Research Article
The PGBE Model for Building Students’ Mathematical Knowledge about Percentages

Melinda Mula , Tatjana Hodnik

627 556

Article Metrics

Views

 

627

Downloads

 

556

Citations

Crossref

0

Scopus

5


Mula M, Hodnik T. The pgbe model for building students’ mathematical knowledge about percentages. European J Ed Res. 2020;9(1):257-276. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.257
Mula, M., & Hodnik, T. (2020). The pgbe model for building students’ mathematical knowledge about percentages. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.257
Mula Melinda, and Tatjana Hodnik. "The PGBE Model for Building Students’ Mathematical Knowledge about Percentages," European Journal of Educational Research 9, no. 1 (2020): 257-276. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.257
Mula, M & Hodnik, 2020, 'The pgbe model for building students’ mathematical knowledge about percentages', European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 257-276. Mula, Melinda, and Tatjana Hodnik. "The PGBE Model for Building Students’ Mathematical Knowledge about Percentages." European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 9, no. 1, 2020, pp. 257-276, https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.1.257.

Abstract

This research study presents the PGBE model for teaching and learning percentages with students of Grade 7 when their cognitive development enables the conceptual understanding of percentages as proportional statements, and offers the possibility for more effective matching of them with fractions and decimal numbers. The abbreviation PGBE presents the interrelation of the poster method and three instructional models through which different types of students’ mathematical knowledge about percentages can be built. Hence, P stands for the poster method through which the recognition of students’ previous knowledge about percentages can be done, G represents different grids that can be used for building concrete type of knowledge about them; B signifies the bar model for developing students’ proportional understanding of percentages, and E represents the extended bar model for fostering students’ principled-conceptual understanding of percentages. The effectiveness of the implementation of the PGBE model is assessed by organizing two cycles of piloting and conducting the experimental method with 263 students of ten Grade 7 classes. The results of the study show that the implementation of the PGBE model has had an impact on the learning of students, stimulating an in-depth learning and a long lasting knowledge about percentages for this cohort of students.

Keywords: Percentage, the PGBE model, design research method, types of students’ mathematical knowledge.


References

Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 127–145.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., Lovet, M. C., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, L. D., Thames, H. M., & Phelps C. G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554

Bennett, A. B. J., & Nelson, L. T. (1994). A conceptual model for solving percent problems. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 1(1), 20-25.

Clements, D. H. D., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. P. (2014). Linking mathematics to learning trajectories: Boundary objects and representations. In J. Confrey, A. Maloney & K. H. Nguyen (Eds.), Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Damrongpanit, S. (2019). From modern teaching to mathematics achievement: The mediating role of mathematics attitude, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 713–727.

Dewar, J. M. (1984). Another Look at the Teaching of Percent. Arithmetic Teacher, 31(7), 48–49.

Dole, S. (2008). Ratio tables to promote propotional reasoning in the primary classroom. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(2), 18–23.

Erickson, D. K. (1990). Percentages and cuisenaire rods. Arithmetic Teacher, 83(8), 648-654.

Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2002). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing fractions, decimals, and percents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gafoor, K. A., & Kurukkan, A. (2015). Why High School Students Feel Mathematics Difficult? An Exploration of Affective Beliefs. The UGC Sponsored National Seminar on Pedagogy of Teacher Education, Trends and Challenges (pp. 1-6). Kozhikode, Kerala, India. Retreived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560266.pdf

Haubner, M. A. (1992). Percents: Developing meaning through models. The Arithmetic Teacher, 40(4), 232-234.

Hodnik Cadez, T., & Kolar, V. M. (2017). Monitoring and guiding pupils' problem solving. Magistra Iadertina, 12, 109-133.

Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 305–342.

Larracilla-Salazar, N., Moreno-Garcia, E., & Escalera-Chavez, M. E. (2019). Anxiety toward math: A descriptive analysis by sociodemographic variables. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1039–1051.

Logan, J., Quinones, R., & Sunderland, D. (2015). Poster presentations: Turning a lab of the week into a culminating experience. Journal of Chemical Education , 92(1), 96-101.

Ngu, B. H., Yeung, A. S., & Tobias, S. (2014). Cognitive load in percentage change problems: Unitary, pictorial, and equation approaches to instruction. Instructional Science, 42(5), 685–713.

Ningsih, S., Putri, R. I. I., & Susanti, E. (2017). The use of grid 10 x 10 in learning the percent. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 113–120.

Parker, M., & Leinhardt, G. (1995). Percent: A privileged proportion. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 421–481.

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1973). Memory and intellegence. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pohler, B., & Prediger, S. (2015). Intertwining lexical and conceptual learning trajectories - A design research study on dual macro-scaffolding towards percentages. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1697–1722.

Polly, D., McGee, J., Wang, C., Martin, C., Lambert, R., & Pugalee, D. K. (2015). Linking professional development, teacher outcomes, and student achievement: The case of a learner-centered mathematics program for elementary school teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.002

Quintero, A. H., & Rosario, H. (2016). Math makes sense! A constructivist approach to the teaching and learning of mathematics. Singapore, Singapore: Imperial College Press.

Raj Acharya, B. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8-15.

Rianasari, V. F., Budayasa, I. K., & Patahuddin, S. M. (2012). Supporting students’ understanding of percentage. IndoMS-JME, 3(1), 29–40.

Scaptura, C., Suh, J., & Mahaffey, G. (2007). Masterpieces to mathematics: Using art to teach fraction, decimal, and percent equivalents. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(1), 24-28.

Shala, A., & Grajcevci, A. (2018). Kosovo’s Low Performance in PISA 2015: An Explanation From a Socioeconomic Perspective. Educational Process: International Journal, 7(1), 48–59.

Streefland, L. (1985). Search for the roots of ratio: Some thoughts on the long term learning process (Towards… A Theory) II. the ouline of the long term learning process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(1), 75-94.

 Sweller, J., & Low, R. (1992). Some cognitive factors relevant to mathematics instruction. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 83-94.

van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1994). Improvement of (didactical) assessment by improvement of problems : An attempt with respect to percentage, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(4), 341–372.

van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9–35.

van Galen, F., Feijs, E., Figueiredo, N., Gravemeijer, K., Van Herpen, E., & Keijzer, R. (2008). Fraction, percentages, decimals and proportions: A learning-teaching trajectory for grade 4, 5 and 6. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

van Galen, F., & van Eerde, D. (2013). Solving problems with the percentage bar. Indonesian Mathematical Society Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 1–8.

Wells, D. (2016). Motivating mathematics: engaging teachers and engaged students. Singapore, Singapore: Imperial College Press.

Wilson, P. H., Sztajn, P., Edgington, C., & Myers, M. (2015). Teachers’ uses of a learning trajectory in student-centered instructional practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115574104