Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation 13(2), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2010.13.2.59
- Kim, G. & Jeon, M. (2017a). Exploring how middle-school mathematics textbooks on functions provide students an opportunity-to-learn. School Mathematics 19(2), 289-317.
- Kim, G. & Jeon, M. (2017b). Exploring teachers’ pedagogical design capacity: How mathematics teachers plan and design their mathematics lessons. The Mathematical Education 56(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.7468/MATHEDU.2017.56.4.365
- Kim, M. & Kim, G. (2013). An analysis of mathematical tasks in the high school mathematics. School Mathematics 15(1), 37-59.
- Kim, M. K. (2009). A study of the sixth graders’ knowledge of concepts and operations about fractions. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society 12(2), 151-170.
- Kim, M. (2013). Secondary mathematics teachers’ use of mathematics textbooks and teacher’s guide. School Mathematics 16(3), 503-531.
- Pang, J. & Lee, J. (2009). An analysis of the multiplication and division of fractions in elementary mathematics instructional materials. School Mathematics 11(4), 723-743.
- Lee, I. W. & Kim, G. (2014). Examining students’ mathematical learning through worked-out examples on numbers. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society 17(2), 291-319.
- Hong, C. J. & Kim, G. (2012). Functions in the middle school mathematics: The cognitive demand of the mathematical tasks. School Mathematics 14(2), 213-232.
- Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phepls, G. (2008). Content knowledge of teaching: what makes it special? Journal for Teacher Education 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
- Campbell, P. F., Nishio, M., Smith, T. M., Clark, L. M., Conant, D. L., Rust, A. H., ..., & Choi, Y. (2014). The relationship between teachers' mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers' perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 45(4), 419-459. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0419
- 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
- Grouws, G. A., Tarr, J. E., Chavez, O., Sears, R., Soria, V. M., & Taylan, R. D. (2013). Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students’ mathematics learning from curricula representation subject-specific and integrated content organizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 44, 416-463. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.2.0416
- Henningsen, M. & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematics tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524-549. https://doi.org/10.2307/749690
- 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
- Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 42(20), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
- Lamon, S. J. (2012). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. (3rd ). New York: Routledge.
- Lobato, J. & Ellis, A. B. (2010). Essential understandings: Ratios, proportions, and proportional reasoning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
- Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
- National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- NIllas, L. (2003). Division of fractions: Preservice teachers’ understanding and use of problem solving strategies. The Mathematics Educator, 7(2), 96-113.
- Sinicrope, R., Mick, H. W., & Kolb, J. R. (2002). Interpretations of fractions. In B. Litwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions, NCTM 2002 yearbook (pp. 153-161). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
- 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 J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37-55). New York: Routledge.
- Stein, M. K. & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 268-275.
- Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Wilhelm, A. G. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ enactment of cognitively demanding tasks: Investigating links to teachers’ knowledge and conceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 636-674. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0636