This manuscript reports the results of a study done with elementary pre-service teachers to determine their understanding and ability to use proportional reasoning to represent population density of certain areas when given the information in text format. Although the majority of the respondents were able to use a proportional representation in formulating their answers, several misconceptions in data representation surfaced. Nine of the 40 pre-service teachers were unable to provide a proportional representation and another eight made calculation errors. The study highlights the importance of sound content and pedagogical knowledge in teacher preparation programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
America 2000: An Educational Strategy. (1991) Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education.
2.
ArmentoB.J. (1996). The professional development of social studies educators, in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2 Ed. SikulaJohn, ButteryThomas J., & GuytonEdith, eds. (pp. 485-502). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
3.
CurcioF.R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,18: 382-393.
4.
EvenR. and TiroshD. (1995). Subject-matter knowledge and knowledge about students as sources of teacher presentations of the subject-matter. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(1): 1-20.
5.
FisherC.J.FoxD.L. & PailleE. (1996). “Teacher education research in the English language arts and reading,” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd Ed.SikulaJohn, ButteryThomas J., and GuytonEdith, eds. (pp. 410-441). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
6.
Geography Education Standards Project. (1984). Geography for Life. National Geography Standards. Washington, DC.: National Geographic Research and Exploration.
7.
GudmundsdottirS. (1987). Learning to teach social studies: Case studies of Chris and Cathy. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC., April 20-24, 1987. Eric Document Reproduction Service No ED 290 700.
8.
GudmundsdottirS. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3): 44-52.
9.
GudmundsdottirS. (1991)[sic]. Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3): 44-52, cited in ArmentoBeverly J. (1996). “The Professional Development of Social Studies Educators,” In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd Ed. John Sikula, Thomas J. Buttery, and Edith Guyton, eds. (pp. 485-502). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
HosfordP.L. (1984). “The Art of Applying the Science of Education,” p. 141-168. In Using What We Know About Teaching. HosfordPhilip L., Ed.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
12.
KauchakD.P. & EggenP.D. (1993). Learning and teaching: research-based methods, 2nd Ed.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
13.
KenneyP.A. & SilverE.A. (Eds.) (1997). Results from the Sixth Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
14.
KimE.C.and KelloughR.D. (1995). A resource guide for secondary school teaching, 6th Ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
15.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1996). NA WP 1994 geography report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
16.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC.: National Council for the Social Studies.
17.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: author.
18.
Oklahoma State Department of Education. (1996, August). Priority academic student skills. Oklahoma City, OK.: OSDE.
19.
OmrodJ.E. & ColeD.B. (1996). Teaching content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: A model from geographic education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1): 37-42.
20.
PadillaM.J.McKenzieD.L., & ShawE.L.Jr (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of pre-service teachers in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86 (1): 20-26.
21.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57: 1-22.
22.
ShulmanL.S. & SparksD. (1992). Merging content knowledge and pedagogy: An interview with Lee Shulman. Journal of Staff Development, 13 (1): 14-16.
TufteE.R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CN: Graphics Press.
28.
WainerH. (1992). Understanding Graphs and Tables. Educational Researcher. 21(1), 14-23.
29.
WeintraubS. (1967). Reading graphs, charts, and diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 20: 345-349.
30.
WillowsD.M. & HoughtonH.A., eds, (1987). The Psychology of Illustration. Volume 1. Basic Research. New York: Spring-Verlag.
31.
WilsonS.ShulmanL. & RichertA. (1987). 100 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In CalderheadJ. (Ed), Exploring teacher thinking (pp. 104-125). London: Cassel. Cited in Kauchak and Eggen (1993).
