guru dan pemecahan masalah

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

guru dan pemecahan masalah

© All Rights Reserved

- GreshamHS CRLE Blank Form
- Assignment
- Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems
- complete list of behavioral interview questions
- IT500b
- Maths
- CBS Bansho
- Imrad—'Factors Affecting General Mathematics'
- Sample IppGr. 1 Unit 7 IPP
- Transferable Skills
- Success in Math
- lessonplantemplate-iste balachandran
- CM_AnnmarieMegDerrick
- p3a
- Work Math
- UNIT PLAN
- Lesson-25-M6Q1LC15.1-DLL
- Unit Lesson #4
- niles lavey resume
- nov 5

You are on page 1of 15

mathematical problem solving

Kai Fai Ho a, , John G. Hedberg b

a Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,

7-03-118G, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore

b Australian Centre for Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Australia

Abstract

This paper examines the classroom practices of three teachers teaching mathematics at the 5th grade level in three Singapore

schools. Using a video-coding scheme, a series of lessons was coded into relevant phases comprising problem solving, teaching

concepts/skills, going over assigned work, and student activities. It explores the teachers pedagogical experimentation in their

teaching of mathematical problem solving after an analysis of their current practices. It concludes with a review of the effects such

changes have on students problem solving successes as reflected in pre- and post-problem-solving tests.

2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

This study stems from the curriculum framework outlined in the Primary Mathematics Syllabus for all Singapore

schools (Ministry of Education, 2000). It places mathematical problem solving (MPS) as the central focus of the

curriculum (Fig. 1), where mathematical problem solving includes using and applying mathematics in practical tasks,

in real life problems and within mathematics itself (MOE, 2000, p. 5). This entails a wide range of problem types

from routine mathematical problems to problems in unfamiliar contexts and open-ended investigations that make

use of the relevant mathematics and thinking processes. There is purportedly less emphasis on the tell-show-do

paradigm, and more emphasis on instructional practices that encourage problem solving, practical and investigative

work, and communicative aspects of mathematics learning. Central to this focus is the teacher. As Howson, Keitel,

and Kirkpatrick (1981) have pointed out one cannot truly talk, then, of a national curriculum, for it depends upon

individual teachers, their methods and understanding, and their interpretation of aims, guidelines, texts, etc. The part

played by the individual teacher must, therefore, be recognized (p. 2).

The mathematics curriculum may be viewed from three different perspectives, i.e., the intended curriculum, the

implemented curriculum, and the attained curriculum (Howson & Malone, 1984; Robitaille & Dirks, 1982). Thus,

while it is intended that problem solving should be the central focus of the curriculum, the role of the teacher is

This paper is drawn from a funded project CRP01/04 TSK, Developing the Repertoire of Heuristics for Mathematical Problem Solving, Centre

for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6790 3370; fax: +65 6316 4787.

0732-3123/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.006

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 239

pertinent to its effective implementation and the question remains: to what extent is MPS emphasized in the classroom,

and with what degree of success?

In a 2-year study in two Singapore schools to investigate pedagogical practices in the elementary mathematics

classroom, Chang, Kaur, Koay, and Lee (2001) found that traditional teaching approaches predominated amongst

the teachers. The typical teaching approach was expository, followed by students practicing routine exercises to

consolidate the concepts, knowledge and skills. Chang et al.s study involved video taping five 1-h mathematics

lessons for four teachers, two from an elite school and two from a local school. In another study, Foong, Yap, and Koay

(1996) described how a number of teachers expressed their concern over their perceived lack of skills for the teaching

of mathematics using a problem solving approach. They found that teachers felt inadequately prepared to teach

MPS when the examples were nonroutine problems that had several possible solutions. They doubted their ability

to communicate the multiple concepts required by students to understand without being confused by the number of

methods and heuristics suggested in the newly released syllabus, and the teachers expressed unease with the emphasis

on open-ended problem solving. Such lack of confidence led to the general belief that there was an over reliance on

textbooks and a narrow range of problem types used in classroom examples, both contrary to the official syllabus (MOE,

2000).

Teachers development in giving problem solving instructions has been insufficiently explored by researchers

(Chapman, 1999; Lester, 1994). In one study, Norton, McRobbie, and Cooper (2002) investigated how nine teachers

responded to a reform curriculum (Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, 1992) in line with reforms initiated by

the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989, 2000) and the Australian Education Council (AEC,

1990). They sought to find if teachers who were using an investigative approach that involved students actively engaging

in: making sense of new information and ideas (Curriculum Council, 1998, p. 1), investigating mathematical

processes situated within meaningful contexts (Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc., 1996, p. 4), and

construction of meaning (Anderson, 1994, p. 1). The teachers varied their pedagogical approaches differentially for

students with different abilities, notwithstanding the stated goals of conceptual understanding for more able students

and predominately calculational goals for less able students. Three teachers still favored the show and tell approach

for both groups of students, while another three employed a mix of explain and show and tell approaches. Of

the remaining three, two used the investigative approach for the more able students and show and tell for the less

able. Only one teacher out of the nine used an investigative approach as intended in the curriculum for both groups

of students. The researchers observed that while the teachers expressed support for the investigative approach and the

objective of teaching for conceptual understanding, other factors (particularly preparation for high-stake examinations)

appeared to influence the goals and approaches adopted in classrooms.

240 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

Teachers understanding of problem solving, their interpretations of how to teach it and how much time to spend

on it vary (Grouws, 1996). Possible conceptions of teaching problem solving include: teaching about, teaching for,

and teaching via problem solving (Schroeder & Lester, 1989); problematizing mathematics as a way to think about

problem solving (Hiebert et al., 1996). The teachers role in implementing a curriculum that emphasizes problem

solving involves more than just expressions of support on the part of the teachers (Senger, 1999). Possible supportive

ingredients in the process might include interventions that explore what approaches teachers could adopt, other suitable

lesson formats or problem tasks.

In studies of approaches to teaching problem solving, teachers were often assigned particular approaches by

researchers who then proceeded to investigate the implementation and subsequent effects each approach has on stu-

dents learning. In Sigurdson, Olson, and Masons (1994) study, the effects of classroom teaching that incorporated

a problem-solving dimension on student learning of mathematics were investigated. Three approaches were imple-

mented: algorithmic practice, teaching with meaning, and a problem-solving approach. The problem-solving approach

involved teaching with meaning (Sigurdson & Olson, 1992) plus a daily insertion of 10 min of problem-process work.

The three approaches were assigned to the 41 teachers in the study. Preparation of teachers involved 10 h of work-

shops for the algorithmic practice approach and 25 h of workshops for the other two approaches, all spread over the

implementation period of 5 months. The outcomes of their study were somewhat complex, with the analysis done

along the three approaches and the students in each approach divided into low-, medium-, and high-achievers. They

claimed, among other things, that the meaning and problem-process approaches in teaching were important, result-

ing in more students learning with improved achievement and positive attitudes. They also noted that the higher

achieving students benefited more. However, in another study about two classes, one high-ability and the other low,

Holton, Anderson, Thomas, and Fletcher (1999) found that lower ability students seemed to benefit more from the

introduction of problem solving lessons. While such research on problem solving has significant implications, the

extent and the way in which problem solving is implemented in the classroom remains largely unexplored. Empirical

data about the way that teachers taught before their involvement in the project, observations of pedagogical practices

within in the classrooms during implementation, and the salient features of different approaches that impacted students

was not collected. These aspects are important to a better understanding of the process of curriculum implementa-

tion.

The current study aims to address these issues. In particular, this study posits links between describing what is

happening in the classrooms and subsequent changes in teachers classroom practices without imposing or assigning

any particular approach for teachers to adopt and follow. We also address the following issue: how students learning

of problem solving skills is impacted by the changes in the teachers classroom practices.

Foong and Koay (1997) found interesting consequences of teachers lack of preparation in using the new approaches

recommended in a revised syllabus. Using eight pairs of items, each pair consisting of a standard word problem typically

found in textbooks and a realistic word problem where the student needed to consider the realities of the context of the

problem statements, the researchers found that students tended to disregard the actual situation described in word

problems and instead, go straight into exploring the possible combinations of numbers to infer directly the needed

mathematical operations (p. 73). Earlier, Koay and Foong (1996) many of the nearly 300 lower secondary students

that they examined failed to make connections between school mathematics and everyday life. These studies suggest

the teaching of MPS did not apply mathematics in practical tasks and real world problems, as mandated in the intended

curriculum. Students attainments are falling short of the intentions.

Cais (2003) exploratory study suggests that most students were able to select appropriate solution strategies to

solve the tasks, and chose appropriate solution representations to clearly communicate their solution processes

(p. 733). He explored fourth, fifth and sixth grade students MPS skills, using four tasks which were mathematically

rich, and were embedded in different content areas and contexts, and allowed Singaporean students thinking from

various perspectives. Further, Singaporean students repeated top ranking performance in mathematics on the Trends

in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS-2003) (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004)

suggests that the current syllabus (MOE, 2000) is working well.

Such seemingly contrasting findings about students attainment warrant a need for a closer look at teachers class-

room practices and their possible impact on students learning.

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 241

2. Method

This study began by identifying the elements MPS pedagogical practice that exists in typical elementary mathe-

matics classrooms. In particular, it addressed the main research question: What teachers classroom practices support

mathematical problem solving development in their students?

Following the collection of a systematic, evidence base describing current mathematics instruction practices, an

intervention was designed to raise the teachers awareness of MPS ideas and processes and to support an increased

emphasis on the centrality of problem solving in the Singapore Mathematics Program. The intervention had three

components and followed a design research approach: First, teachers were interviewed to review salient features of their

classroom practices and prompted to give their own descriptions and interpretations of events. Second, we conducted

a workshop which discussed Polyas (1957) four phases of problem solving understanding, planning, executing,

and looking back. Third, after the workshop and some lapse of time, informal post-lesson interviews were conducted

when we returned to observe the teachers again. These were short discussions immediately after observations. The

purpose was to talk about the lesson, its degree of success (in terms of problem solving instruction) and the teachers

own assessment of the outcomes. The intervention lead to a second research question: Given a reflective intervention

emphasizing MPS instructional emphasis, do teachers change teaching strategies and does it result in increased students

problem solving successes?

From the analysis of the initial observations, we saw that the teachers, when introducing problems, tended to read the

problems quickly and proceed to immediately execute the solutions, with little or no strategic planning. They also did

not reflect on the solution or its success. As the goal was to explore the explicit development of students metacognitive

aspects of problem solving, when conducting the workshop, the importance of explaining during the reading of the

problem and the possibility of being more explicit about planning and reflecting were highlighted. The need to employ

more rich and authentic problem tasks was also highlighted. Several examples were shown and their solutions were

worked through thoroughly following Polyas four phases.

While it is not possible to trace the individual trajectory of each and every students learning, an adaptation of

the Cobb, Stephan, McClain, and Gravemeijer (2001) approach was used to document the collective mathematical

development of a classroom community over the extended periods of time covered by instructional sequences. Cobb

et al. resolved the issue about the trajectory of . . . students learning and the significant qualitative differences

in their mathematical thinking at any point in time, by proposing a hypothetical learning trajectory as consisting

of conjectures about the collective mathematical development of the classroom community (p. 117). Likewise in

this study, it is difficult to ascertain the casual relations or direct impact between the intervention, possible teacher

change and students learning outcomes. Hence instructional impact on students was viewed in terms of a collective

mathematical development through their responses in a pre- and post-set of problem solving tasks.

The chief source of data was from classroom observations which were recorded on video and audio, and then

transcribed. In addition, short discussions with teachers immediately after an observation contingent upon teachers

availability and the researchers field notes were secondary sources. For the question of whether there had been an

increase in students problem solving successes, a quantitative approach was used. Repeated paired-sample t tests of

students responses in the pre- and post-tests are used to test for significant performance differences.

The period of video recording spanned over 5 weeks for the pre-invention stage. The pre-test was administered to the

students at the end of this stage. The reflective practice intervention, teachers workshop, interviews and discussions,

occurred over the next month. Several weeks later, the researchers returned to video record some lessons in the post-

intervention stage. Typically this spanned 3 weeks, at the end of which the post-test was administered to the students.

The total time for the study spanned approximately 4 months.

The focus is on three teachers from three different schools who were involved in a larger study. Their involvement

came about on an opportunistic basis through a meeting with the schools superintendent. The classes they taught were

deemed academically weak for the Grade 5 level at their respective schools. Teacher A was from an upper band school

242 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

(i.e., above national average in academic terms). She has been teaching for 10 years mainly at the lower primary levels.

At the time of the study, it was her first time teaching Grade 5 mathematics in a class of 37 students. Teacher B was

from a middle band school. He has been teaching for 3 years at the Grade 5 level. He worked previously in the financial

industry for about 10 years before obtaining a teaching diploma. His class had 36 students. Teacher C was from a lower

band school and has been teaching for 10 years. She had 33 students in her class some of them had opted to be in

her class even though they only qualified for a lower stream. All three teachers are form teachers for their classes and

also teach English and Science to their class. The analysis began with these teachers mainly because the researchers

wanted to know the impact of the intervention on the weaker students first.

A coding scheme was developed using the Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) where ideas of

pedagogical phases emerged as the video recordings were reviewed. After several iterations, a coding scheme that

divided each lesson into five phases was developed. These phases include problem solving, teaching of concepts and

skills, going over assigned work, student activities, and other classroom events.

The problem solving category refers to a phase where time is spent solving a problem. This usually happens when

the teacher presents a problem as part of a problem-solving episode. This can be teacher-led, teacher-student-question-

and-answer, or student-led. This phase was further analyzed using Polya (1957)s four stages of problem solving,

namely Understanding, Planning, Executing, and Reecting. (This strategy was chosen as it seemed easiest for the

teachers to begin their exploration compared to more recent adaptations, e.g., Schoenfeld, 1985.)

The teaching of skills and concepts phase relates directly with the MPS curriculum framework (see Fig. 1). Teaching

of skills occurs when the teacher uses class time to teach skills such as arithmetic or algebraic manipulation, estima-

tion/approximation, mental calculation, communication, use of mathematical tools, handling data, etc. For example,

the teacher might recall some common mistakes the class made in assigned work, and proceed to show and explain the

correct steps. This teaching of skills is distinguished from the problem solving Execution phase where skills are used

to solve a problem after some preceding Understanding/Planning has taken place. For the teaching of concepts, class

time is spent showing, demonstrating, defining, and explaining the numerical, geometrical, algebraic, or statistical

concepts.

The going over assigned work phase occurs when the teacher uses class time to go over work that has been assigned

previously. Students would have had spent some time on the assigned work. Common examples include given exercises

or worksheets, tasks/homework, test paper/assessment, etc. Three types are distinguished: reworking, procedural and

quick check. Reworking happens when the teacher goes over the assigned work thoroughly, i.e., understanding the

problem, planning, executing and reflecting the problem. It has a corrective or a remedial tone which is different

from the problem solving instruction in the problem solving phase. The instruction also tends to be algorithmic

versus the more heuristic type of instruction in the problem-solving phase. In the procedural type, the teacher goes

over the assigned work to focus on the correctness of the procedures needed to solve the problem. The intention is very

often for students to know the steps to solve the problem. The third type refers to the teacher going over the answers

quickly for students to check against their own answers.

The student activities phase refers to spending class time with students doing assigned tasks. There were three

common types of student activities, presentation, group work, and seat work. Student(s) present their solutions of

assigned problems to their classmates/teacher either using the white board or overhead projector, or by standing up

to present orally. Group work occurs when groups of students are given tasks to do. Seat work refers to students

completing assigned tasks individually. If a few students are called up to show their answers on board while the rest are

continuing with their seat work, then it is considered seat work but if the teacher stops the students working and tells

the class to pay attention to what their classmates are writing/doing in front, then it is students presentation. When the

teacher goes over the students work on the board, then a change of phase to going over assigned work is deemed to

have occurred.

The last phase of other classroom events is a catch-all category. Generally there are two types: those that are

related to the on-going lesson, for example, rearranging the seating arrangement as part of the transition to group work,

and those unrelated to the lesson such as the teacher making a general announcement. The inclusion for this phase is

for a more accurate accounting of class time.

Thus, the video-coding scheme comprises five main phases and a total of 14 sub-categories in the five phases.

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 243

Table 1

Total number of lessons, time and the average time per lesson in the pre-intervention stage

Teacher Band of school Number of lessons Total time observed Average time per lesson

(to the nearest min) (nearest min)

A Upper 9 7:38:00 51

B Middle 8 6:49:00 51

C Low 6 5:41:00 57

Overall 23 20:08:00 53

Two other aspects were important to the development of the evidence base: the type of mathematical word problems

used as teaching examples and the range of heuristics that could be used to solve each problem. When identifying

problem types, it was noted that the teachers generally used standard word problems typically found in textbooks (Foong

& Koay, 1997). Other word problem types were deemed non-standard, and were not typically found in textbooks. The

range of heuristics to be coded in the scheme was taken directly from the syllabus (MOE, 2000, p. 6). Examples include

act it out, use a diagram or a model, guess and check, make a systematic list, and so on Table 1 shows the

complete list.

This study used ten problems for the pre-test. Half of these problems were standard word problems while the other

half were non-standard. In the post-test, the problems were similar, except the tasks were amended slightly in terms

of wording and numbers. To illustrate, the following standard problem In 2003, Dan was 16 and his mother was

44. In which year was Dans mother eight times as old as Dan? was recast as Mary received 14 vitamin pills and

John 29 vitamin pills on 2nd August. They both take only one pill daily from that day. What is the date when John has

four times more pills than Mary? in the post-test. For the following non-standard problem in the pre-test There

are 100 buns to be shared by 100 monks. The senior monks get three buns each and three junior monks share one bun.

How many senior monks are there?, the post-tests equivalent problem appeared as The zoo keeper gave 80 bananas

to 50 monkeys. The big monkeys got two bananas each, and three small monkeys shared 2 bananas. How many big

monkeys are there? For these two pairs of problems as well as the others, the processes required to solve each of them

in both the pre- and post-tests were kept as similar as possible.

The most commonly adopted approach by the teachers focused on the textbook/workbook. The teachers followed

a scheme of work endorsed by the respective schools departmental heads: the teacher introduced the topic, explained

the concepts, and gave students time to practice the related skills. Word problems were conceived as separate events

and only introduced near the end of the topic. The topics observed were whole numbers and fractions.

In the pre-intervention phase, 23 lessons of the three teachers were recorded and coded. Each lesson averaged about

53 min. The following Table 1 summarizes the time of observations.

To analyze the classroom observations, the researchers used the coding scheme as the main analytical tool. The

issue of intercoder reliability or more specifically intercoder agreement for such an analysis is fundamental (Bakeman

& Gottman, 1997; Neuendorf, 2002). Out of the 23 lessons, six were coded by two different coders from a pool of

five including one of the researchers. The coders were trained over a period of at least 3 weeks. Percentage agreement,

defined as the proportion of the number of agreements to the number of agreements and disagreements, is used to

calculate intercoder agreement. To account for agreement expected by chance, the Cohens (Cohen, 1960) is also

calculated. Three variables were examined: the agreement for the five main phases, the overall agreement for all 14

sub-categories, and the agreement within the problem solving phase. For the five main phases, the agreement was

97% and the , 0.96. The agreement across the 14 sub-categories was 87% and the , 0.85. The agreement within

the problem solving phase is 78% and the , 0.72. On the whole, the coders were able to identify reliably the five

244 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

Table 2

Amount of time each teacher spent on each phase

Teacher Problem solving (as Teaching concepts Going over assigned Student activities Others (as Total time

percent of total) and skills (as work (as percent of (as percent of total) percent of observed

percent of total) total) total)

A 03:04:15 (40%) 00:37:35 (8%) 0:53:20 (12%) 2:45:20 (36%) 0:17:25 (4%) 7:38:00 (100%)

B 00:30:15 (7%) 01:02:50 (15%) 1:14:10 (18%) 2:57:40 (44%) 1:04:25 (16%) 6:49:00 (100%)

C 00:07:05 (2%) 00:29:45 (9%) 1:45:00 (31%) 2:55:40 (52%) 0:23:10 (7%) 5:41:00 (100%)

main phases and the 14 sub-categories. For the four sub-categories within the problem solving phase, the of 0.72

is deemed acceptable by some researchers like Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Bracken (2002) for exploratory studies,

while Fleiss (1981) would characterize it as good. Notwithstanding, this borderline reliability when seen within

the overall frame of the study allows for some conditional analysis for looking into the teaching of problem solving in

classrooms.

It was clear that all three teachers shared some common ways of teaching but differed in the amount of time spent

on the various phases (Table 2).

To illustrate the proportion of time as a percentage of the overall, each column of the graph is stacked as one unit,

i.e., 100% (Fig. 2).

Generally Teacher A spent proportionately more class time (40%) on problem solving than the other two teachers.

In the middle band school, B spent 7%. C spent the least at 2%. A and C used solely whole-class teaching. B spent

some of his instruction time doing problems using a group work configuration.

Each problem-solving phase was further deconstructed using Polyas (1957) four stages of Understanding, Planning,

Execution, and Reection. The following Fig. 3 shows the expansion on each of the teachers, bearing in mind each of

them spent 40, 7, and 2% of their overall observed class time on problem solving respectively.

Notably the teachers spent much of their time during the problem-solving phase on understanding the problem and

executing the steps required to solve the problem. Teacher A spent 17% of her problem solving time on planning while

C spent proportionately less time at 7%. Teacher B did no solution planning at all.

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 245

Of the 78 questions used by the three teachers during the period of observation, 74 were the standard

word problem typically found in textbooks (Foong & Koay, 1997). A distinction was made between prob-

lems used directly for problem solving instruction and those problems that were assigned as homework or class

work, and later used by the teacher for problem solving instruction. The latter type of problems was classi-

fied as Going over assigned work Reworking. Table 3 shows the number of problems used by the teach-

ers.

Teachers B and C gave instruction on problem solving more through the mode of going over assigned work, which

had a more remediation tone than tackling a fresh problem. For A, her MPS instruction occurred through presenting

problems directly. She spent more time on problem solving than the other two teachers and she used more problems

and spent more time per problem.

The problem solving heuristic most commonly observed in the three classrooms was the Diagram/Model (used in

about 74% of the problems). Of the remaining heuristics listed in the syllabus, they were seen once or twice or not

at all (see Table 5). The Think of a related problem heuristic is not listed in the syllabus but Teacher A used it as a

heuristic for four problems.

The time spent in this phase ranged from 8 to 15%. As the topics covered during the period of observation were

mainly whole numbers and fractions, the concepts taught were numerical concepts. The teachers mainly covered

arithmetic manipulation, taught the skills involved in adding and multiplying fractions.

Table 3

Number of problems used in the observed lessons

Teacher Number of problems used Total number

of questions

Problem solving Going over assigned

work Reworking

A 37 6 43

B 5 13 18

C 1 16 17

246 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

Table 4

Distribution of time in the Going over assigned work phase

Reworking Procedural Quick Phase total As percent of overall total

B 00:32:39 (44%) 00:27:18 (37%) 00:14:15 (19%) 01:14:12 (100%) 18

C 01:05:55 (63%) 00:31:35 (30%) 00:07:30 (7%) 01:45:00 (100%) 31

Going over assigned work enables students to check their work against the teachers. As discussed in the section on

the coding scheme (see p. 5), the going over assigned work phase has three sub-categories: reworking, procedural and

quick check. Table 4 shows the time spent in this phase are distributed over the three categories.

The percentage of time teachers spent in this phase ranged from 12 to 31%, with Teacher C spending the most time.

According to discussions with C, she needed to go over assigned work many times to show her students how to do the

assigned work. All three teachers mainly reworked assigned problems though B and C spent relatively more time than

A going over the procedures of solving word problems and checking answers quickly.

The various types of student activities observed were grouped in the following three categories: students presentation

mainly in the form of standing in front of the class and talking about their work; group work including pair work; and

individual seat work. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of the types of student activities in each class.

All teachers assigned individual seat work during class time. In As case it was the only form of student activity

coded. For group work, only B used the small group configuration in class. Bs students did presentation during our

observations. The common mode was students writing their solutions on board; and occasionally being asked to explain

their answers. This was typically followed by the teacher going over the written answers. Teacher Cs 1% of student

presentation amounted to less than 2 min, suggesting that it was not part of her regular practice.

After a reflective practice intervention comprising interviews and a workshop (see p. 4), the teachers were observed

again about once a week over 34 weeks. These were lessons that teachers deemed typical and involved some problem

solving. The general approaches used by the teachers remained similar to the earlier observations, with teachers

continuing with their scheme of work as planned at the beginning of the year. In terms of proportion of time both

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 247

Teachers A and B did not change significantly their distribution of time over the five phases. However, C increased

her amount of time spent on the problem-solving phase significantly from 2.1% (or about 7 min of 5.75 h) to 7.5% (or

almost 11 min of 2.5 h). Other notable qualitative changes in the post-intervention observations are discussed in the

following sections.

Teacher A spent proportionately much more time on reflection than before. Notably there were explicit attempts to

look back for alternative ways of solving the same problems. B factored in some time for planning whereas before he

did not and he also spent relatively more time working through the execution. The notable change for both A and C

is their increase in the proportion of time for reflection. B spent less time on reflection. The changes are illustrated in

Fig. 5.

Before, about 95% word problems discussed in class were standard problems. After intervention, teachers use of

non-standard problems increased from 5 to about 45%.

Although the Diagram/Model heuristic remained the most commonly used at approximately 50% of the time, more

of the other heuristics were observed after the intervention in the work of Teachers A and C, but not Teacher B (See

Table 5).

For Teachers A and C, there is generally a wider spread of heuristics after the intervention. Teachers A and C

used other heuristics more than before. Teacher B did not make any notable changes.

In post-intervention observations, Teacher A made attempts to incorporate some pair and small group work in her

class, and her students were given opportunities to present and talk about their solutions. In her students presentation

of solutions there was increased evidence of the use of heuristics whereas before there was none.

Teacher B made several changes. His classroom was rearranged from cluster seating (more suitable for group work)

to columns and rows (more suited to whole class teaching). He used only whole class teaching followed by individual

seat work in the after stage. He stopped doing group work. According to him, he had thought his students were not

benefiting from group work and reverted back to whole class teaching for more effective learning. His students had

not done well in the schools continual assessment. He also constrained his ventures into non-standard problems by

focusing more on textbook based problems.

Teacher C made her first foray into group work for her class after the intervention. She also experimented with non-

standard problems. Her students were not familiar with working in groups. After the initial difficulties, they managed

some degree of success after a few weeks. C now spent more time teaching problem solving. As before, Cs students

did not get to present their solutions in front of the class. Instead she provided more scaffolding to facilitate learning

in groups of students.

248 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

Table 5

Range of heuristics teachers used in class before and after intervention

Range of heuristics observed Teachers (before and after intervention)

(before and after intervention)

A B C Total

1. Act it out 2 2

2. Diagram/model 30 12 3 1 7 3 40 16

3. Guess and check 1 2 1 1 1 2 4

4. Systematic listing 3 1 4 1 7

5. Look for patterns 2 2

6. Work backwards 1 1 1 1 2

7. Beforeafter concept 1 1 1 1

8. Make suppositions

9. Restate problem 1 1

10. Simplify problem 1 1 2

11. Solve part problem 1 1

12. Think of related problems 4 1 4 1

Total 38 18 8 5 8 11 54 34

The number of students who took the pre- and post-test is summarized in Table 6.

The sets of tasks were scored into three categories: correct, attempted (but incorrect or incomplete) and blank. The

overall scores for the three classes are summarized in Table 7.

Fig. 6 illustrates the changes in the students performances from pre-test to post-test.

The number of correct answers went up about 5.6% while the number of blank responses went down about 3%.

There was also a slight drop of 2.5% in the Attempted category, i.e., there were fewer incomplete or wrong answers.

There was a notable increase in the number of correct answers in Teacher As class from 73 to 98 even with one

absentee who did not take the post-test. The number of blank responses also went down significantly (Table 8).

Table 9 includes the t test results for Teacher As class. The mean correct answers increased by 0.72, or by about

36%. The t value of 3.224 and P at .003 indicates a significant increase with a moderate effect size of 0.54.

The changes in Teacher Bs students were moderate an increase in the number correct from 59 to 69, and a

decrease in the number of blank responses from 138 to 93 (Table 8). The mean for Teacher Bs class increased by 0.44

or about 28% but was not statistically significant.

Table 6

The number of students in each class and the number who took the tests

A B C Total

Pre-test 37 36 33 106

Post-test 36 34 31 101

Table 7

Overall results

Correct Attempted Blank Total (number)

Pre-test 167 1.58 1.14 558 5.26 2.24 335 3.16 2.26 1060

Post-test 216 2.14 1.29 506 5.01 2.20 288 2.85 2.01 1010

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 249

For Teacher Cs students the number of correct answers increased from 35 to 49. It was the only class that had an

increase in blank responses, but as the post-test was administered 15 min late, the students had less time to complete it.

The mean increased 0.52, or about 48% which was statistically significant. This occurred despite the circumstances in

the post-test administration mentioned above. Further, these students were from a lower band school, and the weakest

class of the grade level. The effect size of 0.42 was moderate.

In summary, students in A and Cs classes showed statistically significant increase in the number of correct answers

in their post-tests. Overall, there was a significant increase in the number of correct answers. There were less incom-

plete/wrong answers and blanks an indication that the students did better and were more willing to try to solve the

problems than before.

Table 8

Individual teachers class results

Correct Attempted Blank Total (number)

As class

Pre-test 73 1.97 1.07 176 4.76 2.31 121 3.27 2.10 370

Post-test 98 2.72 1.32 165 4.58 2.36 97 2.69 1.95 360

Bs class

Pre-test 59 1.64 1.33 163 4.53 1.63 138 3.83 2.37 360

Post-test 69 2.03 1.31 178 5.24 1.71 93 2.74 1.88 340

Cs class

Pre-test 35 1.06 0.75 219 6.64 2.15 76 2.30 2.10 330

Post-test 49 1.58 0.92 163 5.26 2.46 98 3.16 2.24 310

Table 9

Class paired-samples t test for the number of correct answers

Mean SD t value df P d

Teacher A (n = 36)

Pre-test 2.00 1.07 3.224 35 0.003 0.54

Post-test 2.72 1.32

Teacher B (n = 34)

Pre-test 1.59 1.31 1.69 33 0.100 0.29

Post-test 2.03 1.31

Teacher C (n = 31)

Pre-test 1.06 0.73 2.327 30 0.027 0.42

Post-test 1.58 0.92

250 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

4. Conclusion

This study has gone some way in recording and analyzing particular interactions of three teachers classroom

practices in the teaching and learning of mathematics with a particular focus on problem solving. The video-coding

scheme enabled the identification of five phases: problem solving, the teaching of concepts/skills, going over assigned

work, student activities and other class events. The amount of time each teacher spent on each of the phases describes

typical classroom practice. However, traditional patterns of teaching a topic, explaining concepts and giving students

exercises to practice related skills prevailed. Similar patterns were observed both before and after the reflective practice

intervention. Such patterns match what Schroeder and Lester (1989) describe as teaching for problem solving. To some

extent we observed a narrow interpretation of this approach with teachers doing problem solving with students only

after the introduction of concepts or following work on computational or procedural skills.

According to Schroeder and Lester (1989, p. 34), teaching via problem solving brings out best the curricula focus on

problem solving. Ideally, the intervention should be to shift the teachers approach towards it. But such a major reform

change would require something more involved and complex (Senger, 1999). Given the short time the current study

spanned, it was more realistic to take the first steps to get teachers teach about problem solving highlighting Polyas

(1957) model of problem solving, with the longer term goal of moving towards teaching mathematics via problem

solving.

The results suggest that the teachers had at least started to question their own views about problem solving and how it

can be emphasized in their mathematics teaching. We noted that Teachers A and C loosen some of their predominating

teacher-centered approach to include some pair and small group work, resulting in greater student interaction and more

active participation. There was also a better spread of time through the four (Polya) phases of problem solving after

the intervention, breaking the understandexecute pattern to include more time on planning and reection. Notably, B

was more explicit about planning while Teachers A and C spent more time on reection.

One unexpected change was Teacher B stopped using group work in his class and reverted back to whole class

teaching. His concerns were that his class continuous assessment was slipping and they were not benefiting from the

group work he had done before. Bs concerns reflected the belief many teachers have that it was far more important

to prepare students for formal assessment than to implement problem solving lessons (Norton et al., 2002).

The range of heuristics introduced to students and their ability to try more than a limited range of heuristics to solve

mathematical problems has been shown to be possible and the implementations vary greatly between classrooms and

produce different effects. There are lessons for both the development of mathematical thinking in real classrooms as

well as those who seek to change pedagogical practice. The analysis has shown great individual variation in the way

teachers implement a simple problem solving strategy.

The range of heuristics employed and the type of problem were also important aspects of changing MPS classroom

practice. All teachers used more non-standard problems in class after the intervention as they realized that they were

providing a limited experience for their students. This change seems to be compatible with the findings of Cai (2003)

about the kinds of problem solving tasks that should be used. For this effect, the degree of support for teachers in

terms of resources and examples is critical. In fairness to the teachers, the testing and assessment systems and the

fact that one heuristic strategy (diagram/model) can be used by students to achieve solutions for at least 75% of

their assessment works actively against increasing other heuristic use. Teachers A and C did widened their range of

heuristics, employing other heuristics like guess and check, look for patterns, and systematic listing. Resources

such as suitable non-standard problems did help support teachers extend the range of heuristics in the teaching and

learning of MPS. To that end providing a set of problems that can be solved by more than one heuristic strategy is an

important starting point for teachers to consider changing their basic approach.

The overall results seem to suggest that the intervention strategy was effective, although the benefits of the interven-

tion were small. The Teachers A and C made qualitative changes to their teaching. Their students also demonstrated

moderate but statistically significant improvements in students learning. We suggest that the changes to Teacher A

and Cs teaching styles may have accounted for this improvement. Other possible factors that might have accounted

for the improvement include students natural mathematical development over the 4-month span of study or simply

familiarity with the post-test items after having seen the pre-test. These factors are acknowledged here and we can-

not claim students improvement was solely due to the qualitative changes in the teachers practices. Nonetheless, the

intervention appears to provide a first-step in developing instruction to help students better engage in authentic problem

solving.

K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252 251

In addition, better student performances in Teachers A and C classes may have something to do with the fact that

they spent more time on reection in their problem solving for both the teachers and the students. This lends support

to the few studies on the important role reflection plays in problem solving (cf. Cifarelli, 1998; Simon, Tzur, Heinz, &

Kinzel, 2004). To some extent the results of the current study demonstrated in actual classrooms the effectiveness of

an intervention that is designed to promote increased reflection in the students. There are important implications for

classroom application that need to be explicated through further analysis and research.

Clearly, observations of classroom practices can be viewed through many lenses (e.g., Bourke, 1985; Cobb et

al., 2001; Spillane & Zeuli, 1999; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Perhaps one important area is to look at classroom

tasks and discourse patterns in the Singapore mathematics classroom context. Would the patterns so identified be

comparable with the three patterns identified by Spillane and Zueli (1999), namely, Conceptually grounded tasks and

conceptually centered discourse, Conceptually oriented tasks and procedure-bounded discourse, and Peripheral

changes, continuity at the substantive core? This avenue would enrich further insights into classroom practices.

Another area could be studying the observations for a teaching script (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) culturally specific to

Singapore. Given that the present sample size is small, it remains to be seen if by extending the investigation such a

script can indeed be differentiated.

Finally, the focus of the larger study is to systematically enlarge the evidence base and specifically work with the

changed explicit class discussion on metacognitive strategies that will assist students in planning and reviewing their

approaches. Most students had not been explicitly pushed to discuss their problem solving solutions in terms other than

procedural steps. Working with the teachers in this study covered a realistic period with authentic school assessment

tasks and has resulted in distinct behavioral changes in the students approaches. From cries of this is too difficult

to greater attempts and less blank responses we have seen changed attitudes to the process of solving mathematical

problems. Our results suggest that with an emphasis on metacognitive strategies and working with an explicit planning

approach, students can change their approach and experience greater success.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the late Teong Su Kwang to the conceptualization of the project,

Mrs. Chang Swee Tong for her support, the teachers who so willingly gave their time and cooperation, and to Luis

Lioe and John Tiong for assisting in the data collection.

References

Anderson, P. (1994). Years 17 mathematics syllabus support document: A content core for a school-based program in Queensland primary schools.

Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Education.

Australian Education Council (AEC). (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum

Corporation.

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Board of Senior Secondary School Studies (BSSSS). (1992). Senior syllabus in mathematics B. Brisbane, Australia: Author.

Bourke, S. F. (1985). The study of classroom contexts and practices. Teacher & Teacher Education, 1(1), 3350.

Cai, J. (2003). Singaporean students mathematical thinking in problem solving and problem posing: An exploratory study. International Journal

of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 34(5), 719737.

Chang, S. C., Kaur, B., Koay, P. L., & Lee, N. H. (2001). An exploratory analysis of current pedagogical practices in primary mathematics classrooms.

The NIE Researcher, 1(2), 78.

Chapman, O. (1999). In-service teacher development in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 121142.

Cifarelli, V. (1998). The development of mental representations as a problem solving activity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 239264.

Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. The Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 10(1/2), 113163.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 3746.

Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, Western Australia:

Author.

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.

Foong, P. Y., & Koay, P. L. (1997). School word problems and stereotyped thinking. Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 7382.

Foong, P. Y., Yap, S. F., & Koay, P. L. (1996). Teachers concerns about the revised mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 1(1),

99110.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

252 K.F. Ho, J.G. Hedberg / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 24 (2005) 238252

Grouws, D. A. (1996). Critical issues in problem solving instruction in mathematics. In D. Zhang, T. Sawada, & J. P. Becker (Eds.), Proceedings of

the ChinaJapanU.S. seminar on mathematical education (pp. 7093). Carbondale, IL: Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and

instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 1221.

Holton, D., Anderson, J., Thomas, B., & Fletcher, D. (1999). Mathematical problem solving in support of the curriculum? International Journal of

Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30(3), 351371.

Howson, A. G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum development in mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howson, A. G., & Malone, J. (1984). Theme Group 5: Curriculum development. In M. Carss (Ed.), Proceedings of the fth International Congress

on Mathematical Education (pp. 187196), August 2430, 1984, Adelaide. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.

Koay, P. L., & Foong, P. Y. (1996). Do Singaporean pupils apply common sense knowledge in solving realistic mathematics problems? Paper presented

at the Joint Conference of Educational Research Association, Singapore and Australian Association for Research in Education, November 2529,

1996, Singapore.

Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem solving research: 19941970. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25,

660675.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability.

Human Communication Research, 28, 587604.

Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2000). Primary mathematics syllabus. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division,

Ministry of Education.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 International Mathematics Report. Chestnut Hill, MA:

TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J., & Cooper, T. J. (2002). Teachers responses to an investigative mathematics syllabus: Their goals and practices.

Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(1), 3759.

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Robitaille, D., & Dirks, M. (1982). Models for the mathematics curriculum. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(3), 321.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. CA: Academic Press.

Schroeder, T. L., & Lester, F. K. (1989). Developing understanding in mathematics via problem solving. In P. R. Trafton & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), New

directions for elementary school mathematics: 1989 yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Senger, E. S. (1999). Reflective reform in mathematics: The recursive nature of teacher change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 199221.

Sigurdson, S. E., & Olson, A. T. (1992). Teaching mathematics with meaning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 3757.

Sigurdson, S. E., Olson, A. T., & Mason, R. (1994). Problem solving and mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(4), 361388.

Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective

abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 305329.

Spillane, J. P., & Zueli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 127.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York:

The Free Press.

- GreshamHS CRLE Blank FormUploaded bybcdsgn
- AssignmentUploaded bySebastian Lembang Igol
- Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths ProblemsUploaded byRodrigo Guimarães Abreu
- complete list of behavioral interview questionsUploaded byapi-257096431
- IT500bUploaded byKaj Pagatpatan
- MathsUploaded byNutan Niraula
- CBS BanshoUploaded byblurrmie
- Imrad—'Factors Affecting General Mathematics'Uploaded byJohn Dave Mabanta
- Sample IppGr. 1 Unit 7 IPPUploaded byJancey Clark
- Transferable SkillsUploaded byLearsi Ray Afable
- Success in MathUploaded bynura
- lessonplantemplate-iste balachandranUploaded byapi-405567093
- CM_AnnmarieMegDerrickUploaded byAnnmarie McGonagle
- p3aUploaded byapi-259472155
- Work MathUploaded byS TANCRED
- UNIT PLANUploaded byMohd Aidil Ubaidillah
- Lesson-25-M6Q1LC15.1-DLLUploaded byMelinda Rafael
- Unit Lesson #4Uploaded byx3jenny08
- niles lavey resumeUploaded byapi-396872239
- nov 5Uploaded byapi-416967636
- questioning mini lessonUploaded byapi-379755793
- <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Refresh</TITLE></HEAD><BODY><FONT face="Helvetica"><big><strong></strong></big><BR></FONT><blockquote><TABLE border=0 cellPadding=1 width="80%"><TR><TD><FONT face="Helvetica"><big>Refresh (dynamic_bypass_reload)</big><BR><BR></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT face="Helvetica">Click <a href="">here</a> if you are not automatically redirected.</FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT face="Helvetica"></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT face="Helvetica" SIZE=2><BR>For assistance, contact your network support team.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE></blockquote></FONT></BODY></HTML>Uploaded byVelmurugan Subramaniam
- pot 1Uploaded byMaryAnnBingco
- Cognitive LearningUploaded byLourd Misa
- ml deffUploaded byMiron Brezev
- v16i1math1Uploaded byoscarguerreroc
- mancini syllabus 2h 2015-2016Uploaded byapi-233820143
- wk 12 mathlp-multiplicationdivisioninwordproblemsUploaded byapi-335682061
- folio final 8Uploaded byapi-298381854
- writing workshopreading block and math lesson plan feb 29 2016Uploaded byapi-308896998

- tf bruce student interactionUploaded byapi-306029279
- Pedagogical StylisticsUploaded byDaniel Taufiq Abdullah
- Payments in PsychotherapyUploaded byemma allora
- Prm704 Lecture 1Uploaded byAnabia Chodry
- Program.tertiaryUploaded byJenny Pariña Castillo
- Figures of Speech Quiz PDFUploaded byKristin
- Thinking Maps Part 1Uploaded bysammmmm0
- Aruna ProjectUploaded byPranjit Moral
- The Leadership Practices InventoryUploaded bysaad
- Success - The Psychology of AchievementUploaded bypolebear
- earthquake lesson planUploaded byapi-293666752
- FIDA (1)Uploaded byMuzzumil Mehmood
- thesis.pdfUploaded byVasia Papapetrou
- A Review of Washback and Its Pedagogical ImplicationsUploaded byHenriMG
- course outline human ecology grade 8Uploaded byapi-257984804
- Accident Research PropsalUploaded byASIF RAFIQUE BHATTI
- Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) Journal of managementUploaded by15704261002 YUSDIN BIN MAHMUDIN GAGARAMUSU LC., M.ED
- steever- masters thesis abstractUploaded byapi-280893867
- CLANDININ, D. J. Connelly, F. M. Narrative and Story in Practice and Research.Uploaded byAndressa Toscano Moura De Caldas Barros
- CommunicationUploaded byManashwi Dhakal
- School Guidance Program- FinalUploaded byLoreto C. Morales
- A Brief History of SonyUploaded byJayen Mba
- Janz, B - Whistlers Fog and the Aesthetics of PlaceUploaded bybbjanz
- EMDR Integration in Psychotherapy-2019Uploaded byMarta Martínez Palmer
- NSW PSYCHOLOGISTS REGISTRATION BOARDUploaded byNisa Nur Fauziah
- ec 429 lesson plan 5 morgan chambersUploaded byapi-235237205
- Determining and Formulating Goals :)Uploaded bySheryl Ann Tumacder Dionicio
- gr ellen ochoaUploaded byapi-260326769
- 2.Employee Engagement FullUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- 02-collocations-2x3.pdfUploaded bySamah Hassan