PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF RELATIONAL AND.pdfVIP

PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS OF RELATIONAL AND INSTRUMENTAL UNDERSTANDING Kim Beswick University of Tasmania This p ap er rep orts on the resp onses of a cohort of p reservice p rimary teachers to a statement about the extent to which help ing children achieve relational understanding is a realistic exp ectation. A lthough the p reservice teachers ’ course had included teaching about understanding a number of misconcep tions about the meanings of relational and instrumental understanding were evident in the resp onses of a sizeable minority, along with evidence that many held belief s that were likely to result in them teaching instrumentally. Thef indings highlight the idiosyncratic nature of p reservice teachers ’ knowledge construction and draw attention to a range of disp arate meanings that may be attached to the term ‘understanding ’ even when it is qualif ied with other words such as ‘instrumental ’ or ‘relational ’. BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Ongoing calls for reform in education generally and mathematics education in particular have stressed the importance of teaching for understanding (e.g. NCTM, 2000). In several Australian states, including Tasmania where this study was conducted, significant shifts to values-based curricula that place a heavy emphasis on the development deep understanding are underway (Department of Education, Tasmania, DoET, 2002). It thus behoves mathematics teacher educators to prepare preservice teachers to teach for understanding. This task is by no means simple, with the difficulty due at least in part to the difficulty of defining exactly what is meant by understanding. Madison (1982) sourced the diffic