Critical Reflection:

The planning and implementation of this four-lesson teaching intervention provided me with
rich learning in relation to the teaching of mathematics, as well as the inquiry process.
Firstly, during the planning of this intervention, I considered the need to develop the students
mathematical language. Research indicates that effective teachers of mathematics support
students development and use of mathematical terms by explicit teaching of the words,
explaining and modelling their meaning, linking these new terms to the mathematical
symbols, as well as the language students already use (Runesson, 2005). In consideration of
this, I introduced the technical term times by using it interchangeably with making groups
of, lots of and sets of, modelling its meaning through equipment and recoding the
relevant mathematical equation in the modelling book in order to highlight its connection to
the x symbol. Similarly, I introduced the term division and developed the students
understanding of its meaning by linking it to the mathematical symbol and using it
interchangeably with the words finding how many groups. Prior to introducing the
symbols, I posed the question: How do you think a mathematician would write this? They
like to use symbols. I found these strategies effective and, my dialogue with the students
indicated that they have successfully understood the meaning of times and divide.
Secondly, I was required to consider the way in which I would cater for the two English
Language Learners (ELL) in the group. Although word problems can provide meaningful,
real-life contexts that support mathematical reasoning, research indicates that ELL are
disadvantaged in mathematics as a result of language, with word problems increasing the
literacy demands and thus the challenge for these students (Riordain & ODonoghue, 2009).
In consideration of this, I ensured each lesson contained only one word-problem context,
which served to reduce the language demands (Van de Walle, Karp, Lovin & Bay-Williams,
2014). I also developed word-problems containing words that were accessible to the ELL
students, which I had knowledge of because I also taught them in a reading group.
Furthermore, I ensured that the word problems included were simple in structure and did not
feature any unnecessary information or details, which Halladay and Neumann (2012) propose
may confuse and distract students, hindering their problem-solving.
Additionally, my planning considered the students motivation and attitudes toward
mathematics. All students (except Soichiro) felt negative toward trying new things in
mathematics, with Soichiro indicating that he only likes it because it helps [him] get better
in maths. In consideration of this, I planned to use literature to introduce the concept of
multiplication in lesson 1. On reflection, I noticed a significant increase in motivation and
engagement as a result of this, and the difference was noticeable in my following lessons
when I did not integrate any literature. Research findings support the use of picture books in
mathematics, indicating that they can serve to deepen students understandings by providing a
meaningful context and an experience of the relevant mathematical concepts (Ameis, 2002;
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, van den Boogaard & Doig, 2009). On reflection, I could have
integrated the book more by using it as a context for my word problems. In light of my own
reflections, observations and the research evidence, I consider it worthwhile to explore the
pedagogical practice of integrating literature in mathematics to increase student motivation
during my future teaching.
This teaching intervention highlighted the effectiveness of using manipulatives and modelling
books. Although the use of manipulatives is widely supported by research literature (Anthony

& Walshaw, 2009), a recent meta-analysis (Carbonneau, Marley & Selig, 2013) indicates the
complexity of using manipulatives and that it has only moderate benefits. On reflection, my
teaching provided me with valuable insight in relation to the way in which manipulatives can
aid students mathematical thinking and problem-solving by making it visual and concrete.
Although my lessons mainly utilised one type of manipulative (unifix cubes), I came to
understand that providing students with a choice is important, as some preferred to draw
instead of using the equipment, while others did not require manipulatives after recognising
the pattern. Additionally, I found the modelling book very effective in linking students
modelling to the mathematical idea of multiplication as repeated addition and division as
repeated subtraction, as well as linking the mathematical language introduced to the
appropriate symbols. This is supported by Higgins, Wakefield and Isaacson (2006), who
considered findings from New Zealands Numeracy Project and propose that modelling
books can enrich the use of manipulatives by linking what is being modelled through the
manipulatives to a discussion on the mathematical ideas, thus aiding the development of
students conceptual understanding in mathematics. The use of the modelling book focused
the mathematical discussion and enabled students to build their confidence in and ability to
express their problem-solving strategies, which was identified as a key learning need for
Kayla, Soichiro and Abby (see Appendices A, B and D). Furthermore, the modelling book
served as an effective way to scaffold the students confidence and ability to write number
sentences (equations), which was indicated as a learning need for all four students (see
Appendices A, B, C and D).
Reflection on my lessons has highlighted key areas of my practice that require development.
Firstly, although my lessons featured manipulatives and the modelling book, it lacked
integration of technological tools, which are found in abundance in todays classrooms.
Literature indicates various new technologies that can be utilised for this purpose and provide
new ways in which students can explore mathematical concepts (Anthony & Walshaw, 2009).
My decision not to include technological tools in these lessons was a result of my own lack of
confidence and knowledge in relation to the tools available, the ways in which they can be
used to support learning of mathematics and when to use them, which research indicates as
essential when making decisions regarding the inclusion of these tools in the lessons (Thomas
& Chinnappan, 2008). Consequently, this is a key aspect of practice I will require
development in.
Another aspect of my mathematics teaching practice requiring development, is my
questioning. Research indicates that careful, open-ended questioning provides students with
opportunity to justify and explain their mathematical thinking and reasoning, which provides
teachers with understanding of the students knowledge and thinking and how to progress
these (Steinberg, Empson & Carpenter, 2004). Although I had several questions planned for
my lessons, I found that the students required additional prompts. In order to build this
confidence, I allowed them to first share their thinking with a peer, and then provided
opportunity for group-sharing. However, during lesson 1 Kayla was very hesitant and unsure
about how to express her thinking when feeding back to the group. Instead of providing her
with the wait-time she required and pressing her for understanding, which is encouraged by
research (Anthony & Walshaw, 2009; Steinberg et al., 2004), I moved on to another student.
On reflection, I realise that this was not the correct response, although it was made with
consideration of the time-pressures on the lesson, and that it would have been more valuable
had I provided Kayla with extra time and prompting to gather and explain her thinking.

Finally, my teaching intervention highlighted the need to develop further pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK). Research indicates that the mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT)
of teachers, which includes both their PCK and content knowledge in mathematics, directly
effects students gains and achievement in mathematics (Hill, Rowan & Ball, 2005).
Recognising my own learning need in relation to MKT, including different approaches to
teaching the concepts of multiplication and division, I had a learning conversation with a peer
regarding the way in which they came to understand these concepts and how they would
approach their teaching. This was very beneficial and something I will consider doing in my
first few years of teaching, as my knowledge of different problem-solving strategies is very
limited. Ultimately, in order to scaffold and support my students appropriately, it is essential
that my future professional development includes gaining a greater understanding of different
instructional strategies in mathematics, as well as the different ways in which students may
approach mathematical problems and come to understand the key concepts.

References:
Ameis, J. A. (2002). Stories: Invite children to solve mathematical problems. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 8(5), 260-264. Retrieved from:
http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/214137066?accountid=17287
Anthony, G. & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: A
view from the West. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147-164. Retrieved
from: http://www.educationforatoz.org/images/_9734_12_Glenda_Anthony.pdf
Halladay, J. L. & Neumann, M. D. (2012). Connecting reading and mathematical strategies.
The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 471476. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/stable/pdf/41853057.pdf?
_=1467508761583
Higgins, J., Wakefield, M., & Isaacson, R. (2006). Modelling books and student discussion in
mathematics. Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2005
(pp. 65-71). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from:
http://dev.nzmaths.co.nz/sites/default/files/Numeracy/References/Comp05/comp05_hi
ggins.pdf
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers' mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2),
371-406. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/stable/pdf/3699380.pdf
Riordain, M. & ODonoghue, J. (2009). The relationship between performance on
mathematical word problems and language proficiency for students learning through

the medium of Irish. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(1), 4364. doi:

10.1007/s10649-008-9158-9
Runesson, U. (2005). Beyond discourse and interaction. Variation: a critical aspect for
teaching and learning mathematics. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 69-87.
doi: 10.1080/0305764042000332506.
Steinberg, R. M., Empson, S. B., & Carpenter, T. P. (2004). Inquiry into childrens
mathematical thinking as a means to teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 7, 237267. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan_Empson/publication/226312121_Inquiry_
into_Children's_Mathematical_Thinking_as_a_Means_to_Teacher_Change/links/02e
7e52eff77e5c2d1000000.pdf
Thomas, M., & Chinnappan, M. (2008). Teaching and learning with technology: Realizing
the potential. In H. Forgasz, A. Barkatsas, A. Bishop, B. Clarke, S. Keast, W. Tiong
Seah, & P. Sulliva (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2004
2007 (pp. 165193). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., Lovin, L. H., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Teaching
student-centered mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for Grades
3-5. (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., van den Boogaard, S., & Doig, B. (2009). Picture books
stimulate the learning of mathematics. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
34(3), 30-39. Retrieved from:
http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/fullText;dn=178603;res=AEIPT