IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES TO INVOKE STUDENTS USE OF MATHEMATICAL THINKING POWERS IN ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS Roselainy Abdul Rahman UTM Razak

School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Kuala Lumpur; lainy@ic.utm.my Yudariah Mohammad Yusof1 Sabariah Baharun2 1 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, UTM, Skudai; yudariah@utm.my 2 Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology, UTM Kuala Lumpur; drsabariah@ic.utm.my

Abstract We have been teaching mathematics to engineering undergraduates and our experience have shown that, although our students have demonstrated the ability to answer standard or routine questions, there were still some inconsistencies between their ability to answer questions and their understanding of the concepts and the mathematical procedures that they were using (Mohammad Yusof & Abdul Rahman, 2001). They also had a wide range of mathematical abilities and different levels of mastery of prior knowledge. Consequently, we encountered students who found non-routine questions and problem solving difficult. A very small number still displayed poor mastery of algebraic skills and poor recall of mathematical facts considered as necessary prior knowledge. In addition, they were a few who showed resistance in adapting their learning styles and adopting suitable mathematical learning skills more appropriate for learning advanced mathematics (Bakar, 91; Tall & Razali, 1993; Ali & Tall, 1996). In this presentation, will share how we embarked on a study to change our teaching practice so that we could facilitate the development of our students ability in understanding the various related mathematical concepts and are able to reconstruct them as parts of a whole. We aimed to support them so as to develop efficient strategies in constructing new knowledge and be empowered with more successful ways of thinking about mathematics. Researches in mathematics education have contributed much towards providing theoretical perspectives for understanding thinking, learning, and teaching. It has also provided description on aspects of cognition as well as evidence on the viability and consequences of various kinds of instruction. Here, we will share our experience in translating some of the theories into classroom practice and how we develop our own personal theory for practice appropriate to both our students and our own circumstances. A framework that guides the classroom instruction and activities that we designed will also be highlighted. Introduction In this paper, we will be discussing several issues that emerge when we decided to change the way we taught engineering mathematics. Our experience in teaching engineering undergraduates had enabled us to identify some typical difficulties that students had. It had also shown the potential capabilities that they could develop. For example, our students have demonstrated the ability to answer standard or routine questions but there were still some inconsistencies between their ability to answer questions and their understanding of the concepts and the mathematical procedures that they were using (Mohammad Yusof & Abdul Rahman, 2001). They also had a wide range of mathematical abilities and different levels of mastery of prior knowledge. We had encountered students who found non-routine questions and problem solving difficult. A very small number could not immediately use appropriate algebraic techniques or recall mathematical facts required in some problems, especially those that they had learnt in earlier years at the lower or upper secondary levels. In addition, they were a few who showed resistance in adapting their learning styles and adopting suitable mathematical learning skills more appropriate for learning advanced mathematics (Bakar, 91; Tall & Razali, 1993; Ali & Tall, 1996). Mathematics has always been taught as a distinct subject in the engineering curriculum and the organization of the engineering topics further compounded their difficulties. Where mathematics occurred in their own engineering study was much dependent on the order the engineering topics were taught. It was not always possible to connect the mathematics to engineering applications immediately. A study by Mohd Yusof and Tall (1994) on UTM students, found that special sessions to Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

teach mathematical problem solving skills produced positive changes in students ability to solve problems. However, their ability diminished over time if not further supported. We had identified the mathematical skills that we thought our students needed to become independent learners, particularly, the ability to think flexibly. They should also have the ability to work out and reconstruct ideas from a few examples and be able to reconstruct techniques from a few core ideas. We felt that they should be able to solve non-routine problems or at least make logical and reasonable attempts at solving such problems. However, in changing the way we teach, we realized we had to address firstly, their existing needs, and secondly, on how to ensure their progress through the curriculum. This compelled us to find teaching methods that would maintain a balance between helping students overcome their difficulties, at the same time develop their understanding and skills in making sense of new mathematical knowledge, and enhance their competency in handling mathematical techniques according to the demands of the curriculum. We were interested in theories that relate to the learning of advanced mathematics, issues that deal with how students learn and how these relate to the instructional design. We were not only concerned with developing teaching strategies that would help students overcome their current difficulties but enhances their abilities to cope with more advanced knowledge. In the following sections, we will outline various issues that we had to deal with in changing our teaching practice that arose from our own reflections and concerns that the students had expressed about the teaching and learning situations. Issue 1: Beliefs and attitudes about Mathematics We realized that we had a different view about mathematics as compared to our students. Findings from research (Mohd. Yusof & Tall, 1994; Yudariah, 1995) showed that our students perceived mathematics as a subject wholly consisting of a conglomeration of facts and procedures. It was also reported that students with a poor track record in mathematics achievements in the past were over anxious when exposed to new problems and concepts. They would give up easily when faced with difficulties and showed great reluctance in persevering with new ideas and techniques. There was significant belief amongst the students that drill & practice was the most successful way to master mathematics. So, not surprisingly, many showed resistance in adapting their learning styles and adopting suitable mathematical learning skills more appropriate for learning advanced mathematics. Consequently, thy showed little cooperation when teaching approaches that required their participation were carried out. In a survey by Khyasudeen et al (1995), 70% of the student respondents claimed to have high motivation towards their learning. However, this was not reflected in their learning behaviour. Responses from the section on study habits showed that they had poor class attendance, did not have complete lecture notes, and did not often participate in class or peer group discussion. In many cases, a student repeating a subject would still skip classes and did not make any attempt to discuss his problems with their lecturers or academic advisers. Most of them also said that they were unable to build an effective working relationship with their peers and lecturers and found group work difficult. On the other hand, we saw Mathematics as a subject that was intrinsically hierarchical, in which new concepts and ideas were built upon earlier basic concepts. Thus, when the students encountered advanced mathematics, the new concepts taught would be established upon earlier concepts that they have learned. Furthermore, in trying to solve problems, they will be required to work with multiple procedures, make connections between several mathematical ideas, move between different representations and operate complicated algebraic manipulations. Yudariah Mohd Yusof (1995) found that students ability to solve problems can be enhanced through special sessions that taught them mathematical problem solving skills. However, their ability diminished over time if not further supported. We realized that as teachers, we were concerned about our students ability to cope with more advanced mathematics but our students were concerned with being successful in examinations. We felt that students needed to develop their understanding and skills in making sense of new mathematical knowledge but they only wanted to be able to be more competent in using mathematical techniques used in the tests and examination questions! Clearly, we had to address the students concerns and at the same time, ensure their progress through the curriculum. How could we convince students that they needed to change the way they worked with the mathematics? This compelled us to find teaching

Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

methods that would maintain a balance between helping students overcome their difficulties, at the same time develop their understanding and skills in making sense of new mathematical knowledge, and enhance their competency in handling mathematical techniques according to the demands of the curriculum. We were interested in theories that relate to the learning of advanced mathematics, issues that deal with how students learn and how these relate to the instructional design. We were not only concerned with developing teaching strategies that would help students overcome their current difficulties but enhances their abilities to cope with more advanced knowledge. We believed that encouraging students to be more aware and use mathematical thinking strategies would make them better students as well as overcome many of our own concerns about how they learned mathematics. Issue 2: Developing a Mathematical Pedagogy to Support our Ideas We looked at various theories of learning and instruction to find pedagogy that would support changes to our practice. Here, we will describe only those that we had chosen. Firstly, we wanted to determine what understanding the mathematics meant. Skemp (1987) described two ways of understanding mathematics, instrumental and relational understanding. He described the former as knowing rules without reasons, which for most learners (and teachers too) was their learning goal, i.e., to know a rule and be able to use it. The latter meant that learners know both what to do and why to do. Learning relational mathematics consisted of building up a conceptual structure or schema from which a learner can produce, in principle, an unlimited number of plans for getting from any starting point within his schema to a finishing point. Thus, in this kind of learning, the ends to be reached became independent of the means to reach them, the building of a schema is a satisfying goal in itself, and the more complete a learners schema, the more confident he became of his ability to face new problems. However, a schema was never complete, it can only enlarge and thereby enlarging the learners awareness of possibilities. However, he cautioned against the possibility of two kinds mathematical of mismatches that could occur in mathematical learning; learners who only wanted to understand instrumentally taught by a teacher who wanted them to understand relationally and vice-versa. We have described elsewhere (see Roselainy & Yudariah, 2003) that generally, our students mathematical learning experience at school, was geared towards performing well at national examinations, usually based on a regimen of drill and practice. We felt that to empower our students with the ability to become good problem solvers, we must persuade them to move from learning for instrumental understanding towards learning for relational understanding. Then, we focused on how do learners learn? Were there differences in the learning of elementary and advanced mathematics? We discovered Gray & Tall (1994) who were concerned with the manner in which individuals constructed concepts. The basis of their theory was on the duality of symbols as both process and concepts. They used the notion of procepts to explain the condition. They defined procepts as follows: An elementary procept is the amalgam of three components: a process which produces a mathematical object, and a symbol which is used to represent either process or object. .A procept consists of a collection of elementary procepts which have the same object. (Gray & Tall, 1994) Reflecting on the theoretical development on the construction of mathematical knowledge in elementary and advanced mathematics, Gray et al (1999) concluded that there were two different kinds of cognitive development in elementary mathematics: one focused on the properties of objects (as in geometry), the other, on the properties of processes and concepts in arithmetic, algebra and symbolic calculus. However, in advanced mathematics, there would be a new focus of attention and cognitive activity. The emphasis would change to selecting certain properties as definitions and axioms and building up the other properties of the defined concepts by logical deduction. They suggested that less Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

successful learners focused on the specific and associate it to real and imagined experiences that often do not have generalizable and manipulable aspects. High achievers focused increasingly on flexible processes and conceptual aspects of the symbolism allowing them to concentrate on mentally manipulable mathematical objects that gave greater conceptual power. In a later paper, Gray & Tall (2001) explained further why some learners were successful in manipulating symbols, while some deal with them procedurally and yet, others who found mathematics totally overwhelming. They focused on the different ways that procepts arise in cognitive development. They suggested that new form of procepts have their own peculiarities thus making abstraction qualitatively different in each case and that different contexts posed different kinds of cognitive problems in both the nature of the procepts concerned and the procedure-process-procept spectrum of student activity. They observed that students struggled with cognitive reconstruction as they met new mathematical idea and objects. They recommended that mentors who were aware of the mathematics and underlying cognitive structures should support the students as they learn. We looked at other ideas of how students learn and found Dubinsky (1991), who used the notions of objects, processes, and schemas to explain his theory of the development of concepts in advanced mathematical thinking. The definition of a schema was as a coherent collection of objects and processes. He believed that learners would invoke a schema in order to understand, organize or make sense of a problem situation is his or her knowledge of an individual concept in mathematics. Thus, the learner will have a large number of schemas, which would be interrelated in a large and complex organization. He used the term process or mental process, to refer to the internal mental actions and the term object to refer to either mental or physical object. He suggested that we could infer a learners ability to construct new mathematical knowledge, from his acts of recognizing and solving problems, of asking new questions and creating new problems. He considered constructing a schema a dynamic activity undertaken by the learner, and its existence was inseparable from its continuous construction and reconstruction. In Dubinskys theory, the main concern was in the learners construction of schemas for understanding concepts. He suggested that the aim of instructions was to induce students to make these constructions and to help them in the process. In promoting the need for a problem solving approach to learning as contrasted to the learning of routine methods, Skemp (1993) suggested the kind of learning situation that could support the formation of mathematical concepts and the building of mathematical schemas. The learning situation should provide embodiments of the concept, reducing any irrelevant information while forming the concept. We should give a number of examples of the concept, close together in time. We should introduce only one new concept at a time and lastly, ensure that the concept taught was one in which the learners had an appropriate schema so that they could connect the new concept to it. Our experience had shown that our students needed to be able to think more about the mathematics that they were learning and the problems that they had to solve. The focus in all their earlier experiences in mathematics was on getting the right answers and understanding or memorising the correct procedures to be able to do so. We would like our students to want to understand the concepts, become more aware of the mathematical processes and structures and be empowered in using their own mathematical thinking powers. We want them to see the mathematics we saw. Thus, we also explored ideas about mathematical thinking and the possibilities of enhancing students ability to think. We adopted the ideas of mathematical thinking as promoted by Mason, Burton & Stacey (1982). Burton (1984) described mathematical thinking as a way to improve understanding and extending control over the study of mathematics. In particular, he described mathematical thinking from three aspects, the operations, processes and dynamics of mathematical thinking. Certain operations were identified as mathematical such as enumeration, iteration, ordering, making correspondence, forming equivalence classes, combining or substituting one from another to transform into a new state. These operations were independent of content area but very necessary for understanding and using mathematical ideas. Four processes were identified as central to mathematical thinking, specializing, conjecturing, generalizing and convincing. Specializing is the exploration of meaning by looking at Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

particular cases to make clear some common properties. Conjecturing should naturally follow as a student search for relationships that connects the examples and tries to express and substantiate any underlying patterns. Generalization is the ability to recognize those patterns or regularity and making an attempt in expressing it mathematically. Convincing oneself and then another about the conjecture of the generalization that has been made encourages students to examine their ideas and explicitly communicate it first to themselves and then to others. Issue 3: Framework for designing classroom instruction and activities In developing our teaching strategies, other than considering the concerns of the students and ourselves, we have to take into account other factors such as the universitys teaching philosophy and requirements about our graduates as determined by the relevant bodies (ministry, employers, etc). We also needed to draw from the various theories applicable features that could inform on the design of our teaching strategies, classroom activities and the design of the tasks that students would do. We based our conception of mathematical thinking on the ideas of Mason, Stacey & Burton (1982). We used the description of how low and high achievers managed their mathematical knowledge (Gray & Tall, 1994) and Skemps description of the learning situation that would support problem solving. We now want a framework to design our classroom strategies to present the mathematical contents as well as design the classroom activities for our students to work on in order to achieve our teaching and learning goals. We found that ideas from Watson & Mason (1998) on what constituted mathematical thinking powers and mathematical structures were very useful in developing our lesson plans. The thinking processes, for example, specializing and generalizing, ordering and classifying, imagining and expressing, abstracting and instantiating, conjecturing and convincing, were useful in guiding us to provide learning experiences where we could encourage learners to use these powers explicitly thus supporting them in recognizing the mathematical processes and structures for themselves. We decided to use prompts and questions (Watson & Mason, 1998) as a means to draw learners attention to the mathematical processes and structures that was instrumental in facilitating the learners understanding of concepts learnt. The use of the prompts and questions would also enable students to guide their own thinking and used as tools to engage with new problems. We feel that we have now provided students with a vocabulary to master their own thoughts as well as engage in new ones. In creating an environment where students had to engage in doing the mathematical tasks, we decided to design mathematical tasks such that students could experience for themselves the mathematical processes such as the process of identifying the general class of problems they were working on. To ensure students had a compilation of these tasks, we designed a workbook that had five distinctive features to help students to become more familiar with our way of teaching. The five features are different sections in the book such as Illustrations, Structured Examples, Reflections, Review Exercises and Further Exercises. Under Illustrations, we would provide examples with complete solutions and explanations and to draw students attention to misconceptions and to introduce some applications. In the section of Structured Examples, we would provide problems that were adapted and modified as well as structured them in a manner to build concepts and ideas as well as revisit important issues highlighted in Illustrations. In both these sections, we had our prompts and questions explicitly stated so as to make them more visible to the students and increase their awareness of the prompts and questions that could be used. Students were expected to write out answers that would be connected to their understanding of important concepts and mathematical techniques under the section of Reflections. The Review Exercises provided students with more examples to work on meanwhile Further Exercises provided harder problems to solve. The lessons were conducted in an active learning environment where students had to participate actively in their learning in activities such as share and discuss sessions, group work and to share their Reflections with the class occasionally. Greater details of the design, implementation and assessment of students learning have been described in Roselainy, Yudariah & Sabariah (2007) and Sabariah, Yudariah and Roselainy (2008). An important consideration that we undertook was to reward the change in learning behaviours by making suitable adjustments to the assessment process, for example, giving credits for group work or when they share their ideas or thought to their peers in the classroom. Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

Issue 4: Reflective practice in teaching Here, we would like to reflect upon the difficulties that we face in linking the various theories to form a base for creating classroom strategies to implement and into activities and tasks for students was very challenging. Each theory highlighted certain aspects and obscured others and we had to evaluate each theory for what it illuminated about learning and how it could guide the development and design of effective instruction. We tried to base our efforts in hanging teaching practice on theory but we have to admit that we gave more credence to our experience and intuition about how our students learn and how to support them to become independent learners. We also tried to objectively identify all other factors that would influence our students learning. It was not that we were not aware of these factors before but our approach in dealing with them had been largely intuitive, spontaneous and reactive. As the change in teaching practice became an effort that was planned, a product of deeper thinking and considerations thus our engagement with our students at every levels, personal and public, were examined with greater awareness on our part to seek understanding and if possible, provide assistance to help the students. Similarly, as the students become more aware and appreciative of the efforts and attention we were giving in trying to understand how they learn and the support that we provided to change their learning, they became more encouraged to share and describe their difficulties at all levels, personal and academic. However, we became quite inundated with students sharing more of their personal difficulties that highlighted their need for more pastoral care, much more than we can provide. We were interacting with students socially, emotionally as well as cognitively. We decided that we would use the advantage of our rapport towards supporting improvements to students mathematical learning. Figure 1 below describes the process that we went through in planning and implementing our teaching strategies. The model was adapted from Driscoll (1994). The process was cyclic and as we implemented the strategies, our experience and students responses were reflected upon and used to review, modify and change our basic assumptions and strategies design.

Figure 1: Theory of learning and designing classroom strategies

Personal theory of learning

Design & implement instruction Observe effects of instructions in terms of learning & motivation

Assumptions, beliefs, knowledge base & experience of practitioners

Acquire knowledge of learning & instructional theories through study

Evaluate theories in terms of prior knowledge & experience

Revise assumptions, beliefs, personal theory & practices based on new knowledge & experiences

Integrate knowledge in light of working theory Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico of learning

Issue 5: Does the teaching strategies contribute to change in students attitudes? The diverse activities had generated the students interest as well as provided them with opportunities to take charge of their learning. At the beginning, students were uncomfortable with the activities as they were different from their usual learning experiences. However, after a few sessions, they became more comfortable with the new environment, showed enthusiasm for group work, sharing of ideas and working out the mathematics for themselves. We believed that the learning environment had facilitated students use of their own thinking and increased their communication skills amongst peers and with us. The classes were also livelier. We have seen from the students responses (Sabariah et al, 2008) that they became more willing to communicate their difficulties and also to express their understanding of the concepts that were taught. The strategies have also enabled students to start off in doing problems although not necessarily being able to solve them but there was an increased quality of participation and more attempts at communicating with their peers and with us. An important part of our strategy was a section on Reflections where students were asked to reflect mathematically on the concepts learnt and we saw that their written communication was improving progressively. There was a greater willingness and enthusiasm to do problems, to discuss, explain and share their thinking with others. Conclusion We had tried to base our strategies on learning and instruction theories but we found that each learning and instruction theory we studied highlighted certain aspects and obscured others. Thus, we had to evaluate each theory for what it illuminated about learning and how it could guide the development and design of effective instruction most suitable to our needs and concerns. In the design and implementation of the teaching strategies, we had to consider the way we taught, the students learning environment, the way students learn and work in the classroom as well as how mathematical knowledge grow and develop. More importantly, the whole teaching and learning process must be considered as a cycle of planning, implement, review, modify or change and thus, it is a dynamic and continuously improving process where each of us as teachers had to the changing first. Students found changing easier when the learning environment supports and rewards the changes they showed. References

1. Ali, M.B, & Tall, D.O. (1996). Procedural and Conceptual Aspects of Standard Algorithms in
Calculus. In Puig, L & Gutirrez, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol 2, Valencia, Spain.

2. Bakar, M. N. (1991). What Do Students Learn About Functions? A Cross Cultural Study in
England and Malaysia. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Warwick.

3. Burton, L. (1984), Mathematical Thinking: the Struggle for Meaning, Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, vol 15, No 1, 35-49.

4. Driscoll, Marcy P. (1994), Psychology of Learning for Instruction, Allyn & Bacon, Boston. 5. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective Abstraction in Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In Tall, (Ed),
Advanced Mathematical Thinking, pp 95 123, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

6. Gray, E. & Tall, D.O. (1994). Duality, Ambiguity and Flexibility: A Proceptual View of
Simple Arithmetic, The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26 (2), 115 141.

7. Gray, E. & Tall, D.O. (2001). Relationships Between Embodied Objects and Symbolic
Procepts: An explanatory theory of success and failure in mathematics, Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 6572. Utrecht, The Netherlands.

8. Gray, E., Pinto, M., Pitta, D. & Tall, D.O. (1999). Knowledge Construction and Diverging
Thinking in Elementary and Advanced Mathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1-3), 111-133.

9. Mason, J., Burton, L. & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking Mathematically. Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company, Inc. Wokingham, England. Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico

10. Mohammad Yusof, Y. & Abdul Rahman, R. (2001). Mathematics Education at UTM:
Learning from experience. Jurnal Teknologi, Vol. E, No. 34, June.

11. Mohd Yusof, Y. & Tall, D.O. (1994). Changing Attitudes to Mathematics Through Problem
Solving. In J.Pedro da Ponte & J. Filipe Matos (Eds.) Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. IV, 401 - 409, Lisboa, Portugal.

12. Pegg, J & Tall, D.O. (2005). The fundamental cycle of concept construction underlying
various theoretical frameworks. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 468-475.

13. Roselainy Abd. Rahman & Yudariah Mohammad Yusof. (2003). Undergraduate Mathematics:
Where is the transition to advanced mathematical thinking? Proceedings of Eleventh National Symposium of Mathematical Sciences, UMS.

14. Roselainy Abdul Rahman, Yudariah Mohammad Yusof & Sabariah Baharun (2007).
Enhancing Thinking through Active Learning in Engineering Mathematics. Proceedings of Fourth Regional Conference on Engineering Education, Johor Bahru, 3 Dec.

15. Sabariah Baharun, Yudariah Mohammad Yusof & Roselainy Abdul Rahman, (2008).
Facilitating Thinking and Communication in Mathematics. Presented at the 11th International Conference on Mathematics Education, Monterrey, Mexico, 6 13 July.

16. Skemp, R. (1987). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

17. Skemp R. R. (1993). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. London: Penguin. 18. Tall, D.O. & Razali, M.R., (1993). Diagnosing Students Difficulties In Learning
Mathematics. Int. Journal of Mathematics Education in Science & Technology, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp 209-222.

19. Watson, A. & Mason, J.H. (1998). Questions and Prompts for Mathematical Thinking. ATM,
Derby.

20. Yudariah Mohd. Yusof, 1995. Thinking Mathematically: A Framework for Developing Positive Attitudes Amongst Undergraduates. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Univ. of Warwick .

Unpublished paper presented at ICME 2008, Monterrey, Mexico