Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Volume 47 Issue 4 Article 4

2022

The Impact of Problem-based Learning on Pre-service Teachers’

Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge
David A. Martin
Edith Cowan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte

Part of the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Martin, D. A. (2022). The Impact of Problem-based Learning on Pre-service Teachers’ Mathematics
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4). https://doi.org/
10.14221/ajte.2022v47n4.4

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol47/iss4/4
Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The Impact of Problem-based Learning on Pre-service Teachers’

Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge

David A. Martin
Edith Cowan University

Abstract: Predictors of teacher effectiveness in relation to student

achievement are based on the ability to use a range of evidence-based
teaching strategies. Australia’s Teacher Education Ministerial
Advisory Group (TEMAG) report that some tertiary providers
working with pre-service teachers (PSTs) are using pedagogical
practices which are not informed by established research. This paper
reports on the impact a student-centred, PBL teaching approach had
on third-year Bachelor of Education PSTs’ PCK in a mathematics
education subject, compared to a similar group taught using a
conventional teacher-directed approach. A quasi-experimental group-
by-time design was used to determine the impact of the intervention.
Contrary to meta-analyses regarding the efficacy of PBL compared to
teacher-directed instruction, findings from this study show the PSTs
from the PBL group developed their mathematics PCK as well as
those who were taught using a teacher-directed instructional
approach, Wilks’ Lambda = .71, F (1, 35) = 14.33, p < .01.

Background and Context

It is stated in the international literature (Carroll & Foster, 2010; National Research
Council, 2010; Office for Standards in Education, 2005; TEMAG, 2014) that knowledge of
subject matter and pedagogical approaches are important elements of teacher effectiveness,
and therefore, should be a focus of PST education. In Australia, the TEMAG (2014)
presented 38 recommendations which they believe will provide the structural change needed
to strengthen its initial teacher education programs. Recommendation 6 requires initial
accreditation of teacher education programs to be linked to tertiary providers demonstrating
that their programs use evidence-based pedagogical approaches (TEMAG, 2014, p. xii).
Recommendation 14 requires that “higher education providers deliver…a range of
pedagogical approaches that enable PSTs to make a positive impact on the learning of all
students” (2014, p. xiii) and further stating “the difference between expert teachers and pre-
service teachers is this depth of pedagogical content knowledge” (2014, p. 18). The study
reported here investigates PBL used in a semester-long undergraduate mathematics education
subject in order to provide evidence of its potential value in pedagogical practice for
developing the mathematics PCK of PSTs. The National Australian Curriculum strands and
sub-strands of Algebra, Measurement, Geometry and Probability and Statistics provide the
content for the mathematics education subject the participants were studying.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 55

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Literature Review
Toward a Framework: Pedagogical Content Knowledge

In this paper, the author adopts a representation of mathematics PCK based on Gess-
Newsome’s (1999) transformative model, where PCK exists as a separate knowledge base
rather than occurring when content and pedagogical knowledge are integrated by the teacher
during instruction. This discussion of PCK begins with its conceptualisation (Shulman, 1986)
and progresses to Gess-Newsome (1999) who categorised the construct of PCK into two
models – the integrative and transformative. Researchers that followed and progressed the
construct will also be discussed in the context of Gess-Newsome’s models.
Pedagogical content knowledge has been traditionally defined as “the blending of
content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are
organised, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Shulman called for the need to explore PCK
as the inherent interconnection between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In
subsequent research, PCK was recognised as being either an integration of or transformation
from teachers’ content knowledge and their pedagogical knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 1999;
Grossman, 1990; Marks, 1990). For example, Grossman (1990) blended the traditionally
separated knowledge bases of content and pedagogy, identifying PCK as a unique domain of
teacher knowledge. Marks (1990) indicated that PCK, by its nature, contains elements of both
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In such a structure, the teacher must first
examine and interpret the content for its composition and significance. The interpretations are
then transformed as necessary to make it comprehensible and compelling in a particular
context (to a particular group of learners in a particular subject area). Pedagogical knowledge
can be seen in a teacher who adopts pedagogically useful representations of the content, use
of questioning strategies, knowledge of assessment or knowledge of their students’ learning
processes. Consider a teacher who must determine the correctness of different answers given
by students when demonstrating 100% using a geoboard (a board covered with a square grid
with pins at the corners of the squares to which students attach rubber bands to create 2D
shapes). Firstly, the teacher must not only determine any errors in those responses, but also
the nature of those errors. Next, the teacher would have to strategically choose the type and
timing of responses to use with the students based on his or her knowledge of them.
Gess-Newsome (1999) progressed the conceptualisation of PCK by categorising the
construct into two models - as either an integration of or transformation from teachers’
content knowledge and their pedagogical knowledge. Figure 1 illustrates the integrative
model and the transformative model.

Integrative model Transformative model

Figure 1: Two models of teacher knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 1999, p. 12)

= PCK - knowledge needed for classroom teaching

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 56

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Under the integrative model PCK does not exist as a separate category of knowledge,
but combines content, pedagogical and contextual knowledge used by the teacher during
instruction. The integrative model can be likened to a teacher who draws upon the three
categories of knowledge during his/her classroom practice, but during that process the three
categories of knowledge do not lose their distinct characteristics. In the transformative model,
the three knowledge categories are synthesised and transformed to form a new knowledge
category. Content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and contextual knowledge are
inextricably combined into PCK as a new form of knowledge.
In the context of mathematics, Chick (2003) articulated PCK as a form of teacher
knowledge which, in addition to mastery of the content, incorporates how the mathematics
content is used in teaching. Chick et al. (2006) conceptualised a framework for analysing
mathematics PCK as a mix of content and pedagogy: (a) completely intertwined with
pedagogy and content, (b) content knowledge in a pedagogical context, and (c) pedagogical
knowledge within a content context. The first category (a) of the framework is consistent
with the transformative model.
Ball et al. (2008) chose to investigate what teachers need to know about the
mathematics content they are asked to teach and how and where they might use such
knowledge in practice. Based on those two questions and their analyses of videos of teaching
practice and subsequent design measures of mathematical knowledge arising from those
videos, they developed a working definition of ‘mathematical knowledge for teaching’
(MKT). This phrase was defined as: “the mathematical knowledge that teachers need to carry
out their work as teachers of mathematics” (2008, p. 4). Their studies led to the conclusion
that how teachers hold mathematical knowledge may be as important to their effectiveness as
how much they hold. However, the MKT structure is primarily an integrative model in that
the authors’ conception of the knowledge bases remain separately identifiable.
The transformative model used in the context of PCK for teaching mathematics is
supported by Silverman and Thompson (2008). Their conceptualisation of mathematics PCK
is underpinned by a teacher’s mathematical understanding that pervades through the
instructional sequence, is integral for learning beyond the classroom mathematics and that
“play into a network of ideas that does significant work in students’ reasoning” (2008, p.
501). Consequently, Gess-Newsome’s (1999) transformative model, which proposes that
PCK exists as a separate knowledge base, the amalgamation of content, pedagogical and
contextual knowledge, forms the conceptual framework for mathematics PCK assessed in the
study reported here.
Deliberating on the pedagogical approach for the development of mathematics PCK
in PSTs, this study considers Barrows’ (1986) taxonomy of problem-based learning.

The Nature and Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning (PBL) in Higher Education

PBL as a pedagogical approach in higher education was pioneered at McMaster

University for use in their medical education programs. The adoption of PBL by the
McMaster group and Barrows (1986) was a result of students’ dissatisfaction with their
medical school’s use of a traditional instructor-led model of teaching and the vast amounts of
information they had to absorb, which was perceived to have little relevance to medical
practice (Barrows, 1996). The McMaster group perceived “students were excited by working
with patients and solving problems” (1996, p. 4). As a result, the university adopted PBL
using a student-centred, problem-solving orientation designed to prepare medical students in
the art of clinical reasoning to solve complex medical problems (Barrows, 1994; Hmelo-
Silver, 2011).

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 57

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

To define the key components of PBL, students work together collaboratively in small
groups to analyse, research and find solutions to complex, open-ended, real-world problems
which have many potential solutions. The instructor enables the learning process by
challenging the students’ thinking through asking key, higher order questions which probe
deeply into what students know or do not know. The instructor, as the facilitator, has a
responsibility to avoid transferring his or her own knowledge when guiding the students,
instead, attempting to provoke thought and provide direction. Next, the students determine
what they need to learn to solve the problem. This may require research, discussion and re-
analysis of the problem. The resulting information the students assemble is analysed and then
synthesised by the group into new coherent forms of understanding required to solve the set
problems. The process is usually completed with a tangible solution to the problem in the
form of a presentation (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2015).
To suitably describe the features of the PBL approach used in this study, Barrows’
(1986) taxonomy of problem-based learning identifies the use of explicit processes to
facilitate learning based on the needs of the discipline, the educational method employed and
the skills of the instructors. Barrows suggested that a PBL method has the potential to address
four educational goals: (1) structuring of knowledge for use in clinical contexts (SCC); (2)
developing an effective clinical reasoning process (CRP); (3) developing effective self-
directed learning skills (SDL); and (4) an increased motivation for learning (MOT). Barrows
conceptualised that his PBL taxonomy provided an awareness of these variations and
educational objectives “to help teachers choose a problem-based method most appropriate for
their students” (Barrows, 1986, p. 481). His taxonomy is illustrated in Figure 2.
The design and format of the problems are a major variable, identified in Figure 2 as
circles. The degree to which the learning is student-led or teacher-directed is the other major
variable, denoted by squares in Figure 2. Barrows estimated the degree for how well each
variation of PBL meets each of the four educational objectives using a score from 0-5. Of all
six variations in his PBL taxonomy, Barrows determined that closed-loop was the best option
to enhance all four educational objectives for medical students such as acquiring the essential
work-based skills to diagnose and heal effectively.

Figure 2. Taxonomy of Problem-based Learning (Barrows, 1986, pp. 482-483)

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 58

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

The closed-loop (reiterative) PBL approach is the most student-centred in Barrows’

taxonomy using free inquiry with full problem simulation. Closed-loop PBL is an extension
of the problem-based method with the addition that once students complete their self-directed
learning, they are asked to evaluate their research, processes and solution(s). Students are
then asked to return to the original problem to reflect on how they might have improved their
research and reasoning processes based on what they learned during their self-directed
learning, thus closing the loop. The advantage of the closed-loop PBL method is that it
addresses the students’ development of effective self-directed learning skills, their clinical
reasoning processes, and their structuring and synthesis (through reflection) of knowledge for
use in clinical contexts. These steps require them “to go beyond the acquisition and
discussion of new knowledge in a way that allows them to see its value and to evaluate
actively their prior knowledge and problem-solving skills” (Barrows, 1986, p. 484).
Due to its affinity to not only medical education, but to the particular features of
professional learning in general, PBL has become regarded as a pedagogy which offers
benefits to other professional practices, including schools of education (Burn & Mutton,
2015; Kriewaldt & Turnidge, 2013; McLean Davies et al., 2013; Novikasari, 2020; Strobel &
van Barneveld, 2015). For example, Barrows’ (1986) four educational objectives for medical
students correspond with the educational objectives PSTs are required to achieve in order to
diagnose student learning needs and teach mathematics effectively (Burn & Mutton, 2015;
Carnegie Corp. of New York, 2001; McLean Davies et al., 2013). Distinctively, PSTs need to
possess an understanding of mathematics content, curriculum and assessment to determine
the cognitive demands of a task for their students. The PSTs must also analyse the students’
mathematical solutions and arguments and identify learning difficulties and misconceptions
and apply their PCK to overcome these problems (Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers, 2018).
This type of clinical practice/reasoning structure has been adopted in teacher
education programs. In 2008, the University of Melbourne’s Graduate School of Education
re-designed their Master of Teaching degree (McLean Davies et al., 2013) based on the
principles of the Carnegie Corporation of New York – in particular the idea that the teaching
profession be ‘understood as academically taught clinical practice profession” (Carnegie
Corp. of New York, 2001, p. 1). The re-design of the program was further underpinned by
Levine’s (2006) declaration of exemplary teacher education programs which identifies one of
the criteria as exemplary because of how “they integrate and balance academic and clinical
instruction” (p. 101). Initial research regarding first graduates’ satisfaction with their training
in the re-designed program showed that 90% claimed they were ‘well’ or ‘very well’
prepared for the real life of a classroom (McLean Davies et al., 2013) compared to the
Australian Education Union’s (2009) survey of 1545 new teachers across Australia that, on
average, 40-45% claimed they were ‘well’ or ‘very well’ prepared.
Burn and Mutton (2015) examined features of other programs which provided
opportunities for PSTs to engage in clinical reasoning practice to develop their abilities to
teach effectively. They concluded that for PSTs studying within their scope, with access to
expert facilitators, “clinical practice allows them to them to engage in a process of enquiry:
seeking to interpret and make sense of the specific needs of particular students, to formulate
and implement particular pedagogical actions and to evaluate the outcomes” (2015, p. 219).

Problem-based Learning for Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Limited studies exist on PBL’s effectiveness in the development of PSTs’ PCK (for
example, Erdogan & Senemoglu, 2017; Mohamed, 2015; Pepper, 2013; Zamri & Lee, 2005).

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 59

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Erdogan and Senemoglu (2017) examined the effectiveness of PBL in a language testing and
evaluation subject to investigate PSTs’ academic achievement and self-regulation. The results
indicated PBL was effective in developing the PSTs’ knowledge, comprehension and
application-level achievements as they worked on real-life problems. However, the PBL
approach had no significant effects on their self-regulation. The PSTs indicated the large
group sizes negatively impacted their ability to share responsibilities and collaborate due to
the challenges of meeting outside of class time. The PSTs expressed three to four as a desired
group size.
Pepper (2013) presented PBL to a cohort of second-year science education students to
determine their perceptions of the teaching approach while planning lessons for Year 7
students. The PSTs mostly welcomed the independent learning and the opportunity to
collaborate and share the responsibility for designing and developing authentic teaching
materials. They described the learning approach mainly as interactive and engaging and
reported a perceived increase in their confidence to plan and deliver a Year 7 science
investigation since completing the PBL activity. The PSTs indicated an appreciation for
being introduced to PBL and that they will likely use it to engage their future students.
Zamri and Lee (2005) examined the implementation of PBL on PSTs’ PCK in a
tertiary mathematics education subject. The objective of the six-week PBL study was to
investigate the PSTs’ attitudes, activities and perceptions pre and post PBL session. The
process began with the PSTs, in groups of four to five, scrutinising a problem scenario. They
were provided time for group collaboration to identify the issues, investigate relevant
materials and resources and plan a solution. During the process, they were tasked with
identifying the different pedagogical approaches to teaching mathematics. In their last class,
the PSTs demonstrated their solutions to the class. The results from the student attitude
survey indicated a significant difference regarding their attitudes and perceptions towards
PBL in the context of teaching mathematics. The results from PSTs’ activities survey show
that the PBL sessions provided opportunities to consider alternatives to solving problems and
to locate, evaluate and utilise appropriate learning resources in the context of teaching
mathematics.
Each of the studies provided insight into PSTs’ perceptions of PBL as a teaching and
learning approach and how it enacted and transformed their PCK while participating in a PBL
program. A further review of the literature did not reveal any other PBL studies aimed at
developing mathematics PCK during PSTs’ tertiary education other than Martin et al.,
(2013). As a result, there is a gap in the literature which supports the significance of this
study. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the closed-loop PBL
(Barrows, 1986) pedagogical approach with PSTs.
Based on the literature that concludes that not all graduating PSTs possess adequate
mathematics PCK to teach effectively, the research question that guided the study was:
1. What impact will using closed-loop PBL instead of a teacher-directed instructional
approach have on PSTs’ mathematics PCK?

Method

The participants (N=37) were PSTs in the third year of a four-year Bachelor of
Education degree at a regional Queensland university in Australia. All participants were
enrolled in their mathematics education subject at one of two campuses of the university, and
this determined the control group and the treatment group for the study. Separating the
treatment group and control group to different campuses largely reduced the risk of
interaction. Table 1 summarises the demographic information for each group. The Australian

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 60

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Curriculum strands and sub-strands of Number and Algebra, Measurement and Geometry,
and Statistics and Probability provided the mathematics specific content of its type in the
Bachelor of Education degree. The study was conducted in accordance with all required
ethics protocols.

Cohorts Treatment group Control group

Campus 1 Campus 2
Number of Students 17 20
Gender:
Females 15/17 18/20
Males 2/17 2/20
Age (years)
Range 20-45 20-47
Mean 28 25.5
Median 24 21
Prior Teaching Experience (days)
< 10 1 0
10 – 15 3 2
16 – 25 2 2
>26 10 15
Teacher Aide Experience 1 1
Table 1: Demographic Data for the Treatment and Control Group Cohorts of Pre-service Teachers

The Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge Instrument (MPCKI)

Three studies formed the basis for the development of the multiple-choice MPCKI:
the CEMENT project (Callingham & Beswick, 2011), the MPCK study (Cheang et al., 2007)
and the TEDS-M study (Tatto et al., 2008) with item contributions and permission from
Callingham and Beswick (2011), Cheang et al. (2007) and acknowledgement of the use of
released items from the TEDS-M (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement [IEA], 2012). The items used from the three contributing instruments were
chosen because of their real-world attributes and alignment with the content of the
mathematics subject in which the student participants were enrolled.
The MPCKI was designed and validated using Rasch modelling in a pilot study
(Martin & Jamieson-Proctor, 2020) with students of a similar demographic, studying the
same subject within the same program, only a year earlier. The 54 multiple-choice questions
which measured PSTs’ mathematics PCK were based on 12 scenarios of classroom teaching
(three algebra, three measurement, three geometry, three statistics and probability) and
structured to fit a standardised format requiring responses to multiple choice items per
scenario (example scenario in Appendix A). The Rasch analyses from the pilot study (Martin
& Jamieson-Proctor, 2020) revealed the empirical hierarchy of the difficulty of the items,
which was used to restructure the 54 item MPCKI into two instruments (pre-semester and
post-semester) measuring the same constructs at a similar difficulty level, thus minimising
testing and instrumentation threats. Based on an examination of the logit values indicating the
levels of difficulty of each item provided by the Rasch modelling, 18 of the 54 items did not
have a similar level of difficulty with another item containing similar subject matter. As a

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 61

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

result, these 18 items were used in both the pre-semester and post-semester instrument. The
remaining 36 items were divided equally between the pre- and post-tests with each item
matched with an item in the other test in terms of subject matter and levels of difficulty. As a
result, both the pre-semester MPCKI and post-semester MPCKI contained 36 questions with
each asking the same number of subject matter questions at the same or similar difficulty
level (see Appendix A and Appendix B).

Research Design

The participants of the control group (n=20) were taught using a traditional
lecture/tutorial teacher-directed approach and the treatment group participants (n=17) were
instructed using closed-loop PBL. Both instructors had similar years of mathematics
education lecturing experience. The lecturer who was recruited to teach the control group,
used a traditional teacher-directed pedagogical approach. The second lecturer, who uses a
constructivist approach to teaching, adopted the closed-loop PBL pedagogical approach to
deliver the subject to the treatment group. Prior to the start of the study the researcher
provided the ‘PBL’ lecturer with literature on the closed-loop PBL framework and
professional development on the practice of facilitating a PBL classroom. This involved
discussions and modelling for preparing groups to work collaboratively in a PBL
environment and how best to ask meta-cognitive questions which focus on encouraging
explanations and recognition of knowledge limitations (Leary et al., 2013).
For both cohorts, the semester was 15 weeks with 10 weeks required for on-campus
attendance. During the on-campus classes, both cohorts were presented with the identical
content topics and real-world, open-ended, moderately ill-structured tutorial problems (see
example in Appendix C) related to the topics (Jonassen & Hung, 2015). In week 1 of the
semester both the treatment group and the control group were asked to respond to the MPCKI
pre-test. The learning objective for weeks 2 and 3 was for the PSTs to be able to progress
school-aged students’ understanding of simple geometrical and numerical patterns to
comprehending simple algebraic equations. Weeks 2 and 3 was used to address the weeks’
learning objectives for both groups while simultaneously preparing the treatment group of
PSTs to begin working and learning in a PBL environment. The preparation for the treatment
group required a different pedagogical approach compared to that used with the control group
and to that used in other subjects studied by the students. Weeks 2 and 3 were therefore used
to help them develop the skills to work collaboratively and to take charge of their own
learning as opposed to being fully directed by the tutor.
The semester content was identical for both groups, but how it was presented was
different. The control group was introduced to the content using teacher-directed instruction
in the 10 weekly 1-hour lectures, each followed by a 2-hour tutorial, where they engaged with
the real-world, open-ended decision-making tutorial problems, albeit led by the tutor.
Alternatively, the treatment group was expected to investigate the week’s content and the
same real-world, open-ended tutorial problems during a 3-hour workshop, in which they were
facilitated to be self-directed. Students in this cohort worked independently and in working
groups of 4-5 students to investigate the problem that was posed, identify gaps in their
knowledge, fill those gaps through self-directed learning and research and create their
solutions.
The following section provides a detailed description of how the content and
pedagogical strategies were delivered to the control group during the 1-hour lecture and then
how they engaged with the tutorial tasks during the 2-hour tutorial.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 62

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Outline of the Teacher-directed Approach used with the Control Group during the Study

1-hour teacher-directed lecture: Each week for one hour the control group of PSTs
attended a lecture in a traditional lecture theatre. The lecturer displayed a PowerPoint
presentation using the theatre’s LCD projector screen and delivered, slide-by-slide, using a
teacher-directed instructional approach, the week’s curriculum content and pedagogical
strategies related to the content. The students were primarily passive listeners.
1x2-hour teacher-directed tutorial: Following each lecture, a 2-hour tutorial was
conducted in a classroom with the tutorial problems framed around the week’s curriculum
and pedagogy topic. The tutorial session began with the lecturer informing the students that,
after being divided into four groups based on their preferred teaching year level, they would
create a lesson plan in response to one of two real-world, open-ended problems. Their
response should demonstrate their ability to address difficulties children experience with
specific mathematics concepts and skills. Essentially, two groups worked on one of the
problems while the other two groups solved the other problem. In the following week, the
process was repeated for the control groups with the other two of four problems.
Next, led by the lecturer and complemented with PowerPoint slides, the two real-
world, open-ended tutorial problems were presented and unpacked. This was accompanied by
a review of the pedagogical strategies the students would need to solve the problems.
Relevant concrete materials were brought to class by the lecturer for the PSTs to utilise as
part of their solutions of each problem. Other resources made available during the tutorial
were (a) iPads with internet access, (b) a variety of textbooks aimed at teaching primary
school mathematics and (c) the lecturer to answer questions.
Students then placed themselves into four groups of four or five and were tasked with
developing a lesson plan which addressed the specific real-world, open-ended tutorial
problem. Visiting each group in turn, the lecturer answered questions and assisted students’
reasoning processes. The lecturer confirmed or suggested possible activities and solutions in
terms of the pedagogical strategies that were ‘expected’ to be used. The students then
reorganised their solutions and wrote-up the solutions to the problems on a provided lesson-
plan template. Circulating to each group for the second time, the lecturer established that each
group’s solutions met the subject’s learning outcomes. Groups which struggled were assisted
to develop an ‘acceptable’ solution. In a teacher-led whole class discussion, each group in
turn provided their solution to how they would enact their PCK to remediate the children’s
difficulties. Feedback and/or alternative solutions were provided by the lecturer. Any
questions asked by other students were generally answered by the lecturer.
The next section provides a description of how the PBL cohort was facilitated in their
self-discovery of the content and pedagogical strategies during their 3-hour workshop, in
order to compare and contrast the approaches of the two different lecturers. Also described is
the student-led process used during the following week’s 3-hour workshop where the groups
delivered their solutions in the form of a simulated lesson which addressed the mathematics
content covered that fortnight.

Outline of the PBL Approach used with the Treatment Group in the Study

3-hour, student-directed workshop: Each week the PBL cohort attended their 3-hour
workshop, with no lecture component. The room chairs were prearranged into four groups of
four or five students each, with each group placed in teams based on their preferred teaching
year level.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 63

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

At the start of each workshop, the lecturer informed the students that each group
would create a lesson plan in response to one of four real-world, open-ended problems to
demonstrate their ability to address difficulties children experience with particular
mathematics concepts and skills. Using the closed loop PBL process, the groups spent the
remainder of the workshop engaged in a process of discovery/research and collaboration to
determine the information they needed in order to remediate the children’s difficulties and
allow them to provide a solution to the problem posed. It was the group’s decision how to
best utilise the time in their 3-hour workshop. Relevant concrete materials (the same
materials as provided to the control group) were available to the groups. Other resources
made available during the workshop were (a) iPads with internet access, (b) a variety of
textbooks aimed at teaching primary school mathematics, (c) access to lecture information
and (d) the PBL facilitator as a coach/mentor.
While the groups engaged with their problem, the lecturer, using a PBL facilitation
process, supported the students’ thinking by responding to their questions with probing
questions of her own… questions which the students should be asking themselves to guide
their thinking. Thus, Socratic Dialogue (van der Linden & Renshaw, 2004) was engaged
where the lecturer was neither the author nor transmitter of knowledge, but rather an assistant
to the learners’ search for solutions to the problems. This dialogue included questioning the
students’ search for evidence as well as the justification for their choice of lesson activities
which they believed would address the difficulties children experience with the mathematics
topics. At the onset, the students were frustrated because their questions were being answered
with more questions by the facilitator, even if it was in order to assist them to search for
evidence and apply reasoned arguments. In this way the students were enabled to centre their
thinking on the learning objectives of the subject and, they were guided towards identifying
what they knew and what they needed to find out. This iterative approach was undertaken so
the students would become more confident in identifying the specific information they
needed to discover to solve the problem that was posed.
The following week, during the 3-hour workshop, each group took turns delivering
the lesson to their peers in a simulated classroom using their choice of materials and teaching
strategy. After delivering their lesson, informal feedback was provided to the group members
by their peers and the lecturer.
To close the loop, after delivering the lesson each group member responded to a set of
reflection questions such as: If you were to revisit the original problem, what improvements
would you make to your reasoning process? These questions requested they reflect on the
effectiveness of their process in solving the problem, both individually and as a group.

Data Collection and Analysis

The pre-semester MPCKI was administered in week 1 and the post-semester MPCKI
was administered in week 15 for the purpose of measuring changes over time of the treatment
and control groups as well as compare the two groups mathematics PCK at the start and end
of the semester. A mixed between-within repeated measures ANOVA (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2019) was used to compare the mean scores (between-subjects) across two time periods
(within-subjects) to analyse and interpret the overall mean scores from each MPCKI test. The
overall mean scores for each MPCKI scale (pre- and post-test) were determined by adding up
the raw scores of the 36 items for each PST and calculating the average. The mean score
obtained from the MPCKI ranged from 0-1 as a result of each of the 36 responses being
coded as a 0 or 1 [0-36/36].

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 64

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Prior to analysing the results from the ANOVAs, it was important to check that
certain assumptions were not being violated. The general assumptions which apply to
parametric tests when comparing group means include (a) dependent variables are measured
on a continuous or interval scale rather than discrete or categorical scales, (b) measurements
are not influenced by other measurements (independence of observations), (c) populations
samples are normally distributed and (d) samples are obtained from populations of equal
variance (homogeneity of variance) (Field, 2017).
First, the data collected from the MPCKI (as summated rating scales) were treated as
continuous data and classified as scale variables in SPSS. Second, in terms of independence
of observations, the participants from each of the two cohorts were formed from two separate
campuses. As a result, there were limited interactions between participants across cohorts.
Third, to test whether the scores were normally distributed, a Shapiro-Wilk test was
conducted in SPSS for each of the data sets. Tests of Normality statistics returned non-
significant values indicating the samples did not deviate significantly from normality. The
fourth assumption to be met was that of homogeneity of variance/covariance. To test these
assumptions, SPSS provides the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances statistic. The
Levene’s test returned a non-significant value indicating no significant deviation from
equality of variances for each of the times (pre and post) between the two groups (treatment
and control) (Field, 2017; Pallant, 2016).

Results

A mixed between-within repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess the

impact of the closed-loop PBL teaching method (treatment group) compared to teacher-
directed instruction (control group) on PSTs’ mathematics PCK mean scores at two points in
time (pre-intervention and post-intervention, Table 2). There was no significant group by
time interaction, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F (1, 35) = .031, p = .86, 2 = .001. There was
however a significant main effect for time, Wilks’ Lambda = .71, F (1, 35) = 14.33, p < .01,
2 = .29 with an increase in PCK scores from Time 1 to Time 2 for both groups. The Eta
squared value of 0.29 indicates a relatively small effect size. Cohen (1992) considers an
effect size of 0.2 as small, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large. However, as stated by Burns and Burns
(2008, p.244), “If the sample is small [as in this study], you can assume that a significant
result is probably also practically significant”. As Burns and Burns points out, if the sample is
small, and the result significant at .01, as in this study, even though the effect size is small,
the result has potential practical implications.

Point in Time Pre-intervention Post-intervention

N M SD N M SD
Treatment Group 17 .431 .019 17 .500 .022
Control Group 20 .413 .017 20 .475 .020
Table 2. Mathematics PCK Scores for the Treatment Group and Control Group at two Points in Time

Therefore, in this study, the MPCKI results indicate that both teaching methods were
able to assist PSTs to enhance their mathematics PCK from Time 1 (pre-intervention) to
Time 2 (post-intervention). Thus, our hypothesis that the PBL group would display a greater
increase in PCK than the control group as a result of the teaching method is rejected. Further,
there was no significant difference between the two groups at either the pre-intervention or
post-intervention. Figure 3 illustrates the profile plots comparing the two teaching methods
pre-intervention to post-intervention for the treatment group and control group. Further, as

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 65

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

there was no significant difference between the two groups at the pre-test it can be assumed
that prior learning did not impact one group more than the other. They started the same with
respect to mathematics PCK.

Figure 3: MPCKI Results of the Mean PCK Scores for the Treatment and Control Groups
Over the 15 Weeks

Discussion

The MPCKI multiple-choice items were designed to measure PSTs’ mathematics PCK. It
was hypothesised the study would demonstrate significant outcomes between the two
teaching methods with regard to developing PSTs’ mathematics PCK.
The pre-semester MPCKI results were used prior to the commencement of the
intervention to establish that both groups had a similar level of mathematics PCK. In effect,
both groups had similar knowledge about how to teach mathematics at the start of the
semester irrespective of prior learning. During the four-month intervention period the two
groups were exposed to different pedagogical approaches. At the end of the intervention the
MPCKI was used to compare the control group and treatment group levels of mathematics
PCK. The ANOVA results indicated no significant difference in the effectiveness of the two
types of teaching methods in their ability to develop the PST’ mathematics PCK. Thus, it
appeared that the PBL intervention had not achieved an improvement as expected in the
treatment group’s mathematics PCK when compared to the control group’s mathematics
PCK. However, meta-synthesis findings from Strobel and van Barneveld (2015) suggests a
multiple-choice survey designed to measure the attainment of content knowledge favours
traditional instruction over a PBL pedagogical approach. However, both groups performed
equally well on the post-test MPCKI. Thus, in this study, closed loop PBL did not hinder the
development of the PSTs’ PCK, and it was as effective as traditional instruction, when PCK
is measured using the multiple-choice MPCKI.
Further, meta-analysis findings exist on the positive impact of PBL on outcomes
related to application of PCK in teacher education studies (Walker & Leary, 2009), similar to
the learning which was facilitated by the PBL intervention in this study. Studies which used
closed-loop PBL as their pedagogical intervention “indicated some of the largest findings in

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 66

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

favour of PBL (d = 0.54) (Walker & Leary, 2009, p. 23). Further, when the PBL cohort in
this study were asked an additional ‘closing the loop’ reflection question designed to capture
whether they felt PBL had been more effective than their past experiences with traditional
instruction, 16 of 17 students responded in the affirmative. Representative statements include:
It [PBL] was more student-led. As a group we went and explored the different
ideas and the resources to find out what we wanted to do to work out the actual
method of how we were going to teach it. So we were trying to incorporate what
we had learned into how we were going to teach it.
Having to actually get up and do it [teach] and using strategies… So you’re
seeing what works and what doesn’t work. And you’re getting feedback as well
on what they [peers and facilitator] think worked and what didn’t work.
It’s helped my mind learn to structure sequences for lesson planning in specific
relation to mathematics.
The view provided by students regarding a dissatisfaction with traditional teacher-
directed instruction, in terms of developing their mathematics PCK is further demonstrated
by the following representative responses:
It [traditional instruction] doesn’t help my learning. It [traditional instruction]
doesn’t make me think about what I should be learning to get the answers.
It [traditional instruction] was all about recall and trying to remember things.
With lecturing, I listen but it doesn’t make sense to me. I’ll forget it as soon as I
walk out.

Limitations and Future Research

This study was conducted over the course of one semester (four months) with a
relatively small sample size (N=37), however, the result may be considered practically
significant (Burns & Burns, 2008). Inherent limitations of the study arose when it was
decided to use convenience sampling in the study; thus, the sample used in the study means
the results cannot be attributed to the whole or larger population. Applying closed loop PBL
for just one semester in just one subject potentially limited the impact of the pedagogical
approach on the breadth of dependent variables investigated. It is recommended that any
replication of the study should be conducted with a larger sample size and for longer than one
semester with the same instructors: potentially swapping roles/instructional groups. In the
context of swapping instructional groups, consider both the treatment and control groups
created solutions to real-world, open-ended problems in the form of a lesson plan during class
time. However, the PBL treatment group of PSTs were required to enact their PCK in a
simulated classroom. The control group of PSTs were provided direct instruction in the use of
teaching strategies and resources which were used to create solutions to the problems, but
they did not deliver their lessons in a simulated classroom. Their class time was allocated to
discussing, with teacher-direction, how they would enact their mathematics PCK.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 67

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Conclusion

This study is considered an initial attempt to investigate the effect of the social
constructivist, closed-loop PBL method (Barrows, 1986), in comparison to teacher-directed
instruction on PSTs’ PCK in a tertiary mathematics education subject. Based on the research
presented, and in relation to assessing mathematics PCK in this study, the results of the
MPCKI could possibly have favoured the control group of PSTs taught using a teacher-
directed approach. However, this was not the case. The conclusion from the results of this
mathematics education study is that when assessed using the multiple-choice MPCKI, the
closed loop PBL method adopted in this study with PSTs was as effective as teacher-directed
instruction. However, we feel the main aim of our study was achieved addressing TEMAG’s
(2014) recommendations that tertiary providers use evidence-based pedagogical approaches
that have a positive impact on learning.
In closing, it is proposed that researchers conducting studies in PBL should, in the
first instance, describe the extent to which the PBL method is employed and provide a clear
description of the protocols used (Albanese & Dast, 2014; Goodnough & Nolan, 2008;
Newman, 2003). This study set out to investigate the effect of the social constructivist,
closed-loop PBL method (Barrows, 1986), in comparison to teacher-directed instruction, on
PSTs’ PCK in a tertiary mathematics education subject. The results suggest that closed-loop
PBL is an effective pedagogy for developing PSTs’ mathematics PCK - and as such should
be pedagogy of interest to pre-service teacher educators.

References

Albanese, M., & Dast, L. (2014). Problem-based learning: Outcomes evidence from the
health professions. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3-4), 239-252.
Australian Education Union. (2009). New educators survey 2008: Results and report.
Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. (2018). The Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Education Services Australia.
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes
it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education
20(6), 481-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x
Barrows, H. S. (1994). Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical
education. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview.
New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (68), 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966804
Burns, R. P., & Burns, R. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. Sage.
Burn, K., & Mutton, T. (2015). A review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’in initial
teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 217-233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020104
Callingham, R., & Beswick, K. (2011). Measuring pre-service teachers knowledge of
mathematics for teaching [Paper presentation]. Australian Association for Research in
Education (AARE) Conference 2011, Hobart, Tasmania.
https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2011/aarefinal00497.pdf

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 68

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Carnegie Corp. of New York. (2001). Teachers for a new era: A national initiative to
improve the quality of teaching. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/ff/26/ff263cd8-5a90-4cb5-9b53-
881f1a68e03a/ccny_other_2001_tneprospectus.pdf
Carroll, T., & Foster, E. (2010). Who will teach? Experience matters. National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511985.pdf
Cheang, W. K., Yeo, J. K. K., Chan, E. C. M., & Lim-Teo, S. K. (2007). Development of
mathematics pedagogical content knowledge in student teachers. The Mathematics
Educator, 10(2), 27-54.
Chick, H. L. (2003). Pre-service teachers' explanations of two mathematical concepts.
[Electronic Version]. Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)
Conference 2011, Auckland, NZ.
https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2003/chi03413.pdf
Chick, H. L., Pham, T., & Baker, M. (2006). Probing teachers' pedagogical content
knowledge: Lessons from the case of the subtraction algorithm. In P. Grootenboer, R.
Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces:
Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (pp. 139–146). Adelaide, Australia: MERGA.
Erdogan, T., & Senemoglu, N. (2017). PBL in teacher education: its effects on achievement
and self-regulation. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1152-1165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303458
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation.
In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (Vol. 6, pp. 3-
20). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_1
Goodnough, K., & Nolan, B. (2008). Engaging elementary teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge: Adopting problem-based learning in the context of science teaching and
learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(3),
197-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802315130
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2011). In Memoriam: Remembering Howard S. Barrows.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1251
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2015). Problem-based learning: Goals for learning
and strategies for facilitating In A. Walker, H. Leary, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.),
Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of
Howard S. Barrows (pp. 69-84). Purdue University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.10
Jonassen, D., & Hung, W. (2015). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-
based learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Essential readings
in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S.
Barrows (pp. 17-42). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.7
Kriewaldt, J., & Turnidge, D. (2013). Conceptualising an approach to clinical reasoning in
the education profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(6), 7.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n6.9
Leary, H., Walker, A., Shelton, B. E., & Fitt, M. H. (2013). Exploring the relationships
between tutor background, tutor training, and student learning: A problem-based
learning meta-analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1331

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 69

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504144.pdf
Martin, D. A., Grimbeek, P., & Jamieson-Proctor, R. (2013). Measuring problem-based
learning's impact on pre-service teachers' mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Higher Education Teaching and
Learning Conference (IEAA 2013) (pp. 59-65). Sarawak, Malaysia: Curtin University.
Martin, D., & Jamieson-Proctor, R. (2020). Development and validation of a survey
instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43(5), 512-525.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1687669
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002248719004100302
McLean Davies, L., Anderson, M., Deans, J., Dinham, S., Griffin, P., Kameniar, B., Page, J.,
Reid, C., Rickards, F., & Tayler, C. (2013). Masterly preparation: Embedding clinical
practice in a graduate pre-service teacher education programme. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 39(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012.733193
Mohamed, M. E. S. (2015). An investigation into pre-service teachers’ perceptions of
learning primary school science using the method of problem based learning (PBL).
World Journal of Education, 5(3), p44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v5n3p44
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
The National Academies Press. Washington DC.
Newman, M. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
problem-based learning.
Novikasari, I. (2020). Pre-service teacher’s mathematical knowledge for teaching in problem-
based learning. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics
Education), 5(2), 160-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v5i2.10556
Office for Standards in Education. (2005). The national literacy and numeracy strategies and
the primary curriculum. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//5266/
Pepper, C. (2013). Pre-service teacher perceptions of using problem based learning in science
investigations. Teaching Science, 59(1), 23-27.
https://informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.203845
Shulman, L. 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational
Research, 15 (2): 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of
mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
11(6), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2015). PBL effectiveness, tensions, and practitioner
implications. In A. Walker, H. Leary, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Essential readings in
problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows
(pp. 402-422). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.27
Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher
education and development study in mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and
readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework.
https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/TEDS-M_Framework.pdf

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 70

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready
teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/action-now-classroom-
ready-teachers
van der Linden, J., & Renshaw, P. (2004). Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to
learning, instruction, and teaching Kluwer Academic Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1931-9
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem-based learning meta analysis: Differences across
problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 6-28.
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061
Zamri, S., & Lee, S. E. (2005). Integrating problem-based learning (PBL) in mathematics
method course. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 1-13.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 71

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Appendix A: Pre-semester Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge Instrument Items

Suppose you wish to know if your students really understand the formula for the area of a rectangle.

Below there are three teaching strategies you might use for this purpose. For each strategy below, indicate whether you would NOT use, might use, or definitely would
use the strategy to determine if they really do understand the formula for the area of a rectangle.
Might use
Would NOT use Definitely would use

Give them the following problem. If a rectangle is 4 cm long and 3 cm wide, what is its
[] [x] []
area?
Simply ask them to tell you what the formula is for the area of a rectangle. [x] [] []
2
Give them the following problem: Sketch two rectangles each having an area of 12 cm [] [] [x]

Appendix B: Post-semester Mathematics Pedagogical Content Knowledge Instrument Items

Suppose you wish to know if your students really understand the formula for the area of a rectangle.

Below there are three teaching strategies you might use for this purpose. For each strategy below, indicate whether you would NOT use, might use, or definitely
would use the strategy to determine if they really do understand the formula for the area of a rectangle.
Might use
Would NOT use Definitely would use

Simply ask them to tell you what the formula is for the area of a rectangle. [x] [] []
Take a circle and partition it like a pizza and then cut out the pieces. Arrange those
pieces to form a rectangle and ask the students to determine the area of the newly [x] [] []
formed rectangle.
Using a rectangle which is 4 cm long and 5 cm wide, ask the students to determine the
[] [] [x]
area using only a square centimetre tile.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 72

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Appendix C: Real-world. Open-ended, Decision-making Problems

The aim of this activity is for you to demonstrate your ability to design a lesson plan
on 2D shapes underpinned by the The van Hiele Levels of Geometric Understanding.
Scenario: You are on your 15-day prac and your mentor teacher informs you that her Year 5
students can compare and describe most 2-D shapes, but most have misconceptions about the
attributes of these 2-D shapes and how to calculate their perimeter and area. Using the
rectangle as the context, she is asking you to develop a lesson plan which addresses these
misconceptions.
She provides you with the following guidelines. You are to reference the appropriate
ACARA strand(s) and sub-strand(s) for these year levels. The design of your lesson should
provide the students with the opportunity to:
• revisit their Foundation Year and Year 4 prior knowledge in regards to ‘shape’;
• be appropriately introduced through real-world, concrete activities to the concepts of
geometry from the appropriate year level content descriptor of ‘shape’;
• apply, in a social constructivist learning environment, the related Year 5 geometry
skills; and
• demonstrate and/or explain their understanding to their peers using their own
language.
The lesson is to consist of an introduction phase, an enhancing (application) phase and
a synthesising phase. You may use any concrete and/or virtual resources, materials, textbooks,
or IT available to you. You may also write-up the lesson plan using the example template
provided or create your own lesson plan template.

Vol 47, 4, April 2022 73