This paper describes a pedagogical pattern for mathematics tutorials with two different solutions depending on the underlying philosophy of learning or teaching. The aim of tutorials for introductory mathematics courses is for students to practice and apply what they have learned during the lecture. Adopting the traditional approach tutors show how to solve the given problems. Students observe the tutor solving problems on the chalkboard, copy the solution, and usually assume they are able to solve similar problems by themselves next time. Following a constructivist philosophy of learning we present a 'parallel' - different - solution to the same problem where learners do actively mathematics while learning how to solve mathematical problems.
Tutorials for introductory mathematics usually support mathematics lectures. In Germany there are often several hundred students in ’Introductory Math’ courses at universities. The presentation of the lecture is usually given by a professor or lecturer. The tutorials differ widely in the number of attending students but usually there are smaller numbers of students (20 to 40 students in each group). Tutorials normally don’t introduce new topics but concern themselves with practicing the previous lectures’ contents by solving mathematical problems given in worksheets. The discussed setting in this paper is an introductory mathematics course for students who want to become math teachers for primary and lower secondary schools. This is one of the main reasons we follow a non-traditional teaching philosophy. As future school teachers these students have to gain enough experience learning in constructivist learning scenarios to be able to teach in these scenarios as well. The pattern for constructivist mathematics learning can be easily adapted to other school forms (i.e. high school) or even subjects with similar processes and competencies like theoretical physics or computer science.
Problem / Challenge / Motivation1 Freshmen usually have to get used to the difference between mathematics at school and at universities. At universities, performing mathematics means much more than just solving a predefined set of mathematical problems in a given thematic context (e.g., arithmetic or geometry). It means applying solution strategies and problem solving heuristics such as finding examples and counter-examples, making conjectures, and drawing graphs. In addition, performing 'real' mathematics often means solving problems with no pre-defined single solution. Therefore, students have to decide which information is relevant for the solution, how to process this information, and how to present the results. In addition, they have to choose appropriate tools like spreadsheet calculators or dynamic geometry systems.
Especially future teachers should experience this kind of performing mathematics very early in their studies. They do not have to focus on the product (the solution of a problem), but on the mathematical processes necessary for solving the problem. The latter is the 'real' objective of learning mathematics. This change in the view on mathematics education is clearly stated, e.g., in the NCTM 'Principles and Standards for School Mathematics' (2000) where the process standards problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections, and representation are considered as important as the content standards number and operation, algebra, geometry, measurement, data analysis and probability.
Here is the point where the pattern follows two different paths to reach answers to the above stated challenge. Depending on the fundamental philosophy of learning and teaching two different solutions arise. The descriptions are given parallel in the following table to simplify the comparison.
The learning/teaching philosophies are deeply intertwined with theoretical pedagogical approaches which will also be described in the table (s. ‘Rationale’). 1 In a pedagogical context the word ‘problem’ is not really adequate here. Students learning geometry is not a problem which can be solved once and for all – it’s more a ‘challenge’.
Learner activating teaching philosophy “Mathematics is learned by being exposed to definitions, theorems, “Mathematics is learned by reconstructing for oneself what others proofs, techniques and examples, through which one is exposed to have thought and tried to expound clearly and logically. formalization, proof, modeling, techniques etc. The teacher’s job is to Reconstruction is carried out through constructing special and lay out the material clearly and logically. Students must rehearse illustrative cases, trying to see generality through the particular, many examples in order to develop facility and through facility, gain guided by theorems and other exposition. Exposition and practice on understanding of the concepts, the techniques and why the exercises is useful, but only as means to reconstruction. Facility and techniques work. Hard work is valued, work consisting largely of understanding grow together, as each contributes to the other and working through notes and problems to try to understand them.” neither necessarily precedes the other.” (Holton, 2001, 73) (Holton, 2001, 73) The basic idea of this concept is to motivate students actively doing This is also the kind of learning most of the professors at German mathematics. The students work on their own choice of problems, universities experienced when learning mathematics themselves. organized in small groups and aided by tutors. There are several forms of feedback during the tutorials as well as virtually in learning platforms.
Students work on a set of given problems and follow the Students pick from 5-6 weekly problem suggestions and work in demonstrations of solved problems and proofs of theorems during groups during the tutorial on the chosen problems guided by the the tutorial. tutor who doesn’t give the correct solution away.
The person responsible (lecturer or advanced tutor) creates The person responsible (lecturer or advanced tutor) creates problem sheets containing a number of problems all of which are problem sheets containing problems with the same mathematical supposed to be solved by all students. topics but in different contexts for the students to choose from. The wording focuses on the solution process rather than the correct solution.
Show that for any x, y, z F ¸ , | x - z| | x - y| + | y - z|. An expected typical solution to the problem: |x – z | = |x – y + y – z| |x – y| + |y – z| (triangle inequality)2
Make conjectures of several unit fractions concerning their decimal representation. What kind of decimal do you get? If it is not a terminating decimal: How long are the periods and the delays of the periods? Make conjectures on the base of your data.
Which properties determinate the kind of decimal? Which properties determinate the length of the period and the delay? Test your hypotheses with other unit fractions.
Hints / techniques: x You can use the Excel spreadsheets available in Moodle. x Which of the unit fractions are good indicators for your
conjectures? Expected activities: The students are expected to try to understand the properties of decimal numbers using spreadsheets and to find the significance of denominators only containing powers of 2 and 5 compared to denominators without 2 and 5 or ‘mixed’ ones.3 Tutors need to be provided with ideas, hints, and strategies for exemplary solutions and problem solving. Also, they have to be The problem suggestions have to cover enough of the mathematical The problems are related closely to the content of the lecture. A content so that students can not evade basic concepts such as sample solution also has to be created. The problem sheets are reasoning and proof, finding examples, or special techniques like delivered to students one week or more before the tutorial session. using group tables or important mathematical content. Some useful Tutors get the problem sheets at the same time plus a sample hints and references which don't give away too much have to be solution to prepare for the demonstrations. added. for all x, y F ¸ 3 All the fractions with denominators which consists only of powers of 2 and 5 (e.g. 1/40 = 1/(5*2³)=0.025) are terminating. All the fractions with denominators which consist of numbers without the factors of 2 and/or 5 are periodic (1/33=1/(3*11)=0.030303 …) and the rest are delayed periodic (1/12=1/(3*2²)=0.083333 …). Students work on the problems before the tutorial session. This is not monitored or supported by tutors.
Tutors read through the given sample solution to be sure that they briefed about aspects of insufficient solutions and problematic understand everything. problem-solving strategies. Usually even tutors don't get the 'correct' solution from the lecturer. In fact, they have to think through the problems on their own and actively ‘do mathematics’.
The tutors present the problem solutions on the chalkboard. Students watch the demonstration and compare the solutions with their own (if they have created one). Alternatively, a student may be asked to present her or his own solution. Students may ask questions and discuss different solutions.
Students try to transfer the solutions to similar problems (reproduction). They practice under their own steam.
Groups of students start work on the problems during the tutorial session. They choose the problems they want to work on, discuss ideas, find examples, and verify or disprove statements on the worksheets and of others. They can use every tool they want to support the problem solving process - laptops, calculators or whatever. If necessary they ask for help and explain their problems. Finally they have to decide whether something is a solution or not. If they can't find a solution, they can also ask for help on their problem in discussion forums in the online learning platform. Then other students, tutors, or the lecturer may assist.
The tutors give feedback, ask helpful questions and confirm that a solution is ok but don’t give the correct solution. They give hints or mirror back some ideas and questions brought already up by the students. Very often, they just 'sit around' and do nothing.
All the participants join in the online discussion. Students finish not yet solved problems and continue working on them based on their lecture notes, trying to connect them to problems they worked on during the tutorials.
Theoretical Background
Theoretical Background
Basically this kind of teaching is experts demonstrating learners how The basic idea of this concept is to motivate students to actively do
mathematics “goes”. The social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) mathematics. It is based on constructivist teaching philosophy insofar
states that people may learn by observing others doing something. as by actively dealing with the mathematical problems themselves
The process of demonstrating a specific behavior is called modeling students gain experiences and insights and adjust their ideas and
(Bandura, 2001). An example for this is a person in a restaurant mathematical concepts which is all part of building new knowledge.
struggling to eat a lobster. Observing other guests, this person is able Constructivist teachers5 believe strongly in the idea that students
to perform the task by imitating other guests’ procedures. Vicarious construct knowledge for themselves and they will not truly learn
experience is one source of self-efficacy expectations (Bandura, something until they spend a good deal of time asking questions and
1998). People who see others performing well may think that they actively thinking about the topic. The job as a teacher is to provide
could also master the task
The perception of competence is also related to the construct of selfefficacy (Bandura, 1998). Mathematical self-efficacy is the belief of a person that she or he is able to solve a mathematical problem (Betz & 4 ‘Published’ means here the way mathematics is displayed in books where e.g. the concise and elegant form of a proof is printed and not the easier to follow but longer approach which shows how the proof was found the first time. 5 For some first ideas on constructivism in mathematics education see e.g. http://mathforum.org/library/ed_topics/constructivism/, last visited May 31st, 2009 Hackett, 1983; Pajares & Miller, 1995). One major source of efficacy expectations is performance accomplishments. Repeated successes have a positive influence on self-efficacy. Only if students try to solve the problems on their own there is a chance to increase their selfefficacy based on performances.
Often students come to the tutorial session without own solutions or without even having read the problem sheet. Therefore they just copy the solutions without any understanding. Students need a lot of time and effort just before the exams to ‘catch up’ with all the missing understanding and often there just isn’t enough time.
There are possibilities to deal with this non-preparation of students and force them to work on the problems before they get the solution presented: At the beginning of the session a list with all problems is passed around and students have to tick the problems they have prepared.
The tutor then calls students according to the list to present the solution. Every student has to tick at least 50% (or more) of all This solution is often used in introductory mathematics courses at universities and since a lot of mathematics teachers went through this system they obviously were successful.
Reflections Reflections This is a very efficient way – from the teacher’s point of view – to Students have to get used to this kind of tutorial. A lot of the students teach large groups of students how to solve mathematical problems. are not very confident that they can really recognize a correct or If ‘an expert’ (tutor or good student) demonstrates his previously incorrect solution. They want always some authority to check their prepared solution all students have seen at least one correct way of answers. For these students there are several support structures solving that particular problem. beside the weekly face-to-face tutorials and online discussions. For example, there is an ‘open math room’ three to four times during the week where tutors answer questions.
Learning to be a good problem solver requires working on problems at the same time as reflecting on the problem solving processes. This is very easy in collaborative settings and by actively participating in the problem solving processes. Working in groups students automatically communicate, ask questions, represent mathematical ideas, etc. and therefore mathematical processes can be experienced, reflected and discussed.
One issue is definitely the time needed by the tutors for preparation and feedback. problems otherwise he or she is not allowed to take the exam. Also, each student has to present solutions a certain number of times during the semester.
Another approach is to state problems that should be done at home by the students. Written solutions will have to be handed to the tutor at the beginning of the session. These solutions are graded (or just a feedback is given) and also an average grade must be reached to take part in the exams.
Presenting solutions without eliciting deep processing often creates the 'illusion of understanding' (cf. Atkinson et al., 2000). Students assume they have understood the solution. Realization that they didn’t often occurs during the final exam.
This problem can be mitigated if students actively process the
demonstrations (cf. Mayer, 2004). Some guidelines for the design of
worked examples have been developed to increase the student's
cognitive activity, e.g., giving incomplete worked examples
Predominantly, students are extrinsically motivated. They want to pass the final test. But intrinsic motivation is a crucial factor in learning: see ‘Theoretical background’ of the ‘Learner activating teaching philosophy – solution’.
See: ‘Theoretical background’ of the ‘Learner activating teaching philosophy – solution’.
This kind of tutorials were realized from October 2007 until July 2008 at the University of Education Ludwigsburg in the courses Introduction to Arithmetic for Secondary Teachers (Einführung in die Arithmetik für Lehramt Realschule) and Introduction to Geometry for Secondary Teachers (Einführung in die Geometrie für Lehramt Realschule). The whole setting of weekly lectures and tutorials were evaluated by different instruments: a questionnaire on mathematical self-efficacy and a questionnaire on learning motivation. The results are published in Bescherer and Spannagel (2008; in German).
Since October 2008 these tutorials are developed further in the context of the research project SAiL-M (www.sail-m.de) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
(http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/current/activelearning.pdf) TECHNOLOGY ON DEMAND, HELP ON DEMAND, FEEDBACK ON DEMAND (all Bescherer & Spannagel, 2009) and HINT ON DEMAND (www.sail-m.de)
The above presented pattern gives two solutions to the same challenge (problem) based on two different teaching philosophies. Of course these solutions describe more or less the extreme variations of tutorials and all shades in between these are possible.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from Examples: Instructional Principles from the Worked Examples Research. Review of Educational Research 70(2), 181-214.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist 44(9), 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1998). Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2001). Modeling. In W. E. Craighead & C. B. Nemeroff (eds.), The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science (pp. 967-968). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bescherer, C. & Spannagel, C. (2009). Design Patterns for the Use of Technology in Introductory Mathematics Tutorials. Education and Information Technologies (in press), Springer Bescherer, C. & Spannagel, C. (2008). Aktivierendes Mathematik-Lernen zum Studienbeginn. Tagungsband der GDM-Tagung 2008, Budapest, online available http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/ieem/BzMU/BzMU2008/BzMU2008/ BzMU2008_BESCHERER_Christine%20&%20SPANNAGEL_Christian.pdf, last visited: May 31st, 2009.
Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1983). The Relationship of Mathematics Self-Efficacy Expectations to the Selection of Science-Based College Majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior 23, 329-345.
Catrambone, R. & Holyoak, K. J. (1990). Learning subgoals and methods for solving probability problems. Memory & Cognition 18(6), 593–603.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8, 293–332.
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting SelfExplanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science 18, 439-477. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., und Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction (pp.453–494). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holton, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level. New ICMI study series, vol. 7. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pajares, F. & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Mathematics Performances: The Need for Specifity in Assessment. Journal of Counseling Psychology 42(2), 190-198.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' Motivational Beliefs and Their Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Academic Tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom (pp. 149-183). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Margolis, H. (2005). Increasing struggling learner's self-efficacy: what tutors can do and say. Mentoring and Tutoring 13(2), 221-238.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist 59(1), 14–19.
NCTM - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Virginia, USA.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic Dialectical Perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press. Wippermann, Sven (2008): Didaktische Design Patterns zur Dokumentation und Systematisierung didaktischen Wissens und als Grundlage einer Community of Practice. Saarbrücken: Vdm Verlag Dr. Müller.