You are on page 1of 9

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.

22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

Teachers Level of Understanding the Language of Mathematics as a Determinant of Students Achievement in Mathematics in Nigeria
)r. *+iodun *. Popoola E,iti State -ni.ersit/& *do-E,iti& Nigeria E-0ail1 popa+iodun2'132g0ail.co0 Abstract 34e stud/ e5a0ined t4e teac4ers6 le.el of understanding t4e language of 7at4e0atics as a deter0inant of students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics in Nigeria. Participants included 5' teac4ing teac4ers and 15'' students in E,iti State& Nigeria& w4o answered 8uestions on teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s in t4e dail/ use and applications& 34e data collected were anal/9ed descripti.el/ using percentages& 0eans and standard de.iations. :/pot4eses were anal/9ed using c4i-s8uare and t- test. 34e outco0e pointed out t4e connection +etween teac4ers6 le.el of understanding and co0petencies displa/ed during lessons& relations4ip +etween teac4ers6 le.el of understanding and students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics a0ong ot4ers. 34e stud/ s4ed lig4t on t4e e5tent to w4ic4 8ualification& e5perience and se5 4a.e relations4ip on teac4ers cogent interpretation and understanding of t4e 7at4e0atical ter0s as deter0inant of students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics. It was suggested t4at secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers s4ould learn to understand 7at4e0atical language in order to use it correctl/ in t4e classroo0 Keyword ;egister& En.iron0ent& <o0pre4end& <oncept& 7at4e0atics& =anguage !ntroduction Secondar/ sc4ool students see0 to find 7at4e0atics difficult to understand and appl/ 7at4e0atics language register w4en sol.ing pro+le0s. 34e students see0 to t4in, t4at 7at4e0atics is a+stract. So0e 7at4e0atics teac4ers see0 to +e deficient in t4e use of 7at4e0atical language as a 0eans of instruction. 34e issue in t4is regard is t4e le.el of understanding of t4e language of 7at4e0atics a0ong t4e secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers. 3eac4ers w4o are good at t4e understanding of 7at4e0atics register s4ould +e a+le to present e.er/da/ pro+le0s in 7at4e0atical for0 to students. 34is ,ind of e5ercise would certainl/ re8uire a full understanding of t4e concepts and ter0s of t4e su+>ect. 3eac4ers 0a/ +e a+le to co0pute and arri.e at correct answers w4en sol.ing pro+le0s posed to t4eir students& +ut 0a/ create 0ore pro+le0s as a result of t4eir ina+ilities to full/ e5plain t4e tec4nical ter0s and s4ow t4eir 0eaning in ter0s of dail/ use and application. 34is pro+le0 is furt4er e5acer+ated w4en t4e tec4nical ter0s ta,e on 0eanings t4at are different fro0 e.er/da/ use of t4e ter0. 34erefore& t4is stud/ in.estigated w4et4er students will understand 7at4e0atics +etter if t4e ter0s are si0plified wit4in t4e socio- cultural en.iron0ent of t4e students. 34e stud/ furt4er deter0ined t4e e5tent of understanding of t4e language of 7at4e0atics +/ secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers in Nigeria. 3eac4ers were o+ser.ed at wor, (classroo0 & inter.iewed and interacted wit4 in order to deter0ine t4e e5tent of t4eir understanding of 7at4e0atics language Literature "eview 7an/ studies (*,pan& 1((?@ Aran,e& <arpenter& Aenne0a& *nsell& B Ce4rend& 1((! and *n& Dul0 B Eu& 2''% 4a.e wor,ed on t4e issue of co0petence of 7at4e0atics teac4ers and t4eir a+ilit/ to e5plain 7at4e0atics full/. 34e opinion is t4at 0an/ teac4ers of 7at4e0atics including prospecti.e teac4ers in training 4a.e little ,nowledge and understanding of sc4ool 7at4e0atics t4an is re8uired for t4e tas, t4e/ face in t4e classroo0. #t4ers studies& :ie+art& <arpanter& Aenne0an& Auson& Eearne 7urra/ (1((7 & =in (2''' & Feer (2''1 & :ill B Call (2''% and Curton& )aane B Fiesen (2''! 4a.e also found si0ilar t4ing t4at 7at4e0atics teac4ers in 0an/ countries 4a.e less t4an t4e re8uired ,nowledge of t4e contents of 7at4e0atics t4e/ teac4. 34is condition can pro+a+l/ +e infor0ed +/ t4e e5tent of t4e rele.ance and 0aster/ of t4e contents of t4e curriculu0 w4ic4 t4ese teac4ers were e5pose to during t4eir training. If t4e 7at4e0atics curricular in t4e training depart0ents were full of topics in sc4ool 7at4e0atics& and t4ese teac4ers were a+le to 0aster t4e topics& per4aps t4e/ would 4a.e displa/ed a +etter le.el of co0petenc/ and preparation in t4e 0aster/ of 7at4e0atics contents. It 4as 4owe.er +een s4own +/ Call B Crass (2''' :a/loc, (1(!2 and Si0on B Clu0e (1((% t4at t4e 7at4e0atics contents of 7at4e0atics education progra00e for undergraduates does not contain all t4at t4e teac4ers of t4e su+>ect at t4e secondar/ sc4ool need to ac8uire to 8ualif/ t4e0 to teac4 t4e su+>ect at t4e secondar/ sc4ool. 7at4e0atics teac4ers t4e0sel.es pro+a+l/ are aware of t4eir own deficienc/ in t4e 0aster/ of

(7

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

7at4e0atics contents (S4ul0an& (1(!? @ 3a0ir& (1(!! @ Eraut& (1((% @ :a/loc, B <oc,+urn& (2''3 @ 7a& (1((( and =a0+ B Coo,er& (2''3 . 34ese teac4ers especiall/ at t4e pri0ar/ sc4ool le.el do not feel co0forta+le in teac4ing 7at4e0atics and t4is lac, of self-confidence is as a result of lac, of understanding of 7at4e0atics contents and also low le.el of 7at4e0atics attain0ent w4ile in sc4ool. * situation w4ere+/ 7at4e0atics teac4ers do not 4a.e enoug4 ,nowledge of t4e su+>ect 0atter and sense of inco0petence is certainl/ a serious pro+le0 to t4e teac4ing and learning of t4e su+>ect in our sc4ools. Studies& Eilco5& =anier B =appan (1((2 B 7iller (1((1 4a.e s4own t4at content courses t4at focus on content ,nowledge 4a.e +een successful in 0a,ing t4e teac4ers to +eco0e co0petent and effecti.e. =ac, of understanding of t4e contents 0a/ ser.e as +arriers to 4ow successful and co0petent teac4ers 0ig4t 4andle t4e teac4ing-learning situations. #ne rele.ant 8uestion to as, is t4at at w4at point do teac4ers +egin to feel t4is sense of inco0petence towards 7at4e0atics teac4ingG In 0easuring 7at4e0atics contents proficienc/ regarding 7at4e0atics teac4ing& Curton& )aane B Fiesen& 2''! reported t4at t4e content proficienc/ w4ic4 7at4e0atics teac4ers are carr/ing to t4e teac4ing >o+ can +e e5plained t4roug4 teac4ers6 le.el of understanding and 4ow full/ t4e/ can e5plain t4e ter0s in t4e su+>ect. 34e stud/ t4erefore loo,ed into t4e relations4ip +etween teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of t4e cogent 0eaning of 7at4e0atical ter0s on students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics. Statement of the #roblem 34e low perfor0ance in 7at4e0atics at t4e secondar/ sc4ool le.el 4as +een of para0ount concern to educators& researc4ers and e.en t4e parents. It is possi+le t4at lac, of teac4ers6 understanding of tec4nical ter0s in 7at4e0atics is partl/ responsi+le for t4is low perfor0ance. In order to actuall/ understand 7at4e0atics idea and concepts& t4e tec4nical ter0s need to +e well grasped. It see0s as if so0e 0at4e0atics teac4ers do not 4a.e ade8uate understanding of 0at4e0atics language and tec4nical ter0s w4ic4 see0s to 4inder students understanding and ac4ie.e0ent in 0at4e0atics. #+ser.ations +/ t4e researc4ers s4ow t4at so0e 0at4e0atics teac4ers were not a+le to full/ e5plain t4e 0eaning of so0e concepts and found it difficult to discuss t4e0 0eaningfull/ so t4at students can understand +etter during t4e lessons. 34is stud/ t4erefore in.estigated t4e teac4ers6 le.el of understanding t4e concept of 0at4e0atics& tec4nical ter0s as t4e/ affect t4e ac4ie.e0ent of students. #ur$ose 34e stud/ e5a0ined teac4ers6 le.el of understanding t4e language of 7at4e0atics as a deter0inant of students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics in Nigeria& also in.estigated t4e 7at4e0atics language t4e teac4ers understand in order to teac4 t4e students effecti.el/ in secondar/ sc4ool. 34e stud/ also e5a0ined 4ow t4e teac4ers translate 7at4e0atical language into cogent interpretations for students in t4e secondar/ sc4ools %uestions Cased on t4e pro+le0s of t4e stud/& t4e following researc4 8uestions were raised to guide t4e stud/1 Eill e5perience of teac4er influence t4e le.el of understanding t4e 0eaning used for teac4ing 7at4e0atics in sc4oolG :ow well do teac4ers of 7at4e0atics understand t4e 0eaning and a+le to e5plain t4e 7at4e0atical ter0s during class lessonG )# teac4ers of 7at4e0atics a+le to translate t4eir understanding into cogent interpretation on t4e dail/ use to studentsG

1. 2. 3.

&y$otheses 1. 34ere is no significant difference +etween N<E teac4ers and ot4er graduates in t4e understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s 2. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween Students6 perfor0ance and teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. 3. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween teac4ers6 teac4ing e5perience and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. %. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween se5 and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s Methodology Design * descripti.e researc4 design of t4e sur.e/ t/pe was used in t4e stud/.

(!

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

#o$ulation Participants were secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers w4o 4ad +een teac4ing in t4e sc4ool in t4e last one /ear and secondar/ sc4ool II (SSS2 students in 172 pu+lic sc4ools in E,iti State& Nigeria& nu0+ering a+out se.enteen t4ousand (1?&!!7 as at 2''(H2'1' acade0ic session according to t4e E,iti State 7inistr/ of Education ;ecords. 34ese teac4ers 4a.e ta,en so0e courses in t4eir 4ig4er institutions of learning. 34ese students are distri+uted all o.er t4e si5teen (1? =ocal Fo.ern0ent *reas of E,iti State Sam$le and Sam$ling Techni'ues 34e sa0ple consisted of 5' secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers teac4ing 7at4e0atics and a+out se.enteen t4ousand (1?&!!7 SSSII students as at 2''(H2'1' acade0ic session according to t4e E,iti State 7inistr/ of Education records were selected fro0 5' Secondar/ Sc4ools in Nigeria out of w4ic4 5' teac4ers and 15'' students responded to 8uestionnaires on teac4ers6 a+ilities to full/ e5plain t4e tec4nical ter0s and s4ow t4eir 0eaning in ter0s of dail/ use and application& w4ile students responded to w4et4er t4e/ understand 7at4e0atics +etter if t4e ter0s are si0plified wit4in t4e socio- cultural en.iron0ent of t4e students sc4ools in si5 =ocal Fo.ern0ent *reas (=F* of E,iti- State. 34e selection was +ased on 0ultistage sa0pling tec4ni8ue. Stage 1 was rando0 selection of si5 =F*s& w4ile stage 2 was rando0 selection of sc4ools using purposi.e rando0 sa0pling tec4ni8ues. 34e sc4ools were to satisf/ t4e following criteria1 1. 34e/ 0ust +e co-educational 2. :a.e +een presenting candidates for Senior Secondar/ Sc4ool <ertificate E5a0inations for at least fi.e consecuti.e /ears and 4a.e at least two 8ualified 0at4e0atics teac4ers. !nstruments )ata were collected t4roug4 I7at4e0atical In- class Juestions for 7at4e0atics 3eac4ers (7IJ3 . 7IJ3 contains +io-data of t4e respondent6 sc4ool& local go.ern0ent area& se5& area of su+>ect speciali9ation& teac4ing e5perience and 8ualification. 34e ot4er section was I7at4e0atical In- class Juestions6( an ac4ie.e0ent test constructed +/ t4e researc4er to 0easure teac4er6s le.el of understanding(facilitating learning& using content effecti.el/& ,nowledge in teac4ing& addressing students6 difficulties in 7at4e0atics& +uilding on students6 7at4e0atical ideas& directing students6 7at4e0atical t4in,ing& engaging students in 7at4e0atical acti.ities& pro0oting students6 7at4e0atical t4in,ing& wa/s in w4ic4 teac4ers use to e5plain 7at4e0atics to students& w4at is e5pected of t4e students w4en t4e/ are re8uired to e5plain so0e ter0s and 4ow to e.aluate students6 understanding during class lesson a0ong ot4ers . 34e test was designed to pro.ide response on 5-ite0 scale di0ensions to +e answered +/ t4e teac4ers& gi.en a total of 3' 0ar,s. 3eac4ers were also o+ser.ed during class lessons twice per wee, for 2% wee,s to assess 4ow t4e teac4ers can facilitate learning& using content effecti.el/& ,nowledge in teac4ing& addressing students6 difficulties in 7at4e0atics& +uilding on students6 7at4e0atical ideas& directing students6 7at4e0atical t4in,ing& engaging students in 7at4e0atical acti.ities& pro0oting students6 7at4e0atical t4in,ing& wa/s in w4ic4 teac4ers use to e5plain 7at4e0atics to students& w4at is e5pected of t4e students w4en t4e/ are re8uired to e5plain so0e ter0s and 4ow to e.aluate students6 understanding during class lesson. KStudents6 In- class test on 7at4e0atics (SI73 is +ased on teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical 3er0s was ad0inistered on t4e students. 34e first part of SI73 contains +iodata of t4e respondent6s sc4ool& class& se5 and local go.ern0ent area& w4ile& t4e second part contains students atte0pting to pro.ide answers to a 12- ite0s 8uestion on ter0s used +/ teac4ers in t4eir +est a+ilities in order to +uild on t4eir 7at4e0atical ,nowledge& ideas& in pro0oting students6 t4in,ing& directing& engaging students in 7at4e0atical acti.ities& and addressing students6 difficulties a0ong ot4ers. 34e ite0s are specificall/ designed to pro.ide correct conceptions on clearl/ defined content areas. Eac4 of t4e ite0s was 0ar,ed +ased on t4e responses pro.ided. 34e contents were ite0s used in t4e classroo0 t4at can deter0ine t4eir le.el of understanding. Celow are so0e e5a0ples of t4e 8uestion used in t4e instru0ent for t4e students1 a. E4at would /ou do w4en /ou are to1 factori9e& e5pand& si0plif/ so0e identified pro+le0s in 7at4e0aticsG +. *rrange in order of 0agnitude1 5H(& 7H15& 11H2'& 3H! c. Si0plif/1 5-5a5L 35 - 7a5 -2 34e aut4ors de.eloped t4e ite0s and t4ree e5perts in <urriculu0 Studies )epart0ent and 3ests and 7easure0ent )epart0ent respecti.el/& and two secondar/ sc4ool teac4ers and tertiar/ educators did t4e content .alidation for rele.ance and accurac/. 34e instru0ents were used for a pilot stud/ of fifteen teac4ers of 0at4e0atics and one 4undred senior secondar/ sc4ool students. 34e instru0ent was first ad0inistered and o+ser.ation ta,en w4ile a retest was carried out after t4ree wee,s and scores were collected. 34e scores for t4e two instru0ents 7IJ3 and SI73 w4ere collated and su+>ected to Pearson6s Product 7o0ent <orrelation statistics. 34e result /ielded correlation co efficient of '.7( and '.!? respecti.el/ w4ic4 were considered to +e statisticall/ good enoug4 for t4e instru0ent to +e used for t4is stud/ personall/ ad0inistered to t4e respondents. Data Analysis 34e researc4 8uestions were pre-coded and anal/9ed using descripti.e statistics1 fre8uenc/ counts and percentages. * correct response in t4e su+- 8uestions was scored 1 if t4e respondent ga.e t4e correct answer and scored ' if t4e respondent ga.e t4e wrong answer or response. *ll t4e points were added to gi.e a total score ranging +etween ' and 3' for +ot4 teac4ers and students. :/pot4eses were tested using 7eans& Standard )e.iations& c4i-s8uare tests and pie c4arts. *ll 4/pot4eses generated were tested at M- le.el of '.'5.

((

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

"esults Descri$tive Analysis 34e researc4 8uestions were anal/sed using descripti.e statistics and results were reported t4us1 1. Eill e5perience of teac4er influence t4e le.el of understanding t4e 0eaning used for teac4ing 7at4e0atics in sc4oolG 3a+le 1 s4ows t4e difference in t4e 7eans(15.71 and standard de.iations(12.%( of t4e teac4ers6 e5perience in content e5planation& pro0ote students t4in,ing& directing& engaging students in 7at4e0atical acti.ities& and addressing students difficulties w4ic4 was used to categori9ed t4e teac4ers into insufficient and sufficient. :ence& an/ teac4er w4ose 0ean and standard de.iation falls in (' - 3.22 was classified as 4a.ing insufficient understanding in 7at4e0atics. 34ose w4ose 0ean and standard de.iation fall in (3.23- 1!.2' was classified as 4a.ing sufficient understanding in 7at4e0atics& w4ile& t4e teac4er w4ose 0ean and standard de.iation fall in (1!.1! -21.'' was classified as 4a.ing 4ig4 understanding in 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. Near of e5perience 1 -5 of teac4ers are 32 (?%O 4a.e insufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s& and +etween /ears ? and 1' 5(1'O of t4e teac4ers 4a.e sufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s& w4ile 13(2?O of teac4ers w4o 4a.e t4eir e5perience a+o.e 1' /ears 4a.e a 4ig4 understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. :ence& 1! out of 5' teac4ers 4a.e sufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s w4ile&32 teac4ers out of 5' 4a.e insufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. Table ( Teachers experience on the level of understanding in Mathematical language/ terms )*$erience difference in year among the "ange of Mean and +re'uency #ercentage teachers Standard Deviation 1-5 '- 3.22 32 ?%O ?-1' 3.23-1!.1( 5 1'O *+o.e 1' 1!.2'-21.'' 13 2?O 3otal 5' 1''O 2. :ow well do teac4ers of 7at4e0atics understand t4e 0eaning and a+le to e5plain t4e 7at4e0atical ter0s during class lessonG 3eac4ers were o+ser.ation during class lesson and t4e following were used1 i. 7at4e0atical ,nowledge(content ii. Cuilding on students6 7at4e0atical ideas& iii. Pro0oting students6 t4in,ing& i.. Engaging students in 7at4e0atical acti.ities& .. *ddressing students6 difficulties. .i. *+ilit/ to e5plain sufficientl/ .ii. <ontent ,nowledge of t4e su+>ect .iii. S,illfulness of t4e teac4er to 0anage t4e students during 7at4e0atics lesson i5. *+ilit/ to s4ow sufficient understanding 34e results of t4e o+ser.ation during teac4ing are as follows1 Table, Analysis of teachers level of understanding and explanations of mathematical terms during Mathematics lesson =e.el of teac4ers -nderstanding ;ange Are8uenc/ Percentage Insufficient understanding '-3( 1' 2' Sufficient understanding %'-5( 2! 5? :ig4 understanding ?'- a+o.e 12 2% 3otal 5' 1'' 3a+le 2& figure 1 s4ows t4at& out of 5' teac4ers w4o were o+ser.ed& onl/ 1'(2'O scored in t4e range of '- 3( are categori9ed as insufficient understanding of t4e 0eaning of 7at4e0atical ter0s. 34is is followed +/ 2!(5?O of teac4ers wit4 t4e range +etween %'- 5( are categori9ed as t4ose wit4 sufficient understanding of t4e 0eaning of 7at4e0atical ter0s. E4ile& onl/ 12(2%O w4ose scores are +etween t4e range of ?' and a+o.e are categori9ed as 4a.ing 4ig4 understanding of t4e 0eaning of 7at4e0atical ter0s. :ence& 2!(5?O of teac4ers w4ose scores are +etween %'- 5( are categori9ed as 4a.ing t4e 4ig4est record of sufficient understanding of t4e 0eaning of 7at4e0atics concepts and ter0inolog/.

1''

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

High understanding

Insufficient understanding

Sufficient understanding

+igure ( Teachers level of understanding of Mathematical terms 3. )o teac4ers of 7at4e0atics a+le to translate t4eir understanding into cogent interpretation on t4e dail/ use to studentsG TableTranslation of teachers understanding into cogent interpretation on the daily use to students. Are8uenc/ Percentage cogent inter$retation Insufficient 1' 2' Sufficient 3% ?! :ig4 sufficient ? 12 3otal 5' 1'' 3a+le 3& figure 2 s4ow t4at& out of 5' teac4ers e5a0ined& 1'(2'O could not sufficientl/ translate t4eir understanding into cogent interpretations of 0at4e0atical ter0s for t4e dail/ use in t4e classroo0s to en4ance student understanding. 34irt/-four (?!O of t4e teac4ers could sufficientl/ translate t4eir understanding into cogent interpretations for proper teac4ing of students& w4ile& onl/ ?(12O 4ad 4ig4 translation of 7at4e0atical ter0s into cogent interpretation for t4e teac4ing of students. :ence& t4ose teac4ers w4o could translate t4eir understanding 7at4e0atics into cogent interpretations for proper teac4ing of students are 0ore t4an t4e ot4er.

High understanding

Insufficient understanding

Sufficient understanding

+igure , Teachers ability to translate understanding to cogent interpretation for the daily application by students &y$otheses Testing 1. 34ere is no significant difference +etween N<E and ot4er graduates in t4e understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s .34is can +e anal/9ed descripti.el/ Table . Teachers Qualification in terms of their level of understanding of Mathematical language/ terms Are8uenc/ Percentage %ualification of teachers N<E 23 %?O CScHC*HCSc (Ed HC*(Ed 23 %?O 7.EdH P4.) % !O 3otal 5' 1'' 3a+le % s4ows t4e 8ualification of teac4ers according to t4eir le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. #nl/ 23 (%?O of N<E graduates 4a.e t4e understanding of 7at4e0atical language H ter0s w4ile& 23 (%?O of t4e C.ScHC*HC.Sc (Ed HC*(Ed teac4ers 4a.e t4e understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. #nl/ %(!O of teac4ers 4a.e 7.EdH P4.) wit4 t4eir understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. :ence& 1'1

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

teac4ers w4o are N<E and CScHC*HCSc (Ed HC*(Ed 4a.e sufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. 34is is also anal/sed using t - test statistics as s4own +elow1 Table / Mathematical teachers qualification and level of understanding of Mathematical terms Jualification N 7ean S) 7ean diff. df t- cal t-ta+ N<E 23 17.13 17.?1 2.?3 %! '.732 2.'' #t4er 27 1%.5' 5.!' pP '.'5 3a+le 5 s4ows t4e difference in teac4ers6 8ualification and understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. N<E graduates 4ad a 0ean score of 17.13 wit4 t4e standard de.iation of 17.?1& co0pared to 7at4e0atical teac4ers w4o 4ad ot4er 8ualifications wit4 a 0ean score of 1%.5' and a standard de.iation of 5.!'. 34e t- calculated was found to +e '.732& w4ile& t-ta+le was found to +e 2.'' at M - le.el of '.'5. :ence& t4e null 4/pot4esis was not re>ected. 34erefore& t4ere is a no significant difference in t4e le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0 a0ong t4e N<E and ot4er graduates. 2. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween Students6 perfor0ance and teac4ers le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. Table 0 Pearson correlation of tudents performance and teachers level of understanding of Mathematical terms. $aria+le N 7ean S) r-cal r-ta+ Student perfor0ance 15'' 12.?1 11.1? '.71% '.273

3eac4ers le.el of understanding 5' 15.71 12.%( 3a+le ? s4ows students6 perfor0ance and teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. Students 4ad a 0ean score of 12.?1 wit4 t4e standard de.iation of 11.1? as co0pared to teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s wit4 a 0ean score of 15.71 and a standard de.iation of 12.%(. 34e r- calculated was found to +e '.71% greater t4an r-ta+le ('.273 at M -le.el of '.'5. :ence& t4e 4/pot4esis is re>ected. 34erefore& t4ere is a significant difference +etween t4e students6 perfor0ance and teac4ers6 le.el of understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s 3. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween teac4ers6 teac4ing e5perience and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. Table 1 !hi" quare #x$% analysis of teaching experience and cogent understanding of Mathematical terms =e.el of cogent understanding 1-5 ?-1' *+o.e 1' 3otal df "2cal 3a+le Insufficient ? 23 3 32 (? (23 (% % '.!5( (.%( Sufficient 1 3 1 5 (1 (3 (1 :ig4l/ sufficient 3 ! 2 13 (3 (( (2 3otal 1' 3% ? 5' PQ'.'5 3a+le 7 s4ows t4at "2cal ('.!5( is less t4an "2 ta+le ((.%( at '.'5 le.el of significant. 34e 4/pot4esis is not re>ected. 34is i0plies t4ere is no significant relations4ip +etween teac4ing e5perience of teac4ers and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. %. 34ere is no significant relations4ip +etween se5 and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s Table 2 !hi" quare #x$% analysis of sex and teachers cogent understanding of Mathematical terms 3eac4ers6 le.el of understanding 7ale Ae0ale 3otal df "2cal "2ta+le according to se5 Insufficient 1' 1' (3 (7 2 !.1!( Sufficient 12 22 3% (11 (23 5.(( :ig4l/ sufficient % 2 ? (2 (% 3otal 1? 3% 5' PQ'.'5 1'2

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

3a+le ! s4ows t4e anal/sis of t4e se5 and teac4ers6 cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. 34e "2cal (!.1!( is greater t4an "2ta+le (5.(( at '.'5 le.el of significant. 34erefore& t4e null 4/pot4esis is re>ected. It i0plies t4at t4ere is significant relations4ip +etween t4e se5 difference of teac4ers and cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. Discussion 34e anal/sis of t4e data s4ows t4at t4e e5perience of t4e teac4ers 4as influence on t4eir understanding of 7at4e0atical language. Aro0 t4e anal/sis of t4e researc4 8uestion 1& onl/ 2?O of t4e teac4ers were classified as 4a.ing 4ig4 understanding of 7at4e0atical language and t4e/ were teac4ers w4o 4ad taug4t for ten /ears and a+o.e. E4ile& t4ose w4o 4ad +een teac4ing for +etween ?- 1'/ears were 1'O. #n t4eir le.el of understanding and a+ilit/ to e5plain 7at4e0atics ter0 during t4e lesson 5?O of respondents 4a.e sufficient understanding (at a.erage le.el w4ile& 2%O were a+o.e a.erage. 34e teac4ers w4o 4ad a+ilit/ to translate t4eir understanding to cogent interpretation for t4e dail/ use of students were ?!O t4e/ 4ad sufficient understanding on t4e a.erage& w4ile& 12O were a+o.e a.erage. 34e descripti.e anal/ses of researc4 8uestions 1 to 3 s4ow t4at a relati.el/ 4ig4 percentage of t4e teac4ers were on t4e a.erage in ter0s of understanding language of 7at4e0atics& 7at4e0atical ter0 and translating t4eir understanding to cogent interpretation t4at will en4ance students a+ilit/ to use 7at4e0atics ,nowledge to sol.e pro+le0s dail/. 34e finding fro0 4/pot4esis one s4ows t4at 8ualification is not a significant factor in t4e teac4ers6 understanding of 7at4e0atical ter0s. 34e i0plication could +e t4at so0e N<E teac4ers are good at 7at4e0atical ter0s 4a.ing i0pro.ed t4eir ,nowledge t4roug4 pri.ate stud/ w4ile graduate teac4ers were rel/ing on t4eir degrees. 34e findings corro+orate t4e wor, of Curton& )aaneB Fiesen& 2''! t4at t4e content proficienc/ w4ic4 7at4e0atics teac4ers are carr/ing to t4e teac4ing >o+ can onl/ +e e5plained t4roug4 teac4ers6 le.el of understanding. #n t4e findings fro0 t4e anal/sis w4ic4 tested relations4ip +etween students and teac4ers understanding of 7at4e0atics ter0s s4ow t4at t4ere is difference +etween t4e two .aria+les. 34is i0plies t4at teac4ers6 le.el of understanding will definitel/ influence students6 ac4ie.e0ent. :ence& teac4ers6 contents ,nowledge and cogent interpretation of t4e content deter0ined students6 ac4ie.e0ent in 7at4e0atics. 34ese findings corro+orate t4e wor, of 7a& (1((( B Eraut& (1(((% t4at 7at4e0atics teac4ers need to 4a.e enoug4 ,nowledge for t4e cogent interpretation and translation of curriculu0 contents so t4at students can +e successful and teac4ers can 4andle teac4ingH learning situation. 34e findings fro0 t4e testing of relations4ip +etween teac4ing e5perience and teac4ers6 a+ilit/ to translate teac4ing e5perience to cogent understanding t4at will ena+le students to use 0at4e0atical ter0s successfull/ s4ow t4at t4ere is no relations4ip +etween t4e two .aria+les. 34e i0plication is t4at teac4er6 ina+ilit/ to translate t4eir understandings to cogent understands for student use 0a/ +e as a result of not a+le to 4a.e enoug4 ,nowledge of t4e su+>ect 0atter and a sense of co0petence w4ile in sc4ool or t4at t4eir teac4er were not a+le to interpret t4e content to practical for0. 34e i0plication is t4at if t4ese teac4ers were a+le to 0aster t4e topics& per4aps t4e/ would 4a.e displa/ed a +etter le.el of co0petenc/ and preparation in 0aster/ of 7at4e0atics contents. 34e findings fro0 t4e testing of relations4ip +etween t4e se5 of teac4ers and understanding of 7at4e0atics language indicated t4at t4ere is a relations4ip +etween t4e two .aria+les. 34is finding corro+orate t4e wor, of =eder (1((2 t4at gender differences was found and t4e possi+le e5planations for t4e e5isting differences include teac4er6s ina+ilit/ to e5plain t4e content properl/ to learners6 related .aria+les as well as cogniti.e .aria+les. 3onclusion 4 "ecommendations Aindings of t4is stud/ furt4er esta+lis4ed t4at less t4an 4alf of t4e teac4ers 4a.e sufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical language ter0s. 7ore t4an 4alf of t4e teac4ers w4o were o+ser.ed during lessons 4ad 4ig4 understanding of t4e 0eaning of 0at4e0atical ter0s. *lso& 0ore teac4ers were found a+le to interpret into cogent understanding of 7at4e0atical language. N<E and CScHC*HCSc (Ed HC*(Ed 4a.e sufficient understanding of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s. It was found t4at se5 of teac4ers would not 4a.e a relations4ip wit4 t4e cogent interpretation of 7at4e0atical languageH ter0s teac4ing. It is +elie.ed t4at teac4ers6 understanding of contentsH ter0s in order to 0a,e learning 0eaningful is para0ount and 4a.e so0e i0plications to 7at4e0atics educators and polic/ 0a,ers in re- designing t4e course contents of t4e teac4ers education progra0s in Nigeria. 3eac4ers6 understanding of contents is i0portant. 7at4e0atical language and s,ills 0a,e t4e greatest influence on t4e learning outco0es and attitude of t4e students. 3eac4ers need to +e s,illful in order to 0a,e learners ac4ie.e. :e also needs to understand 4ow to e5plain concepts and i0pact it on students in order to ensure efficient and effecti.e outco0es in 7at4e0atics. "eferences *,pan& *. *(1((? 3eac4er effecti.eness as a deter0inant of students6 perfor0ance in 7at4e0atics. A

1'3

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.22& 2'13

www.iiste.org

theoretical review Journal of Nigerian Education Research 1(1 &!(-(( *n& S. Dul0& F& Eu&R. (2''% .34e pedagogical content ,nowledge of 0iddle sc4ool& 7at4e0atics teac4ers in c4ina and t4e -.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 7& 1%5-172. Call& ). =(1(('+ 34e 7at4e0atics understandings t4at prospecti.e teac4ers +ring to teac4er education. Elementary School Journal, ('(% & p.%%(-%?? Call& ). =B Crass&:.(2''' Interwea.ing content and pedagog/ in teac4ing and learning to teac41 ,nowing and using 7at4e0atics. In Jo Coaler (Ed & Multiple perspectives on teaching and learning(pp.!3-1'% . Eestport& <31 *+le5 Pu+lins4ing. Cier4off& :.(1((? .Laying the foundations of Numeracy. =ondon1 National Institute of Econo0ic and Social ;esearc4.)iscussion paper No (' Curton& 7& )aane& <.3@B Fiesen& J. (2''! . Infusing 7at4e0atics content into a 0et4ods course1 I0pacting content ,nowledge for teac4ing. Issues in t4e -ndergraduate 7at4e0atics Preparation of Sc4ool 3eac4ers1 The Journal, .ol. 1 (content ,nowledge . www.,-12prep.0at4.ttu.edu Eraut& 7. (1((% eveloping professional !nowledge and competence& =ondon1 34e Aal0er Press. Aran,e& 7.=. <arpenter& 3. Aenne0a& E@ *nsell& E B Ce4rend& J. (1((! . -nderstanding teac4ers6 selfsustaining& generati.e c4ange in t4e conte5t of professional de.elop0ent. Teaching and Teacher Education& 1%(1 & ?7-!'. :a/loc,& ). E and <oc,+urn& *. (2''3 -nderstanding 0at4e0atics in t4e lower pri0ar/ /ears. A guide for Teachers of "hildren 3-!. 2nd edition =ondon1 Paul <4ap0an Pu+lis4ing. :a/loc,. ). E.(1(!2 I-nderstanding in 7at4e0atics1 7a,ing connections6. Mathematics Teaching 73 (2 7a,ing sense1 Teaching and Learning Mathematics with #nderstanding. Ports0out4& N:1 :ein0ann& 1!13'5-3%'. )#I1 ('223!-52-3 *rci+. :ie+art&>.& 3.P <arpanter& E.Aenne0an& D.<.Auson& ). Eearne and :.7urra/ (1((7 . 7a,ing sence1 Teachers and learning Mathematics with #nderstanding. Port0out4& N:1 :ein0ann& 1!13'5- 3%'.)#I1 ('223!- 52-3 *rci+ :ill& :.<. B Call ).=.(2''% . =earning 0at4e0atics for teac4ing1 ;esults fro0 <alifornia6s 7at4e0atics Professional )e.elop0ent Institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5 & 33'-351. Feer& <.:. (2''1 .Science and 0at4e0atics professional de.elop0ent at a li+eral arts -ni.ersit/1 Effects on content ,nowledge& teac4er confidence and strategies& and Student6s ac4ie.e0ent. $roceedings of the %&&' Annual (nternational "onference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science) =a0+& J. and Coo,er& F. (2''3 34e i0pact of teac4ers6 understanding of di.ision on students6 di.ision ,nowledge. In * Pate0an& ). )oug4ert/ and J. Rillio5(Eds. . Proceedings of $rimary Mathematics Education 27(1 & p.2'7. :onolulu1 -ni.ersit/ of :awaii. =eder& F.<. (1((2 . Mathematics and *ender+ "hanging $erspectives. :and+oo, for researc4 on 7at4e0atics teac4ing and learning. Edited +/ ).*. Frouws. New Nor,& 7ac0illan1 5(7-?22 =in& P. J (2''2 . #n en4ancing teac4ers6 ,nowledge +/ constructing cases in classroo0s. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education& 5(% & 317-3%( 7a& =. (1((( ,nowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics+ 3eac4ers6 understanding of funda0ental 7at4e0atics in <4ina and t4e -nited States. 7a4wa4& NJ1 =awrence Erl+au0 7iller& =. ).(1((1 . <onstructing pedagogical content ,nowledge fro0 students6 writing in Secondar/ Sc4ool. Mathematics Education Research Journal& 3(1 & 3'-%% ;owland& 3.& 7art/n& S.& Car+er& P. and :eal& <. (2''' $rimary teacher trainees Mathematics Su-.ect !nowledge and "lassroom $erformance) (n 3. ;owland and <. 7organ (Ed. proceedings of t4e 23rd conference of t4e international Froup for t4e Ps/c4olog/ of 7at4e0atics Education& $olu0e % pp. 121-12!. -trec4t& t4e Net4erlands& Areudent4al Institute& -trec4t -ni.ersit/. S4ul0an =.S (1(!? . 34ose w4o understand1 ,nowledge growt4 in teac4ing. Educational Research&15(2 &%-1% 3a0ir& P. (1(!! . Su+>ect 0atter and related pedagogical content ,nowledge in teac4er Education. 3eaching and Teacher Education& %(2 & ((-11'. Eilco5& S. D. =anier& P.& B =appan& F. (1((2 . (nfluencing -eginning teachers/ practice in Mathematics education+ "onfronting constraints of !nowledge, -eliefs, and conte0t) (;esearc4 ;eport No ((-1 . East =ansing& 7I1 N<;3=& 7ic4igan state -ni.ersit/. Ac5noledgements #rof6 Afolabi #o$oola7 Aacult/ of Education7 -ni.ersit/ of *do-E,iti& Nigeria popefola+i2g0ail.co0 #rof6 8lu 9 8yinloye7 Aacult/ of Education7 -ni.ersit/ of *do-E,iti& Nigeria E0ail1 oluga-y112 yahoo)com

1'%

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing. More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTEs homepage: http://www.iiste.org CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and collaborating with academic institutions around the world. Theres no deadline for submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors. MORE RESOURCES Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/ Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/ IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar