Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Teachers’ collective knowledge: the case of equivalent fractions

To cite this article: Z H Putra and C Winsløw 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1088 012003

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.125.57.95 on 26/11/2018 at 14:12





6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

Teachers’ collective knowledge: the case of equivalent

fractions

Z H Putra and C Winsløw

1,2 1

Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 3, 1350

1

Copenhagen, Denmark
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, University of Riau, Kampus Bina Widya
2

Km 12,5 Simpang Baru, Pekanbaru, Riau 28293, Indonesia

E-mail: zetra.putra@ind.ku.dk

Abstract. Research on teachers’ mathematical knowledge has grown significantly over the last
few decades. Many studies concern teachers' knowledge by using written tests, as for students.
But in reality, teachers do not work in isolation but in institutions where professional knowledge
is shared. How can this shared or collective knowledge be studied systematically and precisely?
With this in mind, we designed so-called hypothetical teacher tasks (HTTs) which teachers solve
in pairs. Each HTT can be used to investigate teachers’ knowledge of some specific mathematical
piece of knowledge (like how to add fractions) and knowledge about how to teach it. We present
a case from Danish and Indonesian pre-service teachers’ collaborative work on one HTT about
equivalent fractions. We analyse how the shared mathematical and didactical knowledge of
equivalent fractions differ between the two groups. Indeed, there are visible differences. The
Danish pair proposed several didactical ideas to teach equivalent fractions, while the Indonesian
pair focused on the direct instruction of standard algorithm.

1. Introduction
Research on teachers’ knowledge has grown significantly over the last few decades especially after
Shulman’s seminal work introduced a new perspective on content knowledge in teaching [1]. This
knowledge consists of subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular
knowledge. These categories are closely related to learning and teaching practices in classrooms, and
they become the primary focus of many studies including in mathematics education such as
mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) [2].
Most studies on teachers' knowledge focus on teachers' knowledge by using written tests [e.g., 3], as
for students, in which it is not in line with Shulman’s view on how to study teachers’ content knowledge
and pedagogical content knowledge. For instance, he argued that content knowledge is not only about
teachers' capability to define a correct answer in a specific subject, but “teachers must also be able to
explain why a particular proposition is deemed warranted, why it is worth knowing, and how it relates
to other propositions, both within discipline and without, both in theory and in practice” [1]. Therefore,
to study teachers’ knowledge one should let teachers share their knowledge that is related to what and
how the teachers work in institutions where professional knowledge should not be isolated but shared.
We try to address this issue in the present study.
Teachers’ collective knowledge has been studied by Winsløw and colleagues [4,5] by designing so-
called hypothetical teacher tasks (HTTs) which teachers solve in pairs. Each HTT aims to investigate
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1




6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

teachers' mathematical knowledge, and how the teachers share this knowledge during their collaborative
work. The mathematical task involved in the HTTs is both standard and elementary, that means in
principle be addressed in many institutions [4]. But, it should give several possibilities, both practices,
and theory, for teachers to solve the mathematical task and propose adequate didactical ideas. We adopt
the idea of HTTs to study pre-service teachers' mathematical knowledge of rational numbers,
specifically the case of equivalent fractions. We investigate how HTTs can be a useful tool to study and
compare teachers’ collective knowledge from two different institutions, Denmark and Indonesia.
In designing and studying teachers’ collective knowledge, this study is developed based on the
anthropological theory of the didactic (ATD) introduced by Chevallard [6], specifically the notion of
praxeology. We apply the praxeology because it provides an epistemological model to study human
practice and theory. The praxeology comes from a Greek word, praxis, and logos. The praxis or practical
block is unified by a type of tasks (T) and techniques (τ). In the case of rational numbers, a mathematical
!
type of task is to find a fraction that is equal to . To solve it, one can employ several possible
"
mathematical techniques such as multiplying both numerator and denominator by a positive integer or
doubling each numerator and denominator. While, in the case of teachers' knowledge, the type of tasks
is not only about mathematics but also didactics. An example of didactical tasks is to organise a teaching
activity related to the equivalent fractions to support pupils learning, and the didactical technique could
be to instruct pupils the standard mathematical technique of equivalent fraction !" = $! $"
, 𝑛 is an integer .
While the logos or theoretical block is also unified by two components called a technology (θ) and a
theory (Θ). The technology functions to justify or explain several techniques. An example of
technological discourse related to the technique for the equivalent fraction task is that two fractions are
equal if the value or size of the two fractions is the same. To show them, one can change both fractions
into decimals. There is also a didactical technology associated with the didactical technique. For
instance, a teacher who directly instructs pupils the standard mathematical technique may believe that
the pupils need to receive the direct instruction on how to solve a mathematical task, and then use it to
the similar task type. The second part of logos is the theory used to be a basis and support of the
technology. Equivalent value of different representations of rational numbers can be seen as a theory to
justify that mathematical technology, and the direct instruction theory is the example of didactic theory
to justify the didactical technology. We use the mathematical and didactical praxeology as an analytical
framework to the present study of teachers’ mathematical and didactical knowledge of rational numbers,
especially in the case of equivalent fractions, in the setting of collaborative work, because it provides us
with a more detailed model to investigate teachers’ knowledge, and the collaborative work provides
opportunities for teachers to share and critically re-examine how they make claims from facts, and how
they build on one another’s ideas to construct more sophisticated ways of reasoning [7].

2. Method
The present study focuses on one among five HTTs designed for studying teachers' mathematical and
didactical knowledge of rational numbers [8]. The design of HTT about equivalent fractions follows a
similar way to the other HTTs. It is started by reviewing some previous studies on equivalent fractions
that pupils have difficulties and misconceptions to find and justify the equivalent values of two fractions.
One of the main misconceptions of finding an equivalent fraction is that pupils tend to add both
numerator and denominator of a fraction by a positive integer 𝒂𝒃 = 𝒂2𝒏 𝒃2𝒏
, 𝒏 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐫 . By
proposing this situation to PsTs, they may consider different mathematical and didactical praxeologies.
The concrete HTT of equivalent fractions given to PsTs is presented in the following figure:

2




6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

Figure 1. HTT about equivalent fractions

The HTT about equivalent fractions along with other four HTTs of rational numbers has been tested
to 31 Danish and 32 Indonesian PsTs. Almost all of them worked in pairs except for one Danish group
consisting of three PsTs, so there were 15 Danish and 16 Indonesian pairs. However, in this particular
study, we focus on presenting and analysing one pair from each group because the primary aim of this
study is showing how HTTs can be used to study teachers' collective knowledge, and how this
knowledge can be developed during their discussion.
From figure 1, we can describe two possible mathematical types of tasks and one didactical type of
tasks. The first mathematical type of tasks (T ) is to find a fraction that is equal to 𝒂𝒃. The second
m1

mathematical type of tasks (T ) is to evaluate the two fractions 𝒂𝒃 and 𝒂2𝒏

m2
𝒃2𝒏
are equal, and it is based on the
pupil’s claim. Then, from question b the didactical task type (T ) is to propose didactical praxeologies
d

to help pupils to solve the task type T , but some PsTs may relate it to T when they discuss during their
m1 m2

collaborative work. For each type of task, we can describe some possible techniques, and those can be
found in Putra and Winsløw [8].
The data consists of PsTs’ written answers from question a. and video recordings from question b.
Especially for the video recordings, their utterances during the discussion were transcribed from time to
time to produce detailed mathematical and didactical ideas. The transcripts were analysed in term of
mathematical and didactical praxeologies (techniques, technologies, and a theory), both on mathematics
and didactics. The first author did the principal analysis by reading the transcript several times and
interpreting based on the praxeologies. Then some questionable points found in the data were discussed
with the second author.

3. Findings
Now, we present our praxeological analysis of one Danish and one Indonesian pair working on the HTT
about equivalent fractions. We select the pairs that can represent a commonality for their groups.
The Danish pair (D and D ). The written answer given by D focused on mathematical technologies
1 2 1

to clarify the pupil’s incorrect mathematical technique of adding the positive integer 5 to the numerator
and the denominator (τ ). He wrote “The size of a fraction depends solely on the relationship between
m1
-

the numerator and the denominator. If you add 5 to the numerator and the denominator, the size of the
fraction increases because the numerator will be a larger percentage”. D had the mathematical 1

technology to justify τ based on the ratio, or a relationship between two quantitates, the numerator and
m1
-

the denominator. This is indicated that adding a number to both quantities does not give the same size
of the two fractions. D also wrote, "If the pupil had extended the fraction by multiplying the same factor
1

in the numerator and the denominator, the relationship would still be the same, and the fraction size
would be the same." This means that the appropriate mathematical technique to find an equivalent
fraction is to use multiplication instead of addition (τ ) because it will give the same ratio between the
m1

two quantities. While D also proposed a mathematical technology to justify τ that was a little bit similar
2 m1
-

to what has been suggested by D . He said that pupils mix between addition and multiplication, but when
1

one affects the numerator, the same goes to the denominator. Besides, D also proposed a didactical
2

3




6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

technique that he would like to show to pupils that 𝟖𝟗 give a bigger number than 𝟑𝟒 by finding the quotients
of the two fractions.
At the collaborative work, the Danish pair concerned on how to teach the pupils. They proposed three
different didactical techniques to support pupils to understand the equivalent fractions. The first
didactical technique was to present pupils with a common and straightforward fraction. It was stated by
D when they started the discussion. He said “Perhaps something about simplifying fractions. Perhaps
1

𝟏𝟎
[we] present them with the fractions of 𝟏𝟎𝟎 , and then somehow to teach them, that is the same as a tenth”.
The didactical technology behind this technique was to have something easy for the pupils to grasp the
meaning of equal fractions.
The second didactical technique was to support pupils to check the quotients of the two fractions 𝟑𝟒
and 𝟖𝟗. D2 explained it based on what he wrote in his written answer.
2

D : It's. They are on the track of the correct thing since they have the understanding that. They are just
2

mixing up addition and multiplication, and they know that when you influence the numerator, that
also works in the denominator, since [they] can prolong a fraction. In that sense, they are quite
close, and I think that the only thing they are doing now is to test some hypotheses that they think,
well earlier experiences in some way. Because, if you have two numbers then, and you add 5 to
both then the difference should be the same. It just isn't when calculation [with] fractions. That's a
shame, but what they have tested, which they could earlier.... and therefore, I think (..) almost right,
to give the pupils an understanding... I think it's ok to make the pupils calculate these two numbers.
Find out what it is as a decimal [number]. Perhaps do it together on the blackboard, have some
pupils’ approach [on the board], and use the calculator, so they will see the difference, and they see
hmm, what it is then, that we perhaps did wrong.
D : Yes, perhaps start there, instead of giving them the answer to make them wonder.
1

D : Yes, because it is a little hypothesis they have [gotten] wrong. But it’s something that is fine enough
2

because if you have the number 5 and the number 10, and you have to prolong, you know make
those numbers bigger, but it doesn't matter how there has to be the same value in between them.
The proportion should be the same, well then it is okay to add the same in both. But it is just a little
mistake when considering the rules of [operating] fractions.
D : Yes. There it is the proportion between the numerator and the denominator which is important.
1

From the excerpt, D supported the pupils to change both fractions into decimals because these could
2

help them to see that the two fractions did not give the same value, the same decimal representation.
The use of a calculator to check the value of the two fractions can be seen as a didactical tool to support
pupils’ understanding, but it also provides a challenge for teaching and learning activities, such as EF
gives a result of repeated decimals. Besides, they also provided a didactical technology based on the
mathematical idea of proportion. This means that the two fractions are equivalent when they have the
same proportion.
The last didactical technique was to teach pupils using pizza representations, and the main purpose
was to show that the two fractions GH and EF are not equal. During the discussion, D drew the two diagrams
1

to represent both fractions (figure 2). He suggested this didactical technique to let pupils find by
themselves what went wrong. He believed that the visual representation could help the pupils learn a lot
about the equivalent fractions especially for the pupils who were still in the fourth grade. So, it seems
that the nature of teaching elementary school pupils based on contextual situations becomes a didactical
technology to justify the didactical technique based on the pizza representations.

4




6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

Figure 2. Pizza representations to support

pupils’ conception of equivalent fractions

The Indonesian pair (S and S ). The written answers given by both PsTs indicated that they
1 2

recognised that the pupil’s mathematical technique, adding both numerator and denominator by a
positive integer (τ ), was incorrect. So, they proposed a correct mathematical technique,
m1
-

multiplying/dividing both numerator and denominator by a positive integer (τ ). S also provided a m1 1

technological discourse to justify the mathematical technique τ . He argued that the two fractions are
m1

equivalent when the quotient of both fractions was the same (θ ). Besides, S also stated that the pupil’s
m1 1

explanation could be directed to find the least common multiple (LCM) because the pupil has understood
that it has to be done an arithmetic operation to both numerator and denominator to get an equivalent
fraction. This means that the pupil just chose an inappropriate operation, the addition instead of the
multiplication. This explanation could be interpreted as a didactical technology to justify the pupil’s
mathematical thinking, and the mathematical idea of finding LCM seems less appropriate because the
right term is just “multiple” or to multiply each numerator and each denominator.
At the collaborative work to address the task type T , S dominated the discussion. He started it by
d 1

asking S ’s opinion and continued by re-reading question b (T ). Instead of giving an opportunity to S to

2 d 2

explain her thoughts, S just proceeded to explain the technological discourse behind the pupil’s answer
1

based on what he has written on question a. He argued that the pupil has already understood how to find
an equivalent fraction that it has to be done with the numerator and the denominator (adding the same
number to both numerator and denominator), but it was incorrect. He continued the explanation by
proposing a correct mathematical technique τ that the pupil should apply to solve the task type T , and
m1 m1

the technique was correct if the quotient of the two fractions gave the same result (re-explain the
technology θ ). While S just seemed to agree with that explanation that it was indicated by her short
m1 2

answers “hmm” during the discussion. So, we can say that both PsTs agreed to instruct pupils with the
correct and standard mathematical technique τ to solve the task type T as the main didactical technique
m1 m1

for finding equivalent fractions.

The discussion was continued by proposing further possible justification behind the incorrect
mathematical technique (τ ) given by the pupil. S argued “[the arithmetic] operations needed [for the
m1
-
1

task] are multiplication and division," but when S asked him a reason behind these two operations, S
2 1

claimed that it was based on “the rule." Although he did not elaborate on it, he tried to define the
definition of equivalent fractions from the meaning of a fraction itself. He stated, "A fraction [𝒂𝒃] is the
division [a by b], and equivalent value to the division is the multiplication and the division itself." From
this statement, we can interpret that S tried to justify the mathematical technique τ is correct from the
1 m1

concept of fraction as a division of two positive integers. They continued the discussion, but they still
discussed the idea behind the reason to choose the multiplication or the division. For instance, we present
a further discussion of the two Indonesian pair as follows:
S : I think it is better to explain why it has to be multiplied not to be added. Do you understand it?
2

S : [I] understand [it].Yes, it is like that, [but] why it should be multiplied. It is not only to be multiplied,
1

but it is also possible to be divided.

S : Yes, it is divided when the fraction involves [two] bigger [digits]. Yes, it has to be divided by the
2

same [positive] integer. If the case like this. The pupil asks to find a fraction that is equal to 𝟑𝟒. It
involves [two] smaller [digits 3 and 4].
S : Maybe like this. A fraction is equal to the division. 𝟑𝟒 means that 3 is divided by 4. Which is equivalent
1

to the division, … division, multiplication, subtraction, and addition…the same level to the division

5




6th South East Asia Design Research International Conference (6th SEA-DR IC)
The IOP Publishing
Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series
IOP 1088 (2018)
1234567890 ‘’“” 012003 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012003

is multiplication, so only the multiplication can be used to find the equivalent fraction. Hmm, wait
a minute, … How to explain it? Yes, it can be like that.
The excerpt shows that S tried to propose an idea to teach pupils by explaining why the mathematical
2

technique τ should be used instead of τ . This kind of didactical technique may support pupils to
m1 m1
-

develop their technological discourse to accept the correct mathematical technique. Although S tried to
1

convince S using the concept of fraction as a division of two positive integers, this technological
2

discourse may be beyond the mathematical concept that could be accepted by S and also by the pupils.
2

It seems that S was not satisfied with S , but she also could not provide some justification to the
2 1

mathematical technique τ . Then, at the end of their discussion S argued “if we use addition to find [an
m1 1

equivalent fraction of 𝒂𝒃], the numerator and the denominator are added by the same positive integer and
[got a new fraction 𝒅𝒄 ], and when we divide [a by b and c by d], we can show the quotients are different”.
So, this is one of didactical technology linked to mathematical technology to justify why such the
technique proposed by the pupils on the HTT is incorrect.

4. Discussion and concluding remarks

The findings of the study show manifest differences between the Danish and Indonesian mathematical
and didactical praxeologies for addressing the task of equivalent fractions. The main difference is that
the Danish pair suggested three different possible didactical techniques, while the Indonesian pair only
focused on one didactical technique based on the direct instruction of the mathematical technique τ . m1

That discrepancy is caused by their personal mathematical praxeologies. For instance, both Indonesian
PsTs provided almost the same written answers to question a, and they just discussed the idea based on
what they have written. The Danish pair, on the other hand, seems to have different personal
mathematical praxeologies, so when they bring these praxeologies into the discussion, they come to
different possible didactical praxeologies to teach the pupils. The differences between the two pairs can
be caused by their mathematical technologies or theories. For instance, the Danish pair tends to justify
their techniques based on the ratio or proportion. They tend to argue that the two fractions are equivalent
when the ratio between the numerators and the denominators of the two fractions remains the same, and
understanding a fraction as ratio between two numbers is considered a prerequisite for equivalent
fractions [9]. While, the Indonesian pair focuses on the linguistic meaning of “fraction” as the division
between the numerator and the denominator stated by S , and uses this technology to justify τ . Their
1 m1

difficulty in explaining this makes them discuss the same thing for several times and could not achieve
more advanced mathematical and didactical praxeologies.

Acknowledgment
We thank the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education (RISTEKDIKTI) of the
Republic of Indonesia for funding the first author PhD research under the grant no.102.7/E4.4/2015.

References
[1] Shulman L 1986 Educational Researcher 15 4
[2] Ball D L, Thames M H and Phelps G 2018 Journal of Teacher Education 59 389
[3] Depaepe et al. 2015 Teaching and Teacher Education 47 82
[4] Winsløw C and Durrand-Guerrier V 2007 Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education 12 5
[5] Durrand-Guerrier V, Winsløw C and Yoshida H 2010 Annales de Didactique et de Sciences
Cognitives 15 147
[6] Chevallard Y 2006 Proceedings CERME 4 (Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain) 21
[7] Francisco J M 2013 Educational Studies in Mathematics 82 417
[8] Putra Z H and Winsløw C 2016 Presented in CITAD 5 (Castro-Urdiales, Spain)
[9] Charalambous C Y and Pitta-Pantazi D 2007 Educational Studies in Mathematics 64 293