Enabling Students in Mathematics

Marshall Gordon

Enabling Students in
Mathematics
A Three-Dimensional Perspective for
Teaching Mathematics in Grades 6–12

1  3
Marshall Gordon
The Park School
Baltimore, Maryland, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-25404-3     ISBN 978-3-319-25406-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015953839

Springer
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recita-
tion, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or in-
formation storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publica-
tion does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media

(www.springer.com)
To my wife, Paddy, and our children, Ian,
Sara, and Eva, who inspire me every day.
Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my colleagues at the Park School of Baltimore who I had the plea-
sure of working with in writing the first iteration of the Habits of Mind mathe-
matics curriculum—Tony Asdourian, Arnaldo Cohen, Mimi Cukier, Rina Foygel,
Tim Howell, Bill Tabrisky, and Anand Thakker. Their dedication, creativity, and
thoughtfulness made it happen. And also, F. Parvin Sharpless whose creation of the
summer endowment program for faculty made the Habits of Mind curriculum effort
possible.
I also want to thank Bill Tabrisky for the graphics work that is included in this
book. And Stephen I. Brown who read the manuscript and understood what it need-
ed for its more complete expression.
I wish to also acknowledge folks at Springer Publishers, Rishi Pal Gupta who
shepherded the manuscript to its publication, and Melissa James, Vivian Roberson,
and Bill Tucker for getting things going.

August 2015 Marshall Gordon

Overview

Teaching is an extraordinary adventure. Looking at the front covers of physics

books where there is an illustration of subatomic particles flying in this direction
and that as a result of heightened interaction, it is evident how complicated things
are beneath the surface. Mathematics teachers know all about that. Exploding into
and out of existence in our students’ minds are concerns related and not, questions
and ideas, and varied emotions, even when they are listening to what we are saying
or watching what we are writing on the board.
Yet the complications do not stop there. The poet T. S. Eliot reminds us that “be-
tween the idea and the reality falls the shadow.” And mathematics teachers are well
aware of the varied shapes the shadow can take, including uninterested students, an
insensitive curriculum, excessive administrative pressures, and inappropriate pa-
rental involvement. Best of luck with your administration and parents. This book
will focus on how mathematics teachers can enable students to become more adept
mathematical thinkers, more capable in their mathematics collaborations, and more
in charge of their own development as successful mathematics students.
***
Clearly, there is much to think about and know to teach well. To be a success-
ful mathematics educator requires our being informed not only about the content
knowledge associated with mathematics itself, but the pedagogical content knowl-
edge associated with creating a successful classroom mathematics experience and
general pedagogical knowledge associated with knowledge of various teaching
strategies and how to foster student learning (Shulman 1986, 1987; Borko and Put-
nam 1996).
Indeed, teaching mathematics is a complex engagement. G. H. Hardy, the twen-
tieth century British mathematician known for his work in number theory and for
discovering the extraordinary Indian mathematician Ramanujan, understood that
quite well. His statement, “I would rather lecture than teach,” made clear he did not
want to get caught up with whether the content actually connected to the students,
nor their concerns and questions, or the involved effort and continued discussion
needed to ensure their understanding. Yet as mathematics educators working to de-
velop students’ mathematical intelligence in grades 6–12, we do need to consider
ix
x Overview

all those aspects. And more: There is the classroom environment that can promote
valuable student interactions to think about and the significant influence students’
personal qualities play in the thinking/learning process. These are all foundational
concerns of a mathematics classroom experience committed to developing students’
intellectual, social, and personal capacities essential for a vibrant society.
And of course, there is the curriculum. The prescribed body of material to be
presented and finished by the end of the school year. It can well be an imposing
presence and can rightfully leave us feeling considerable pressure. After all, if we
think of a favorite author of ours, and then imagine we get a new book by that au-
thor, is anyone really confident enough to predict what page they will be on after
reading for two hours? Now consider every student in your class has a mathematics
text in their hands that they did not choose. What page will they be on the last day of
class—9 or 10 months later? If we cannot know what page we would be on reading
our favorite author after reading for just 2 h, how could we possibly know by the
end of the school year what page we would be on with a group of students whose
interests in and expertise with the material are as varied as they are?
So naturally, the imperative to cover the curriculum compels mathematics
teachers and textbooks to emphasize presentations of mathematics algorithms and
problem-solving techniques as this is the most direct approach to transmit all the
content. Yet, this approach surely has its problems. Why, for example, with the
mathematics curriculum laid out so clearly with explicit rules and problem-solving
procedures associated with each content area is “mathematics widely hated among
adults” (Boaler 2008, p. 4)? And as regards the young, why does math anxiety
actually exist? We need to take seriously the emotional disturbance and difficulty
many students experience while engaging a discipline which celebrates reasoned
argument.
This is to say, if we are committed to having mathematics classrooms where stu-
dents are productively involved, able to analyze problems well, reflect on what they
and others say, and are open to changing their minds, then we need to promote, de-
velop, and sustain that curriculum. Yet, that is no easy matter. Classroom discussion
surely has its difficulties. It is even seen as the source of the “mathematics teacher’s
dilemma”. “This dilemma arises in classrooms in which the teacher wishes both to
ensure learner participation and to teach particular ideas. The dilemma is how to
elicit the knowledge from learners that she wants to teach. As long as she genuinely
allows learners to express their thinking, a teacher cannot be sure that such expres-
sion will contribute towards what she is trying to teach. If the teacher maintains her
focus on covering the content of the curriculum, then she may be in danger of miss-
ing what learners have to say (Brodie 2009, p. 28; italics added).”
To resolve that dilemma we can, of course, present mathematics material that is
so clear in its prescription that it limits the need for conversation and questions. But
as just discussed, that approach does not appear to ensure a successful mathematics
experience. There is another way. We can have those discussions, but they can be
more effective and more productive for both the students and the teacher.
This requires providing students access to the language of more productive math-
ematical thinkers. In that way, the classroom discussions are more informed and so
Overview xi

take less time to develop students’ mathematical understanding. To make that hap-
pen we need to include as content mathematical heuristics, those problem-clarifying
strategies that mathematically able thinkers draw upon to gain insight into solving
mathematics problems. These strategies are fundamentally the “tools of the trade.”
With students increasingly aware of how to make use of them, there is no need to
experience classroom discussions that lack coherence or dedicate so much time to
teaching algorithms and procedures. With students more able to think mathemati-
cally, the mathematics problems that can be considered and the conversations that
can be had can be at a much more engaging and rewarding level for both the stu-
dents and the teacher. The first section of this book is dedicated to that development.
***
Albert Einstein, in reflecting on the common experience of not remembering most
of what he learned in school, came to think that “your education is what you know
when you forgot what they told you.” What is left? Focusing on the positive—pro-
ductive habits of thought, constructive means of relating, and personal capacities
so we can better do things. These would surely be outcomes of a valued and valu-
able education—positive developments in each of the dimensions of our students’
intellectual, social, and personal school experience. Together, they can be said to
constitute a socially responsible mathematics education.
However, if classroom efforts are primarily given to teacher demonstrations of
procedures, student practicing, and their testing, we are likely promoting the de-
velopment of an adult population trained to look for quick answers, not inclined to
think things through nor experienced in the exchange of ideas and competing expla-
nations essential for dealing well with complex issues. Such mathematics classroom
experience seems geared toward a limited view of human beings and what it means
to be a valued participant in a society dedicated to the fullest development of all of
its citizens.
Thinking about what behaviors we would want our mathematics students to
demonstrate, we can appreciate that habits are “the mainspring of human action”
and “are formed for the most part under the influence of the customs of a group”
(Dewey 1954, p. 159). In the mathematics classroom, an appreciation of habit de-
velopment is apparent when students do homework consistently, are on time to
class, bring the right books, etc. Yet of course, habits have a broader compass in ev-
ery facet of our lives. There are habits associated with personal and social behavior
in addition to those associated with thinking that are instrumental for shaping our
lived experience in better or lesser ways. That is to say, they influence to an essen-
tial degree the individual and collective efforts of our students and our mathemat-
ics classroom experience. So the questions that naturally follow are which habits
should we seek to promote and develop, and which would be good to eliminate?
For example, if you have taught a while, you may have noticed that if students
do not develop confidence in dealing with mathematics questions, they are prone
to either believe whatever comes first to their minds, or they cannot trust anything
that comes into their minds. Naturally, in the absence of that confidence and trust,
students will let impulse make their decisions or remain confused and unsure of
xii Overview

how to proceed. As a consequence, they likely develop unproductive habits, unhelp-

ful coping behaviors, and a view of mathematics that is not what we would hope.
Research bears that out. For example, “One of the biggest mistakes students
make with math problems is that they often rush in and do something with the
numbers, without really considering what is being asked of them, whereas success-
ful problem solvers spend some time really thinking about the problem” (Boaler
2008, p. 186; italics in original). This is to be expected, as in a stressful situation,
we naturally tend to rush to escape it. So developing students’ patience, resilience,
and flexibility is paramount in helping them get to the state of being able to “spend
some time really thinking.” Not to mention being more successful on standardized
exams that test for understanding, as the coming Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) tests are said to be.
Helping students develop mathematical habits of mind and become, in general,
more aware of productive means for making good decisions will naturally develop
their confidence as they become more successful mathematical thinkers. We can
also help them develop their resilience by enabling them to engage complex prob-
lems and their trust in themselves as they consider as part of their curriculum their
own personal/professional development toward becoming more capable mathemat-
ics students. Toward that end, the third section of this book focuses on how they can
take more thoughtful control of their participation in their mathematics experience.
What about the second section? Whatever standards of decorum or social phi-
losophy a school is following, an appreciation of both the classroom environment
and the roles students as adults will have in a democratic society requires promot-
ing their being able to collaborate productively. This is surely an essential activity
toward securing a robust society where people are open-minded, listen carefully to
each other, and work together to solve complex problems. To promote that social
development, the second section will consider how mathematics teachers can de-
velop students’ reflective thinking so as to help them become more valued group
members, and introduce “multiple-centers” investigations involving engaging
mathematics problems that call on those practices to be successful.
***
This is all to say that Enabling Students in Mathematics—A Three-Dimensional
Perspective for Teaching Mathematics in Grades 6–12 addresses the cognitive, so-
cial, and psychological dimensions that shape students’ mathematics learning ex-
perience. The object is to help ensure they are capable, cooperative, and confident
engaging mathematics. In this complete way, all students can have a productive and
enjoyable mathematics experience that would promote their being valued partici-
pants in society.
To help secure that life-enriching development, assessment will be part of each
dimension of students’ mathematics experience. It will also be the focus of the
fourth section where grading, homework, and the day-to-day mathematics class-
room will be revisited through the lens of values that inform our assessments. For
as John Dewey noted, “we learn by doing only if we reflect on what we’ve done.”
Overview xiii

(And that would include reflecting on what we have not done.) Without mathemat-
ics students and teachers having the opportunity to stop to reflect on how things are
going and getting feedback from others as well, there is little chance to see beneath
the surface, little chance to decide how to better proceed. Hence, the goal of the as-
sessment considerations is to promote conversations—between students and teach-
ers, between students with themselves, and teachers with themselves—dedicated to
developing thoughtful, socially aware, and resilient students of mathematics who
will bring their capable selves and energy to the future development of society.
That is what the book is about. Hopefully it will reward your time and thinking.
Contents

Part I Promoting Mathematics Students’ Cognitive Development

1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence �����������������������������������   5

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10

2 Presentations into Investigations ������������������������������������������������������������� 13

2.1 The Long-Division Algorithm and Take Things Apart ���������������������� 15
2.2 Combining Fractions and Changing Representation ������������������������� 17
2.3 Invert and Multiply and Make the Problem Simpler �������������������������� 18
2.4 Mathematical Slope and Visualize ����������������������������������������������������� 21
2.5 Arithmetic Series and Tinkering ��������������������������������������������������������� 22
2.6 Quadratic Equations and Make the Problem Simpler ������������������������ 25
References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 28

3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics

Curriculum: Some Instances ������������������������������������������������������������������� 31
3.1 Visualizing ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 39
3.2 Looking for Patterns ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40
3.3 Tinkering �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41
References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44

Part II Promoting Mathematics Students’ Social Development

4 Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics Classroom ������������������������� 49

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 52

5 Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry ������������������������������������������ 53

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57

6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations ��������������������������������������������� 59

6.1 Four-of-a-Kind ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 63
6.2 Would 400 Be Better Than 360? �������������������������������������������������������� 66
xv
xvi Contents

6.3 Mathematics of a Fountain Arc ���������������������������������������������������������� 71

6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve ��������������������������� 74
References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 82

Part III Promoting Mathematics Students’ Psychological

Development

7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom ���������������������������������� 85

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 94

8 Including Students’ Goals ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 97

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 105

Part IV Assessing Students’ Mathematics Experience

9 Grades and Tests ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 109

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114

10 Homework ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 115

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 117

11 Classroom Observations ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 119

11.1 Students’ Psychological Development ����������������������������������������������� 119
11.2 Social Development ��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 121
11.3 Cognitive Development ���������������������������������������������������������������������� 124
References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 127

Part V In Conclusion

12 Summing Up ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 131

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 133

What Is Your Thinking? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 135

Bibliography ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 139

Index ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 145

 Part I
Promoting Mathematics Students’
Cognitive Development

Education is not an affair of telling and being told, but an

active and constructive process.
John Dewey

Introduction
The students who come to mathematics class naturally arrive with different learning
experiences, even if they sat next to each other in earlier years. Each of them tried
to make sense of the mathematics from their own perspective, based on their level
of interest, their ability to focus, emotions at the moment, and the learning environ-
ments they found themselves part of. Yet, despite the differences in their experience,
and the successes of a number of students in mathematics, there is considerable
evidence things have not gone well for many students. So, it is necessary to consider
why learning mathematics is challenging for many students, and what can be done
to make it a more valued and valuable educational experience for all students.
The problem seems rooted in what it means to know mathematics. For example,
one teacher mentioned in a blog that in light of the Common Core principles and
practices she would be adopting, she would stop having her elementary school stu-
dents multiply length by width to find the area of a rectangle. Instead, she would
show why that approach actually works. This seems clearly in the right direction.
Students having been told how, but not why some mathematics formula or process
works helps locate why many students have had such a poor experience learning
mathematics. For “When the focus is on skills and procedures the tendency is to
lean away from a problem-based approach to rely on show-and-tell, thereby de-
creasing opportunities for the students to develop ideas that make sense to them”.
That is, understanding remains at a distance from many students’ mathematics
experience, if their personal classroom experience is one of practicing techniques,
as understanding requires making sense of things. To practice division problems,
cross multiplication, inverting and multiplying, etc., without having an awareness
of what the rationales are for each of these actions is in effect promoting a literally
dumb response with regard to solving problems.
2 Part I Promoting Mathematics Students’ Cognitive Development

Yet, with teachers learning these procedures when they were students, there is
the expected outcome that they too would teach that way. With the focus on pro-
cedures and not thinking, mathematics remains a confusing experience for many
students. “Instead of trying to convey, say, the essence of what it means to subtract
fractions, teachers tell students to draw butterflies and multiply along the diagonal
wings, add the antennas and finally reduce and simplify as needed. The answer-get-
ting strategies may serve them well for a class period of practice problems, but after
a week, they forget. And students often can’t figure out how to apply the strategy
for a particular problem to new problems”.
We can appreciate the clarity experienced in being told formulas as if they were
definitions, and by following procedures. But it is a narrow view of what doing
mathematics offers and what it means to be educated. Students need to be partici-
pants in experiencing and learning about the inventive nature of mathematics along
with means to think mathematically. In that direction, teachers of students of all
ages might well appreciate Madeline Lampert’s transforming a common elementary
school way of teaching mathematics, “I, We, You”, into what has been called “You,
Y’all, We”, where the focus is not on teacher’s demonstration of a mathematics pro-
cedure but students sharing their thinking when engaging a mathematics problem.
It clearly transforms the educational experience into one of sensemaking, the objec-
tive being not providing an “answer-getting” strategy.
Tara Holm, a mathematician, put it this way:
“Calculators have long since overthrown the need to perform addition, subtrac-
tion, multiplication, or division by hand. We still teach this basic arithmetic, though,
because we want students to grasp the contours of numbers and look for patterns,
to have a sense of what the right answer might be. But what happens next in most
schools is the road-to-math-Hades: the single-file death march that leads toward
calculus.
We are pretty much the only country on the planet that teaches math this way,
where students are forced to memorize formulas and procedures. And so kids miss
the more organic experience of playing with mathematical puzzles, experimenting
and searching for patterns, finding delight in their own discoveries. Most students
learn to detest—or at best, endure—math, and this is why our students are falling
behind their international peers.
When students memorize the Pythagorean Theorem or the quadratic formula
and apply it with slightly different numbers, they actually get worse at the bigger
picture. Our brains are slow to recognize information when it is out of context. This
is why real-world math problems are so much harder—and more fascinating—than
the contrived textbook exercises.
What I have found instead is that a student who has developed the ability to turn
a real-world scenario into a mathematical problem, who is alert to false reasoning,
and who can manipulate numbers and equations is likely far better prepared for
college math than a student who has experienced a year of rote calculus” (www.
bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/12/why-failing-behind-math).
Part I Promoting Mathematics Students’ Cognitive Development 3

Until mathematics textbooks and teachers focus their energies on student en-
gagement and understanding as the essential component of the mathematics curric-
ulum, students will likely continue to be presented with definitions and demonstra-
tions that create more questions than they answer. A number of such considerations
inform this section.
Chapter 1
Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence

The late physicist, Richard Feynman, walking with his father in the woods, saw
some birds on a tree and asked his father what the names of the birds were. His
father replied, “Don’t worry about the names; watch what they do.” He wanted
Richard to develop his powers of observation as well his imagination and was giv-
ing him time to have questions come to mind that went deeper than the surface
knowledge of knowing the names.
This is a lesson mathematics texts might learn. It helps us appreciate that just tell-
ing students “the way things are” could flatten what could otherwise be a thoughtful
engagement. Here are two instances:
While the mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell made clear that defi-
nitions are value free, that is, free from considerations of truth or falseness, defining
can indeed be a valued learning activity. For example, rather than telling students
who the members of the family of four-sided polygons are, we can give them the
opportunity to see how they would logically partition quadrilaterals themselves.
Their investigations would naturally give them a more intimate understanding of
the forms. And as a consequence, they would likely come up with conjectures cre-
ated by the distinctions they noted. Their experience would likely promote inter-
esting conversations with other students, further opportunities for investigations,
and the development of formulating reasoned arguments. Namely, a more inviting,
heightened, and personally rewarding, engagement of mathematics.
As for the other example, symbolic representation has a creative aspect as well
that deserves being acknowledged. For example, mathematicians in the early sev-
enteenth century found themselves having to decide how to represent the power of
a number. How to configure the expression created a real debate until Descartes
suggested using counting numbers (rather than Roman numerals, for instance) in
the upper right-hand corner (vs. other locations) which gained acceptance. This is
to say presenting the accepted symbolic representation to mathematics students as
if it was obvious diminishes the interesting experience that is otherwise available.
For instance, should there not be a classroom conversation why m is the symbol to
represent the slope of a line in the coordinate plane? What would seem to be going

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 5

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_1
6 1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence

through students’ minds when being presented with such a representation without a
hint of how such a choice was made?
These instances help point to an important pedagogical problem created by some
mathematics textbooks—with telling the primary form of communication, it may
well lead the teacher to act in the same manner. But such a taken-for-granted ap-
proach would logically tend to diminish the excitement of discovery and the aware-
ness of the sheer inventiveness of mathematics. By telling too often, we likely di-
minish students’ mathematics experience in terms of their potential to ask “what
if?” and “what if not?”—questions that can transform the mathematics classroom
conversation (Brown and Walter 1983) and, as a consequence, their inclination to
look for and secure a “deep understanding.”
Being told something is the case, wonder can disappear. But would we not ex-
pect, and actually hope, that students would express a concerned confusion at be-
ing informed, for example, that the slope of a line is represented by the symbol
m and not more obviously s? And that “right angles are 90°”? Can they not point
to the left? And why 90—would 100 divisions be not more pleasing? The great
eighteenth-century mathematician, Simon de Laplace, thought so.
Part of the problem is that inasmuch as mathematics textbook writers want to
minimize the likelihood of being misunderstood or misleading, there is little reason
for them to prompt questions. It is best to make definitive statements and dem-
onstrate procedures and leave the conversations to the mathematics teacher. Such
an approach is aided by the belief that students’ naïve view based on their limited
experience suggests their need to be informed. Rather than seeing their naiveté as
being an expression of an open-minded curiosity and flexible capacity for thinking,
it may be seen as a limitation. That is a problem we, who are educated, can remedy.
After all, it is the naïve view that asks questions that help us all see anew.
***
It is natural to lose sight of the questions generated by a naïve intuition that gave
birth to ideas, inventions, new paths worth following, etc., as they are lost in the
turning of history. For example, the spark of “what if” of the Earl of Sandwich, to
put meat between two slices of bread so his hands would not get greasy while play-
ing cards, could one day be of such loss.
The youngsters in front of us come with a lively naiveté if we give them the
chance to ask, “What’s going on here?” Giving it opportunity to express itself, we
create the opportunity for refreshing conversations, interesting conjectures, and new
learning experiences that really matter to students—directions their mathematics
teachers would likely appreciate well. Such engagements not only add to students’
understanding by subtracting doubts and confusion but promote their developing
intuition in gaining experience in the investigative process itself. This suggests it
is our work as mathematics teachers to create the settings to help shape those op-
portunities.
Have you ever cut a sandwich on the diagonal? If you try, you will see it is more
difficult than cutting it parallel to the sides. Students can understand that cut either
way the areas are equal. Something else must be the “why” sandwiches are cut on
the diagonal as it is more difficult to do so, yet often the case in restaurants. Com-
1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence 7

paring the lengths around, they can appreciate why cutting one way rather than the
other is practiced, especially when paying for a sandwich in a restaurant.
Suppose, in lieu of stating the area of a circle formula as mathematics textbooks
tend to do, we begin with a question—does anyone have any idea as how to get a
decent approximation to the area of a circle? Students who would draw a square cir-
cumscribing the circle would unconsciously be practicing the helpful habit of mind
of make the problem simpler and in doing so determine that area to be 4r2 (Fig. 1.1).
From there, there are many possible conversations of course. If students were famil-
iar with the habit of mind to take things apart, they could divide the circumscribed
square into 4 unit squares, remove one of the two in the top half, and so make even
a better approximation by moving the single square on top so that it is symmetric
above the 2 unit squares below (Fig. 1.2). Now it is clear that 3r2 is really close to
the area of the circle. It actually represents an error of less than 5 % and was an ap-
proximation well alive in the recesses of history.
Geometry books often state extraordinary mathematical relationships absent of
the heightened emotion that must have accompanied the defining investigation. In-
deed, to do so might well fill the book with exclamation marks! Yet the absence of
acknowledging the inventive engagements dampens what could generate student
interest, investigation, and appreciation. For example, stating the Pythagorean The-
orem as if it is an obvious observation would likely leave students confused, for it is

Fig. 1.1 A first approxima-

tion to the area of a circle

Fig. 1.2 A better approximation

8 1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence

not obvious to see the underlying connection between the lengths of the sides of the
right triangle. It was clearly not obvious to the ancient Egyptians, the great builders
who used Pythagorean triples but did not know the general relationship. For another
example, consider the statement “Prove that two chords that intersect in a circle
create similar triangles when their endpoints are connected.” Stated that way, it is
an assignment—something to be done. But it is extraordinary that it is true! If you
want to see why, try drawing two line segments such that their intersection creates
segments that share a constant ratio. You could spend a really long time at it and still
not make that happen—even if you try to have them bisect each other. Now, draw a
circle and draw any two chords so that they intersect—done!
The great Archimedes’ investigation of the area of a circle is presented as a dem-
onstration in clever reasoning. But there would have to be more to the story, of
course. He did not have a direct procedure to follow; he had to use an inventive
mathematical mind to ask and answer “what’s going on here?” And it came into
view by his making the problem simpler! That essential mathematical habit of mind
led him to actually gain better and better area approximations of a circle and finally
work with the notion of a limit, which would be the defining element in Newton’s
and Leibniz’s calculus, more than 1800 years later. This is to say that telling young-
sters the matter-of-fact information regarding the area of a circle, and so many other
formulas and definitions, is a questionable educational practice, especially when the
critical mathematical habits of mind that informed the thinking are omitted. In fact,
it could actually be seen as promoting a lost educational opportunity.
***
To make mathematics “real” need not mean that it is embedded in applications, but
rather it connects to the interests of those who engage it. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM’s) thinking that “…the central focus of the class-
room environment [is] on sense-making” (1991, p. 57) makes perfectly good sense.
To help see why this most significant mathematics experience is often missed, we
can try to imagine ourselves as students listening to someone introduce terms and
symbols that might be ambiguous to us but are being presented as if there was no
confusion other than our own. Would we be motivated to question as a 13-, 15-,
or 17-year-old what is seemingly obvious in the face of the teacher’s declarative
expression? Consider being shown a right angle for the first time. What is “right”
about it? Can it not point in any direction, including being upside down? That the
statement is visually confusing is compounded by the additional “matter-of-fact”
offering that a right angle has 90°. Why 90? That it is half a straight angle begs the
question. That it is a quarter-turn around the center of a circle begins to make it
interesting, motivating students to ask and desire to understand why, “what’s going
on here?” Why should a circle have 360°? Would 400, for instance, not be a more
reasonable choice?
It would seem that as mathematics educators we would be pleased that students
would be perplexed, for as Dewey noted thinking occurs only when we experience
a problem. This suggests we ought to consider how we might present some defini-
tions, procedures, and formulas so as to invite student discussion, for in that way
they have opportunity to raise conjectures and think more deeply as a consequence.
1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence 9

If in the discussion their intuitions are confirmed, they naturally feel disposed to
making other conjectures, which can inspire other valuable conversations. If their
intuitions are challenged, here too they are learning, in recognizing that more re-
flection is often needed. In either case, we create the positive energy essential for
promoting a lively mathematics experience, including the development of students’
more thoughtful considerations.
With regard to promoting a discussion in the case of the right angle, students
could wonder why it would be a focus. Asking them why they would think such
an angle would get attention especially in times of early human development, they
could come to conjecture that “right” could well be shorthand for “upright” or “cor-
rect.” Seeing the symbol for the right angle might trigger their imagination. Clearly,
in ancient times, buildings being upright could be very challenging, as being just a
bit off could well mean gravity would soon become not a supporting but a destruc-
tive force. Whether it is “absolutely” true regarding the origin of a right angle com-
ing from upright (or being the “correct” angle to keep the structure standing) may
well be beside the point, as the classroom consensus toward sense making has come
up with what appears to be a very reasonable rationale. And as historical research
attests, there is often more than one explanation (interpretation/deduction) associ-
ated with an event.
That instance was to acknowledge that all mathematical concepts, as all inven-
tions, gain real appreciation when understood as a response to experience. Consider
the introduction of numerals. We introduce them to children as if they were things.
Yet it took millennia to develop the concept. Prior to the third millennium in both
the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations, “The ‘four’ of ‘four sheep’ and ‘four
measures of grain’ [were] not written with the same symbol” (Ritter 1989, p. 12).
We can appreciate why: Consider four sheep walking around in the meadow and
four pieces of grain lying on the floor in a storeroom; how likely are they to suggest
the abstract notion of “fourness”?
Hopefully, students can come to appreciate the intellectual leap that had to take
place in human thought to create the ethereal objects of numerals. Indeed, the math-
ematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell claimed that 2 was the first number.
These are to suggest that if we want students to “formulate mathematical defini-
tions” (NCTM 1989, p. 40), they will have to be offered opportunities, including
vicarious experiences in the form of stories, real or imagined, so that their intuition
can be developed and have the opportunity to conjecture and abstract from experi-
ence which is so much part of mathematical thinking.
That a right angle has 90° (and not for example the more intuitively appealing
100) needs to be recognized as containing a history as well, or at least some story,
that deserves to be shared. (Surely, any unit measure must have a story behind
it—like a mile being 5280 ft!) All units of measurement are invented of course, and
so it is not enough to use a protractor to give legitimacy to a right angle being 90°.
That assumes the particular unit as a taken-for-granted measure, as if it had the same
concrete reality as the plastic tool in the student’s hand. Rather, we could share with
our students that in ancient times, going back before ancient Egypt, to Babylon and
Mesopotamia—the sky reckoners believed 360 was the number of days in a year.
10 1 Developing Students’ Mathematical Intelligence

The Egyptians realized it was 365 as a result of very carefully following the annual
return of the star, Sirius, as it appeared when the Nile would again flood, a most
propitious time for good or bad. Yet they kept the 360 unit measure as their calendar
with 12 months of 30 days and claimed 5 days at the end of the year for holidays!
Pretty inventive! Mathematically speaking, it was the better choice. The 365-day
unit has only two divisors, while 360 has so many more, allowing for a lot more
divisions to distinguish other intervals of time and create relations between differ-
ent intervals. We will revisit this later, when we consider some implications of the
circle being divided into 400 parts, as the great mathematician Laplace argued for.
These instances suggest that to acknowledge the virtue of a naïve perspective
and help nurture and develop students’ disposition to make mathematical sense,
“facts” would not always be presented devoid from their historical or logical roots.
Otherwise we are promoting their accepting whatever authority says. But if we
want to develop thoughtful, reflective, questioning citizens of a democratic society,
acceptance without seeking justification would not be the disposition we would
want to promote. Then, with students seeing that it was their wondering that was
instrumental in securing a “logical why” and/or a “chronological why” that informs
them of their questioning’s value. With the mathematics teacher communicating a
respect for their questions, their inquisitiveness and thoughtful energies are being
recognized. And that would seem to be exactly what is needed to create a classroom
environment that promotes the development of their mathematical intelligence.
***
In the next chapter, we will consider some standard algorithms and practices that
may well be being experienced as more problematic than informative. Especially
to an inquiring mind that seeks to make sense of things. With all the energies given
to presenting techniques, it is good to remind ourselves that “[a researcher who]
studied structural engineers at work for over seventy hours found that although
they used mathematics extensively in their work, they rarely used standard methods
and procedures” (Boaler 2008, pp. 7–8). This suggests that in sharing with students
what is involved in thinking mathematically, how facile one is in applying algo-
rithms would not be the exclusive focus. More completely, mathematics texts often
make explicit knowledge that demonstrates “knowing-that,” “knowing-how,” and
sometimes “knowing-why”. What will be the focus in the following, the develop-
ment of students’ awareness of problem-clarifying strategies, can be thought of as
another knowing: “knowing-to” (Mason and Spence 1999).

References

Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math got to do with it? New York: Penguin Books.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Hillsboro: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of
knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.
References 11

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ritter, J. (1989). Prime numbers. In A. K. Dewdney (Ed.), A mathematical mystery tour. Paris:
The Unesco Courier.
Chapter 2
Presentations into Investigations

As we all recognize, gaining any habit such as learning to read, walk, tie our shoes,
etc., begins with being awkward and, as importantly, takes time to secure. But de-
veloping productive habits is of course a really good idea despite the complexity
of that learning experience. Habits allow us to do things efficiently without giv-
ing much of any thought to the behavior, and that allows more time to do other
interesting things. Indeed, they would seem essential for becoming a capable and
thoughtful mathematics problem-solver. That suggests we need to take seriously
what habits we as mathematics teachers should promote, and how we go about do-
ing so. These would seem to be of fundamental concern in our work.
William James, a psychologist concerned about the educational experience,
wrote how preeminent a role habit development should have in schools. As he saw
it, “Education, in short, cannot be better described than by calling it the organization
of acquired habits of conduct and tendencies to behavior” (1899/2008, p. 25, ital-
ics in original). And his fellow traveler, John Dewey, also recognized their height-
ened importance: “We state emphatically that, upon its intellectual side, educa-
tion consists in the formation of wide-awake, careful, thorough habits of thinking”
(1933/1936, p. 78; italics in original).
Here, we mathematics educators find ourselves face-to-face with the problem
mentioned earlier. Given the press of covering the mathematics curriculum, being
able to demonstrate algorithms tend to be the practices that we want our students
to develop as habits. Yet, in a number of instances, their efficient demonstration
provides little evidence why they work. As a direct consequence when presented
without discussion, they can leave students more numb than educated or with a
false sense of their mathematical capacity. (Consider, e.g., “to solve a proportion,
cross multiply” or “to divide by a fraction, invert and multiply.”) They often seem
not much different than magic tricks. They work, but of course the question is why,
for nothing has otherwise been learned. (Readers interested in seeing a collection
of such poor representations see Nix the Tricks by Tina Cardone and the MTBoS,
NixtheTricks.pdf, updated January 30, 2014.)
Yet, what some students really like about mathematics is having specific tech-
niques that allow them to solve problems. Knowing the division algorithm or how

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 13

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_2
14 2 Presentations into Investigations

to factor a quadratic expression, for example, or in general being able to deal di-
rectly with a problem situation by applying a technique demonstrates how efficient
one is. But with teachers and texts presenting mathematics where solution models
and algorithms are the primary focus to solve sets of problems that students then
practice, students will likely have a surface knowledge of mathematics and them-
selves as mathematics students.
Experienced mathematics educators know well “There is no guarantee in any
amount of information, even if skillfully conveyed, that an intelligent attitude of
mind will be formed” (Dewey 1937, p. 183). This is made poignantly clear in a
National Assessment of Educational Progress question analysis where students
were asked to determine the value of (2/3) × (2/5). The findings were that 70 %
of 13-year-olds and 74 % of 17-year-olds could do the multiplication correctly.
But when those same students were presented with, “Jane lives 2/5 of a mile from
school; when she has walked 2/3 of the way to school, how far has she walked?”,
students demonstrated very little understanding, with 20 % of the 13-year-olds and
21 % of the 17-year-olds responding correctly.
Surely, efficient means to solving problems should be practiced. In that way,
more interesting mathematics problems can be considered. However, what the re-
search says is that “Mathematics learning has often been more a matter of memoriz-
ing than understanding” (Kilpatrick et al. 2001, p. 16). And with regard to memoriz-
ing algorithms, because of their form being one of technical efficiency, the thinking
that gives legitimacy to the procedure is often hidden. So students may memorize a
procedure and do well on an exam and yet have no idea why it works. They come to
believe “In Math you have to remember, in other subjects you can think about it” (a
student quoted in Boaler 2008). In this way, mathematics textbooks and teacher pre-
sentations which share the same surface aesthetic can actually be an impediment to
student learning and their gaining “deep understanding.” The rather exclusive focus
on efficient approaches promotes a lack of thoughtful experiences by omitting the
otherwise needed time for developing the habit of being able to stay with a problem,
that essential quality that life will reward with it happening.
***
Fortunately, mathematics algorithms and practices obscuring their rationale can often
be re-presented by introducing problem-clarifying strategies, which over time, with
dedicated focus, will become mental habits. Such strategies give students a more sig-
nificant role in shaping the conversation, and so promote their understanding. “A ‘habit
of mind’ means having a disposition toward behaving intelligently when confronted
with problems” (Kosta and Kallick 2009). What follow will be companion pieces—
standard algorithms and practices lacking explanation presented along with mathemat-
ical habits of mind, problem-clarifying strategies—a comparison that illustrates the
opportunity for students’ thoughtful agency rather than their passive acceptance.
The focus will begin with some of the earlier mathematics experiences students
are likely to have. For if we want students to “question the teacher and one another;
[and] try to convince themselves and one another of the validity of particular repre-
sentations…, and answers” (NCTM Professional Teaching Standards, Standard 3,
p. 45), then the place to begin must be with presentations associated with students
learning arithmetic procedures.
2.1 The Long-Division Algorithm and Take Things Apart 15

2.1 The Long-Division Algorithm and Take Things Apart

The long-division algorithm is clearly efficient in determining the quotient of a

division problem involving multi-digit numbers. Yet, students often have consider-
able difficulty working with it, so much so that long division tends to be omitted
from classroom discussions and is considered by many mathematics educators as
not worth the time. This of course does not go uncontested. The authors of “Ten
Myths About Math Education And Why You Shouldn’t Believe Them” (Budd and
Carson et al. 2005), some of whom are mathematicians, are clearly upset with “the
snubbing or outright omission of the long division algorithm by NCTM-based cur-
ricula…”. The conversation continues, and is quite heated. For example, in a recent
Education Week blog, “Welcome Back, Long Division?”, David Ginsburg shares
thinking on both sides of this contentious issue and concludes that it should not
be invited back (blogs.edweek.org/teachers/coach_gs_teaching_tips/2014/05/wel-
come_back_long_division).
Yet, there are clearly common instances where long division can be of value. For
example: “How many buses will we need to take our 526 students to the museum
if each bus holds 36 students?”; “We have seven dozen lollipops. Will we have to
buy more so that everyone in our class of 29 students gets the same number?” and
“The trip will take 1250 miles. If we can average 55 miles an hour driving, how long
will it take us to get there?” These seem to be reasonable considerations where long
division would be perfectly good in resolving those questions (even if you do not
think a child having four lollipops is reasonable!)
What exactly is the difficulty? One mathematics text made it perfectly clear in
presenting the problem of dividing 17 into 231, and asking and answering, “how
many 17s are in 23?”, to begin the division algorithm. Hopefully, students would be
baffled by the question—not the answer, but why that would be the question given
the problem. If the problem was to determine how many 17s are in 231, why are
they being asked to determine how many 17s are in 23? They may well be asking
themselves “why is what I am thinking not being discussed?”, and in the absence
of a response that acknowledges their legitimate confusion, cognitive dissonance
becomes the real problem. Here we can see why students could develop an aver-
sion to mathematics, having its beginning with some confounding experiences with
arithmetic.
If one did not think about what was going on but just answered the question and
continued, the power of the algorithm would be made clear. But blindly following
instructions would not be a tenet of a democratic society—quite the contrary. And
in this particular case, it apparently has caused more misguided attempts than suc-
cessful calculations. The algorithm offers an efficient means that makes the problem
simpler, but it is not clear why to many students for good reason.
Consider a different way, one where the student’s experience shapes the con-
versation and procedure. Given the problem of how many 17s are in 231, students
could be asked “How might you make the problem simpler?” From their earlier
experience with division problems, they could well decide to “take away ten sev-
16 2 Presentations into Investigations

enteens—170,” as 170 divided by 17 is clearly 10. (This is what the algorithm is

doing, but instead of putting “10” over the 31 in 231, a “1” is put above the 3.) Now
that leaves 61 to be divided by 17. From here to determining the final answer of 13
with a remainder of 10, students can subtract multiples of 17 from 61 as a function
of the degree of comfort and memorization they have gained, with all arriving at the
correct answer. Granted the mathematical actions here to take things apart are not
as crisp as the explicit procedure of the long-division algorithm. Yet, introducing
this problem-clarifying heuristic first, as some texts do, would likely make the intro-
duction of the textbook algorithm easier to accommodate after a while. In his blog,
Ginsburg quotes Evelyn Hines, a teacher in Georgia, who wrote “… we do teach
students to make sense of the problem. For example, 3657 divided by 35—a student
looks for a ‘friendly number’, so he/she might say that 35 times 100 equals 3500
which leaves 657…. By the time they get to 5th grade, they can choose between
the strategy or use the standard algorithm after they understand WHY the algorithm
works” (emphasis in original). Here the mathematical agency is in the hands of the
students, not the procedure.
Unfortunately, the pressure mathematics teachers experience to cover the curric-
ulum in preparation for standardized testing may result in short-circuiting the very
conversations students need to develop their number sense, with the time instead
being dedicated to practicing the algorithm. With “good” students being those who
readily adopt the otherwise puzzling procedure, our work as mathematics educators
is made even more perplexing—for, apparently, being insensitive to what appears to
be a mathematical action lacking explanation comes to be seen as a desirable qual-
ity! While other students for fear of their being seen as ignorant in questioning the
evidently successful albeit confounding practice remain silent naturally lose some
of the positive energy needed to try to make sense of what’s going on. It is not hard
to imagine that sometimes the effects would be long-standing.
It is not only this algorithmic procedure of long division that tends to short circuit
students’ inclination to inquire. It can be also seen in all the basic presentations of
addition, subtraction, and multiplication, where the procedures that make sense to
a naïve understanding tend to be omitted and in their place are procedures bereft
of explanation. (The reader might consider, for example, when adding three-digit
numbers the counterintuitive practice that begins with acting on the least significant
digits. Imagine standing in front of three piles of money—$100, $10, and $1 bills—
and being asked how much money was there in total. Which pile suggests it be
counted first? Also confusing is the practice of multiplying multi-digit numbers by
breaking up the partial products and writing one part of the number in one place and
the other part of the number in a different place; surely it is visually and mentally
quite perplexing for a number of students.)
Building students’ mathematical intuition is essential in their becoming a good
problem-solver. In the face of counterintuitive demonstrations, the mathematics
experience as a shared journey is lost and the valuable aim of enhancing student–
teacher and student–student constructive conversations is diminished. Instead, the
interior dialogue students have with themselves becomes, at best, one involving an
effort to dismiss their own concerns so as to internalize some perplexing practice.
2.2 Combining Fractions and Changing Representation 17

At such times “… there is no contradiction in their saying, ‘I know that such and
such is considered to be true, but I do not believe it’” (Confrey 1990, p. 111). This
naturally sets up the psychologically discomforting condition of students being sup-
ported in their doing what they do not believe in.

2.2 Combining Fractions and Changing Representation

It is rather a common classroom experience that when presented with a fraction

2 4 6
addition problem such as + , students often believe is the sum. In response,
3 5 8
some teachers tell students that “you can’t add apples and oranges,” but this tends
to leave many students mystified. After all, they added numerator with numerator
and denominator with denominator—in effect, they added apples with apples, and
oranges with oranges. (And to compound the confusion, later on when multiplying
fractions, students will learn that you can multiply “apples” and “oranges”!) Some-
times, students are just told “you can’t add that way” without being provided any
explanation. But a simple explanation is available. For example, using the model
of adding numerators to numerators and denominators to denominators, we would
1 1 2
have that + = . But that clearly does not make sense since the left-hand side
2 2 4
represents a totality of 1, as physical demonstrations would make clear.
Yet, inasmuch as the problem is such a common enduring misunderstanding,
there must be something deeper that promotes youngsters adding that way. It could
be that the problem beneath the surface is the symbolic representation—or more
directly, the absence of any. Namely, from experience, youngsters winning two
of three games of checkers on Monday and four of five games on Tuesday know
they have won six of eight games. And with that distinction going unmentioned,
the confusion naturally persists. Students fall back on their experience outside the
classroom, on their very reasonable “combining habit” developed earlier in another
context.
When combining numerical fractions, however, the parts are relative to the same
whole. This suggests that to help students put the addition of fractions operation
into perspective, the teacher, when introducing some change in representation such
as using pizzas or chocolate cake, make the distinction regarding parts of the same
unit being combined a conversation. After a few more similar problems, students
will come to appreciate that fractions are associated with some common unit (“two-
thirds of a cup,” etc.). Then it can be made clear in the abstracted, efficient practice
of combining fractions where the common unit has been omitted, including using
the number line. In this way, students can appreciate the change of representation
now that they see what was involved. Yet this is not the only time that working with
fractions causes considerable confusion, and for good reason.
Later on in their mathematics education, students will be introduced to another
algorithm involving fractions—to determine which of two fractions is greater by
18 2 Presentations into Investigations

cross multiplying. This practice also mystifies students, and rightly so. When we
3 5
compare and , and determine that the first fraction is greater on cross multi-
4 8
plying, we find that 24 is greater than 20, the “cross-multiplying” algorithm omits
the critical understanding—what is going on beneath the surface—that makes clear
why it is legitimate to do so. In the absence of a conversation, students naturally
come to believe memorizing is what they must do and paradoxically can feel less
capable for having done so. They of course deserve to see that the procedure is in
effect, creating a comparison of two fractions with the same denominators and look-
ing to see which numerator was greater.
Yet there are other situations where working with fractions can introduce more
perplexity to the naïve viewer, as when negative numbers are included. Consider
−3 4
the mathematics statement = . Simplifying both fractions or cross multiply-
6 −8
ing can serve to demonstrate that both fractions have the same value. But it would
not eliminate students’ consternation regarding how the ratio of a smaller number to
a larger number could be equal to the ratio of a larger number to a smaller number!
That perplexing relationship has a history that stretches back to the seventeenth
century, when a number of mathematicians expressed considerable discomfort in
accepting such a statement (Kline 1972, p. 252). Surely we would not call upon
the field axioms of mathematics to convince youngsters why the ratio of a negative
number to a positive equals the ratio of a positive number to a negative. How can
we help them appreciate their consternation is indeed legitimate? It is to be appre-
ciated that the discomfort negative numbers have had affected some of the finest
mathematicians. (That consideration will come in a while.)

2.3 Invert and Multiply and Make the Problem Simpler

Rather than use cross multiplication to determine which of two fractions was great-
er, we could more reasonably choose to divide one fraction by the other, and if
the quotient was greater than one, then the fraction in the numerator would be the
greater. But dividing fractions can be quite challenging. In its stead, students are
often introduced to the efficient algorithm of “inverting and multiplying.” This dual
procedure is another mathematics classroom experience which, for many students,
is even more challenging in its acceptance.
In being shown that algorithm, students tend to have one of two responses:
“Great—an easy way to divide by a fraction!”, and “What’s going on here?” To
help clarify the procedure for all students, there is a conversation that draws upon
the habit of mind to make the problem simpler. As one of the finest mathematical
problem-solvers of the twentieth century, George Polya wrote, “If you cannot solve
the proposed problem, could you imagine a more accessible related problem?”
(1965, p. 114). (Part III of his How To Solve It is a “short dictionary of heuristic”
with over 50 brief articles.)
2.3 Invert and Multiply and Make the Problem Simpler 19

If we apply make the problem simpler and determine the result, for example, of
dividing 8 by 3/4, we can find a rationale for “invert and multiply,” one that students
will understand and may well appreciate. (To begin the conversation, it would seem
necessary to first make such a problem a legitimate concern. For example, asking
how many 3/4 cup servings would there be in an eight-cup recipe, or how many
steps would it take to walk across a room 8 yards long if each step was 3/4 yard.)
The reason this problem is chosen is that it is not too easy or too hard to solve by
what the students know already. If we asked “what if 8 was divided by 1/2?”, some
students could yell out “the answer is 16,” and then grouse about why they have to
sit through another procedure when they were able to solve the problem. So let us
see what is involved when 8 is divided by 3/4. Surely, it must be more than 8. (Since
8 divided by 1 is 8, dividing by a smaller number means there must be more left
over—as the two physical instances suggested.) It must also be less than 16, since
16 would be the number of halves in 8.
Now some students may conjecture that the answer is 12. This is a common and
to be appreciated misconception as students are thinking of additive differences;
namely 3/4 is right between 1/2 and 1 on the number line. However, the conjecture
is worth acknowledging but not as being wrong. Students are demonstrating that
they are thinking about and connecting to the problem, sharing what does seem to
be the case to an intuition that is developing. Rather than tell them their conjecture
is incorrect, for conjecturing is another habit of mind that is worth promoting, we
have a wonderful opportunity for them to test their guess, to determine its plausibil-
ity—another habit of mind that is worth promoting.
3
In this case, suppose 8 divided by 3/4 did equal 12, then × 12 = 8. But the
4
product equals 9. So 12 is too big. The answer must be more toward the middle of
3
12 and 8. Is it 10? Then × 10 would equal 8. It does not, but it is closer! While
4
the students’ conjectures were “wrong,” there is no reason to make that the focus.
Learning to test answers as being plausible is a mathematical habit of mind to check
our thinking; it is a truly valuable strategy. And too, making conjectures is often
how we learn, as we learn to test our assumptions.
At this point in time, students see the answer must be close to 10. Further in-
roads with dividing by a fraction can be made if we make the problem simpler by
considering what the easiest number to divide by is. Students may initially offer 10
or 2, but after a moment more of reflection they often come upon 1, as with 1 the
division is done! So with the focus on the valuable habit of mind to make the prob-
lem simpler, the problem of determining “how many 3/4s are in 8?” turns into the
problem to replace 3/4 with 1 in the denominator, but without changing the value
of the fraction.
Two thoughts regarding how the denominator could be made 1 usually come
to students’ minds: add 1/4 to 3/4, or multiply 3/4 by 4/3. Trying each method is
instructive—and to be appreciated is their intuitive judgement that whatever is done
to the denominator must be done to the numerator, for otherwise it does not feel
right. (The power of “what feels right” is surely to be respected, especially the more
20 2 Presentations into Investigations

experience one has. Werner Heisenberg, a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, said
that if he arrived at an equation that did not feel right, he reconsidered his approach
as his developed intuition suggested something was problematic.)
When students try both approaches, they discover that adding the same value to
both the numerator and denominator, while intuitively seeming a good solution, is
actually a problem. In this instance, adding 1/4 to both creates a new fraction where
the numerator is 8 1/4 and the denominator is 1. They know the answer to the origi-
nal problem has to be closer to 10, as discussed earlier. (At this juncture, the teacher
may decide to stop and reinforce that the action of adding the same quantity to the
numerator and denominator of a fraction is not generally successful. For example,
by pointing out to students that 2/3 would become 3/4 by adding 1 to each the nu-
merator and the denominator.) Now they can try their second idea: multiplying the
numerator and denominator by the reciprocal of the denominator. Here the numera-
4 2
tor becomes 8 × = 10 , with the denominator 1.
3 3 1
This answer is indeed plausible, as it is more than 8 and close to 10. To reen-
4
force that thinking, we can consider another problem to which they likely know the
1
answer: 8 divided by . Having students use the method of creating 1 in the de-
2
nominator by multiplying by the reciprocal of the denominator, students can see that
16 is the answer, which provides supporting recognition. Conversation can then turn
to helping students appreciate that when they multiplied the denominator and the
4
numerator by in the original problem, they in effect were multiplying the original
3
4 4
fraction by / —in essence, by 1. This of course ensures the numerical value of
3 3
the original problem has not been changed, just represented differently. A few more
practice problems and students can see that the change of representation by “invert-
ing and multiplying” is really efficient—and now makes sense.
In addition, those students who expressed their confusion can deservedly experi-
ence the respected nods of their classmates. It was their question of “what’s going
on here?” that served to promote the worthwhile and needed investigation. Writ
large, it is that kind of questioning generated by students’ concerned interest which,
supported by their mathematics teacher, would be the natural and logical way a
mathematics class experience evolves if sense-making was the object. With more
such truly educational experiences, as future citizens of a democratic society, our
students would become comfortable with offering their concerned responses in the
face of a statement made by someone in authority that appeared to them as confus-
ing. (Experience suggests that experience is very much part of their future.)
2.4 Mathematical Slope and Visualize 21

2.4 Mathematical Slope and Visualize

Typically, algebra textbooks define a straight line as “ y = mx + b.” This equation

demonstrates clearly how mathematics is so much more dense than spoken lan-
guage. For instance, students could get a 10–20 page reading assignment, but they
would hardly ever get an assignment of that size in a mathematics textbook. In
the given linear equation, we find six symbols—the same number as in the word
“window.” The mathematical expression represents a relationship, actually multiple
relationships, with one overriding consideration that could well appear opaque to
many students. That is to say a lot is packed into that symbolic representation.
Helping students begin to understand that equality by taking things apart en-
ables them to get a hold of its richness, and in that way helps them become more
comfortable tinkering with the different quantities in the equation. For one, letting
them know that by agreement with the exceptional mathematician Rene Descartes,
mathematicians use letters at the front of the alphabet to represent constants, while
those at the end are chosen to represent variables. This distinction helps begin to
take apart the dense equality statement for students. Also to be appreciated is that
the letters in “the middle” are used to represent parameters, quantities that vary
given the particular situation. For example, physics equations use the parameter “g”
as the constant of gravitational attraction which takes on the value of 32 near Earth,
and approximately 5.3 near the moon, as the moon’s gravity is about one-sixth that
of Earth’s.
In the equation “ y = mx + b,” students then see that x and y are variables, and
together represent any point in the two-dimensional plane; and that m and b are
parameters representing constants, with m the slope of the line, and b the value of
the y-intercept as a consequence of x = 0. Quite an intricate relationship! What is
immediately intriguing to some and confusing to other students is why the symbol
m? Surely a fits so much more appropriately with b! (One can share that s was
not available as it is taken to represent distance in physics formulas, perhaps as a
consequence of being the first letter of stadia, a unit of distance from earlier times.)
And yet, the reason just shared regarding the letters in the middle of the alphabet
representing parameters does not really fit the given equation. Inasmuch as a is
replaced by m then it would seem that b should also be replaced with some middle-
located letter as it also represents a parameter. (Being confused here seems to make
perfectly good sense!)
Hopefully, the mathematics teacher can take a naive perspective and appreciate
what students are experiencing when presented with the equation of the general
line in the x-y plane. There is a lot to deal with. Apparently, it is not known how m
became the symbol to represent the slope value. However, with students graphing
different lines as a function of their numerical values, they would start to see that
the coefficient of the x-term is greater the steeper the lines. Then they would likely
come to decide that it would be a good idea to think of that coefficient as the mea-
sure of comparative steepness. What else do they associate with steepness? Moun-
tains seem a reasonable response. So why not use m to represent slope?
22 2 Presentations into Investigations

Descartes was French and wrote in Latin; so using m does make sense as it is the
first letter of “mons,” Latin for “mountain,” which as a physical presence is surely
distinguished one from another in terms of the difficulty of ascent as a function of its
slope. Some mathematics historians say this explanation lacks evidence. However,
until a better rationale is found for choosing m, it seems quite reasonable, given the
goal of promoting students’ mathematical intelligence to use the students’ thinking.
But there is more to discuss here. Part of the usual presentation students re-
ceive regarding straight lines is the definition of the slope as “the change in y over
the change in x.” But why should the slope be defined that way? What about “the
change in x divided by the change in y?” This may well be a question in the minds
of some “naïve” but thoughtful students who are reluctant to ask, and for those stu-
dents who accept the definition as is, such a consideration helps them to understand
that definitions are not chosen without consideration. The resolution will take just a
bit of time, but clearly it is worth that as the goal is that students become educated,
which requires their making sense of what puzzles them. They can determine the
wiser choice. The better slope–ratio representation would be decided by visualizing
how the contrasting definitions would actually connect or not to graphed lines. In
this way, they can appreciate not only their good question, but its resolution. In this
way, students develop more sophisticated means of valuing that go beyond impulses
of likes and dislikes and the choice made by the authority of others, and promote
their own valued and valuable (mathematics) education.

2.5 Arithmetic Series and Tinkering

Mathematics textbooks often begin the study and formulation of an arithmetic se-
ries by relating the story of the 10-year-old student Carl Gauss, and his teacher who,
wanting to promote more student discipline, had his students sum the numbers from
1 to 100. This was extremely tedious and annoying, especially with the “endless”
summing on small writing slates! But precocious Carl noted that if the terms of the
series 1 + 2 + 3 + … + 98 + 99 + 100 were written again right below those numbers in
reverse order, the answer could be immediately determined. Below 1 he wrote 100,
below 2 he wrote 99, 98 below 3, etc., and it was clear that at the end of the series
3 would be below 98, 2 below 99, and 1 below 100. With summing those vertical
pairings, Carl saw he would have 100 pairs of 101. This being twice the sought-after
sum required dividing the product in half, arriving at 5050. Problem solved!
This tends to be where mathematics texts end the story so that students can then
practice the procedure, and then proceed to consider other arithmetic series where
the common difference is other than 1. The popularity of introducing arithmetic se-
ries by this approach can surely be understood and also questioned, especially with
regard to its pedagogical value.
We would imagine Carl’s teacher was in a state of disbelief, for it would be hours
to do the problem in the straightforward manner, not minutes or less! He realized
he was dealing with a most precocious 10-year-old mathematical mind. As such,
2.5 Arithmetic Series and Tinkering 23

presenting this approach to high school students makes a number of points, none
of which seem educationally positive. First, teenagers sitting there could well come
to think they are evidently less able than some 10-year-old kid! Also, by showing
that procedure, students are robbed of the opportunity to engage the problem and
see that they could cleverly uncover the sum themselves. And, in doing so, realize
they are pretty good mathematics problem-solvers. It is exactly such experiences
that promote positive energies and the mindset needed when dealing with other
mathematics problems. (The pedagogical problem is to find problems that are not
too hard or too easy, so such productive development can take place.)
Providing students the opportunity to show themselves by their own mathemati-
cal thinking that they are more capable than they might otherwise have thought
should not be taken lightly. And they surely do not have to compare themselves with
a 10-year-old who would become one of the most extraordinary mathematicians of
all time.
Consider if the initial arithmetic series presented to students was something like:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8. Students asked to find the sum would of course just add
up the numbers. But if they were asked to imagine that the series went on, let us
say up to 20, so as to urge them to find means other than manual labor, they would
be inclined to see the series as being malleable. Some could consider taking things
apart by forming the partial even-number series along with the odd-number series.
In this case they would see that if they could find the sum of the odd series, the even
series would just be 4 more, 1 for each pair, inasmuch as there are 8 terms. Then
they could find that the odd series can be summed as 42, as by examination they
would see that the sums of consecutive odd-number series beginning with 1 appear
to be the square of the number of numbers in the series. For example, 1 + 3 = 4 = 22;
1 + 3 + 5 = 9 = 32, etc. So the sum of the odd series would be 42, making 42 + 4 the
even-number series sum, resulting in the final sum of 36. And in general, for series
with a common difference of 1, if the number of terms n is even, the sum would be
2 2
 n   n   n  n(n + 1)
    +  =
+ .
2 2 2 2
This approach can be adapted to find the sum of an arithmetic series with an
odd number of terms. For example, had the series been 1 + 2 + 3 + … + 9, the sum
of the odd numbers would be 52, and with there being four even numbers, the
sum would be 42 + 4. So if n, the number of terms was odd, the sum would be
2 2
 n +1   n −1  n −1 n(n +1)
   +  + which also simplifies to . (The algebraic simpli-
 2   2  2 2
fication would be propelled here by student interest, which is exactly the source of
energy that is pedagogically desired.)
Other students might tinker with the arrangement of the terms of the series and
realize that adding the first term with the last, the second with the next to last, etc.,
ends up creating four sum-pairs of 9; and so the sum is 36. The generalization may
well not be immediately obvious, where there are 8 terms and the sum is 36. The
24 2 Presentations into Investigations

search will likely promote further inductive considerations with other series with an
even number of consecutive numbers beginning at 1 before coming upon the pattern
n(n +1)
. Some students may be drawn to considering series of the same form but
2
with an odd number of terms. For example, with the series of 1–9, the sum would
be 4 tens plus one five, or 4.5 × 10. And, here too, more than one particular instance
would be needed before students come to see that in general with n odd, the sum
(n − 1) (n + 1)
would be (n + 1) + , which as the even number of terms series simpli-
2 2
n(n +1)
fies to .
2
To corroborate their insights, the teacher can then pose that all students deter-
mine, regardless of their method, the sum of the first 100 counting numbers. Then
the teacher could demonstrate the 10-year-old Gauss’s approach that eliminates the
need for distinguishing between arithmetic series having an odd or even number of
terms, and so students can appreciate their thoughtful efforts along with the more
elegant approach of a mathematical prodigy of the highest order.
Now they are (hopefully) psychologically ready to consider arithmetic series that
do not begin at 1 and do not increase by 1. They will discover that the approach of
separating the initial series into even and odd numbers will not work in general, but
that combining opposing pairs will. Naturally, the experience and the memory of
the experience and discussion is completely different when students are given the
chance to tinker or take things apart than when presented with “the way” to solve
the general series. With their engaging the problem themselves, they get the oppor-
tunity to create themselves just as they would want to be—as resilient, thoughtful,
capable mathematical thinkers who appreciate that resilience and thoughtfulness
are essential qualities when engaging mathematics.
This is not to say that students have to invent everything they learn in mathemat-
ics, but rather that mathematics teachers can help students appreciate what they
can come to know by their own mental and emotional energies, their own insights,
developing intuition, dedication, and experimentation. Doing mathematics can be
seen to distinguish what is involved in becoming educated as versus being schooled
in mathematics.
The arithmetic series discussion illustrates the tension between presenting mate-
rial with regard to the aesthetic of efficiency of the discipline of mathematics and
promoting the pedagogical aesthetic where students’ energetic engagement is the
sought-after quality which may or may not converge to uncover, if at all, the elegant
mathematical form. That dual consideration would naturally weigh in our decision-
making on a regular if not daily basis as teachers of mathematics. Yet of course,
students would not be expected to come up with all the mathematical formulas and
equations and problem solutions, so there would be times when the teacher could
well make a formal presentation for a good purpose.
For example, the mathematical derivation of the extraordinary equation involv-
ing all five of the most significant constants in high school mathematics, and only
those where eπ i + 1 = 0, can surely be appreciated by many high school students.
2.6 Quadratic Equations and Make the Problem Simpler 25

This is to say that students can well appreciate a demonstration without having the
feeling that they missed the opportunity or would ever come up with such a finding
themselves, or feeling less for not being able to. Such a lecture demonstration would
seem fine to include if the elements of the argument, including those of imagina-
tion, are discussed to student satisfaction and the final expression is realized as the
logical conclusion.

2.6 Quadratic Equations and Make the Problem Simpler

The reader might be noticing that the heuristic of make the problem simpler has
been drawn upon a number of times. That should not be surprising, as it has many
variations. So much so that the mathematician Keith Devlin, who writes the month-
ly column “Devlin’s Angle” in the Mathematical Association of America’s monthly
magazine, the American Mathematical Monthly, made the emphatic point that the
heuristic of making the problem simpler is “the way we do mathematics!” And
physicist Steven Carlip would seem to agree. He writes “ask a physicist too hard a
question, and a common reply will be, ‘Ask me something easier’. Physics moves
forward by looking at simple models that capture pieces of a complex reality” ( Sci-
entific American, April 2012, p. 42).
However, mathematics texts do not tend to point out that most valuable problem-
clarifying strategy and how essential it often is. Consider the problem: Find x, such
that x 2 − 3.5 x = 11. This is a hard problem as stated—unless one knows what to do,
and then it is not a problem. Without having a procedure clearly in mind, what we
can determine from the problem as stated is that x > 3.5, since the difference is posi-
tive. But after that it seems it could be any number, and while “guess and check” is
a time-honored habit of mind that could be attempted of course, there is little reason
to believe in its efficacy here, especially if the values could be fractions or irratio-
nal numbers. This would seem to explain why mathematics textbooks presenting
quadratic equation problems usually begin with stating: “set one side equal to 0,”
regardless of the particular numerical values. Doing so, the problem has been made
much simpler.
But again, that strategy of make the problem simpler tends not to be mentioned.
Instead, the textbook demonstration turns to factoring and solving many such prob-
lems, while little has been made of the fact that the original problem was really
difficult. So the first and most important question that would have been best to ask
was, “How can we make the problem simpler?” But with texts not tending to be
written with the object of engaging the reader in a conversation, the valuable think-
ing behind the action is lost as the factoring algorithm gains the focus. Having made
the problem simpler via changing representation should be celebrated as a won-
derful idea (tool), one that has enormous application. Yet, it is factoring quadratic
polynomials that is made the focus and as a relatively heavily practiced activity,
which is questionable as the coefficients have to be very carefully chosen so that
the factoring algorithm can be readily put into practice. Henry Pollak, who had been
26 2 Presentations into Investigations

a leading mathematician at AT&T remarked, “there are two types of numbers: real
numbers and numbers in mathematics textbooks,” given the extraordinarily messy
coefficients he experienced working with real situations. How much time to give to
factoring polynomials deserves a conversation. That technique while valuable in the
theory of equations, as a procedure for all high school students needs to be weighed
in light of the technology that allows students to see quadratic equations and find
excellent approximations if not exact roots graphically, and all the other mathemat-
ics that could be included were there more time. What would seem quite valuable to
include in the consideration of quadratic equations is another instance of making the
problem simpler, with completing the square—a lovely technique for simplifying
complexity. Indeed, working with the quadratic equation and the mental action of
making the problem simpler ought to be being appreciated together.
***
In this chapter, mathematical problem-clarifying strategies were presented in com-
parison with the prevailing model of teaching mathematics procedures. The concern
is that the latter emphasis tends not to promote “deep conceptual understanding,”
or “deep learning,” but often deep confusion. However the problem is deep-seated.
Apparently, mathematics teachers tend to believe they are focusing on problem-
solving in their classrooms when they actually may not be. Gill and Boote (2012)
point out that “In a key cross-cultural study of mathematics education, although
70 % of US teachers said that their videotaped lessons aligned with the NCTM stan-
dards to at least a fair degree, most of the observed lessons were inconsistent with
the intent of the standards. For example, 96 % of US students’ time during seatwork
was spent practicing procedures…. Further, 78 % of US teachers were about as
likely to simply state concepts as develop them” (www.tcrecord. Org/PrintContent.
asp?ContentID=16718). That would seem to be a real problem that needs to be
resolved as soon as possible.
This bifurcated view is apparently also shared by students and employers. “For
example, while 59 % of students said they were well prepared to analyze and solve
complex problems, just 24 % of employers said they had found that to be true of re-
cent college graduates…. The gap between how prepared students feel and employ-
ers’ assessment of them has been established. The question now is what students,
employers, and colleges are going to do about it?” (Fabris 2015).
It would seem that question needs to be addressed by the educational community
at large if there is to be a truly systemic response, not hit-or-miss. Procedures that
make doing a class of problems easier make life easier in school and out. So stu-
dents may well conclude they are capable mathematical thinkers based on a limited
view of what solving complex problems entails. However, for most students—the
vast majority, the times in their lives that mathematical algorithmic practices will be
called upon would seem to be very limited. What is of fundamental and rather uni-
versal value is the learning experience they could have regarding the development
of their creative and dedicated thinking, individually and collaboratively. To make
that more possible, students need time to experiment, create, and draw upon heuris-
tics—problem-clarifying strategies, mental actions that can reshape an amorphous
2.6 Quadratic Equations and Make the Problem Simpler 27

problem situation into one that can be worked with. In this way, we mathematics
educators are seeding society so that it could well be more productive for all of its
participants, including mathematics students’ employers.
The formal textbook demonstration-practice format is problematic. Demonstrat-
ing procedures or presenting equations or explanations as if they were obvious and
forgetting about “the invention, ingenuity, observation, exercised” (Dewey 1936,
p. 212) that was most likely at the root of the uncovering is a questionable pedagogi-
cal practice. With such an approach, the inquiry experience has been flattened out
of recognition. It is important to share with students that “the logical formulations
[as textbook presentations usually are] are not the outcome of any process of think-
ing that is personally undertaken and carried out; the formulation has been made by
another mind and is presented in a finished form, apart from the processes by which
it was arrived at” (1936, p. 79–80). In the absence of that recognition, we can under-
stand Dewey going on to say that “the adoption by teachers of this misconception of
logical method has probably done more than anything else to bring pedagogy into
disrepute” (1936, p. 81).
***
When we make students’ engagement the focus—not the text or teacher presenta-
tion, we can truly appreciate that “‘Meaningful’ [mathematics] of course means:
meaningful to the learners” (Freudenthal 1981, p. 144). Ultimately, with repeated
opportunity for student inquiry, it would seem reasonable to believe that all students
can come to develop greater patience and resilience when faced with the complexity
of problematic situations, and so become more capable mathematics students. Rath-
er than their telling themselves “I forgot—I don’t see why,” their growing intuition
and capacity to draw upon mathematical habits of mind would greatly promote their
seeing why. With such experiences rather than telling themselves “I don’t know
what to do,” they can find themselves telling themselves “I don’t know what to
do yet—let’s see what I can do to gain some insight, some understanding…, make
some progress.”
There is considerable authority (including Poincare and Polya) to support the
statement that “authentic mathematical activity” is to “get a sense of mathematics
as human invention, as certain habits of mind, that is more engaging and meaning-
ful than learning a procession of given facts, methods and question-types” (Wat-
son 2008, p. 3). With that perspective in practice, there would likely be reports
that differ considerably from the finding that less than half (46 %) the students met
the American College Testing (ACT) benchmark in mathematics as measured on
the Condition of College and Career Readiness exam (Adams 2012). To promote
more thoughtful engagement seems essential given our increasingly technologically
driven society.
With students using their own intuitive approaches to initiate investigations and
solve problems, its pedagogical value is apparent as students come to see if and how
what they thought connects to the time-honored mathematical expression. The inter-
ested reader can find, for example, child-invented valid means of combining num-
bers (cf. Yackel et al. 1990). These are to suggest that we give serious consideration
28 2 Presentations into Investigations

to whether any accepted formal presentation be made prior to mathematics students

having the opportunity to discuss and make introductory sense of the relationship
themselves. We need to appreciate that while we have a goal in mind, if it is only
that they “get it,” where the “it” is the means to solve a class of mathematics prob-
lems or master a technique or procedure, then we are likely to make less of the
educational process of the mathematics experience than the product; and that seems
a narrow educational goal.
Perhaps those of us teaching mathematics for a number of years need to remind
ourselves “that what is an old story to [the teacher] may arouse emotion and thought
in the child” (Dewey 1936, p. 212). This suggests that in our role as initiators of
students’ mathematics experience, we share our earlier wonder and our interest, and
acknowledge theirs—for that is the essential spark needed to generate thinking and
to promote dedicated effort. Such engagements will not be as time-wise efficient
as presenting procedures and having students practice them. But in a collaborative
classroom environment, the mathematics students could realistically feel they were
part of a “community of scholars,” participants in a shared educational journey, as
they have opportunity to use problem-clarifying strategies to help shed light where
there was none. Toward their successful engagement, the next chapter is given to
promoting all students being capable mathematical thinkers.

References

Adams, C. J. (8 May 2012). ACT finds most students still not ready for college. Education Week.
Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math got to do with it? New York: Penguin Books.
Budd, K., Carson, E., et al. (2005). Ten myths about math education and why you shouldn’t believe
them. http://www.nychold.com/myths-050504.
Carlip, S. (2012). Quantum gravity in flatland. Scientific American, 306, 42.
Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Mayer, & N.
Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 107–
122). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Dewey, J. (1933/1936). How we think. New York: Henry Holt Company.
Dewey, J. (1937). The challenge of democracy to education. In J. Dewey (Ed.), The later works
(Vol. 11, pp. 181–190). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press
Fabris, C. (20 January 2015). College students think they’re ready for the work force. Employ-
ers aren’t so sure. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://m.chronicle.com/article/College-
Students-Think/151239.
Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Math-
ematics, 12(2), 133–150.
Gill, M. G., & Boote, D. (2012). Classroom culture, mathematics culture, and the failures of re-
form: The need for a collective view of culture. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1–45.
James, W. (2008). Talks to teachers on psychology. Rockville: Arc Manor Publishers (originally
published 1899).
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford
University Press.
References 29

Kosta, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind: Dispositions for success. (www.habits http://
www.habitsofmindinstitute.org).
Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem
solving (Vol. II). New York: Wiley.
Watson, A. (2008). School mathematics as a special kind of mathematics. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 28, 3.
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., et al. (1990). The importance of social interaction in children’s construction
of mathematical knowledge. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), In teaching and learning
mathematics in the 1990s. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Chapter 3
Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics
Curriculum: Some Instances

Learning how to do anything well, including thinking, can be associated with two
sets of behaviors—those that are valuable with regard to any learning situation and
those that are task-specific. As regards the former, without being able to stick with
a problem and without being able to attempt different ways of engaging it, there is
little reason to believe that a problem of any significance will be handled well. And
with regard to task-specific behaviors, some action is called for, and applying a
particular technique or practice is required.
Yet, as the earlier chapters have discussed, there are those behaviors that pro-
vide valuable, actually essential, means for making headway toward gaining clarity
when none is evident. In the amorphous “middle ground,” where we are not at the
point of resolving the difficulty with an explicit move but rather at an uncertain
distance, we need to draw upon some mental action, some heuristic(s) that can help
us move through the confusion to clearer ground. As mathematics educators, it is
here we have opportunity to share the fund of mathematical agency, the collection
of thoughtful actions that have served the mathematics community in its creative
and dedicated past, to enrich our mathematics students’ thinking and lives.
That problem-solving is thought of as the ”heart of mathematics” (Halmos
1980) surely makes sense. And with that understanding, mathematical habits of
mind would be the heart of the mathematics curriculum. Made available as content
would make doing mathematics—creating and solving mathematics problems—all
the more possible for every student. In that direction, some practices may well come
naturally to mind, such as looking for patterns, or guessing, perhaps even arguing
by counterexample. However, others that shed light on complex mathematical situ-
ations may need to be uncovered with the mathematics teacher helping take part in
the question-asking. And as students come to see how tinkering, taking a problem
apart, visualizing, and other heuristics are critically valuable in making headway,
they naturally become disposed to including those problem-clarifying strategies as
part of how they think. As a consequence, all students require less and less direction
in engaging mathematics problems.
Having a set of problem-clarifying tools, students gain a sophisticated way of
seeing. So, we can appreciate Aristotle’s concern that “It is a matter of real im-

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 31

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_3
32 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

portance whether our early education confirms us in one set of habits or another.
It would be nearer the truth to say that it makes a very great difference indeed.
In fact all the difference in the world” ( Aristotle 1971, Ethics, Book 2, Chap. 1,
1103b1–25). For this development to occur, it would seem we need to dedicate
classroom conversations to making the mathematical thinking process as legitimate
as the mathematics procedures that tend to fill textbooks. This perspective, which
focuses on the development of heuristics as content, has a long history acknowl-
edged by major mathematicians through the ages, including Archimedes, Descartes,
Leibniz, Poincaré, and Polya.
More recently, if we as mathematics educators agree with the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) that “problem solving must be the focus of
school mathematics” (1980, p. 1), then “seeking solutions, not just memorizing pro-
cedures; exploring patterns, not just memorizing formulas; [and] formulating con-
jectures, not just doing exercises” (National Research Council 1989, p. 84) would
be the picture of every mathematics classroom. Yet, seeking solutions by exploring
patterns and formulating conjectures is only possible if mathematics teachers pro-
mote that focus.
There are indeed instances of that focus becoming part of the mathematics class-
room conversation. Michal Yerushalmy (1997) writes that “The ability to general-
ize, especially when the generalization requires a major breakthrough in habits of
mind, is one indication of algebraic reasoning.” Al Cuoco (1998) shared his wish
list regarding what he would have wanted to know when he began his teaching
career, and mathematical habits of mind was in the top three. Also, Sharon Friesen,
cofounder of the Galileo Educational Network, works with mathematicians and
mathematics educators to “create mathematical investigations and problems that
enable students to look for connections, identify patterns and relationships, [and]
make conjectures” (September 2006).
Yet, Lianghuo Fan and Yan Zhu (2007), in comparing mathematics series at the
lower secondary level used in China, the USA, and Singapore, highlight the Singa-
pore series as it devotes a chapter to specific heuristics, including “draw a diagram,”
“change your point of view,” and “use an equation” (p. 71). In contrast, they noted
“the majority of problems in the US books…were routine, traditional, and moreover
of single-step” (p. 69) and as a consequence limited the necessity for heuristic ap-
proaches.
However, efforts are being made in the USA to include habits of mind as part of
a mathematics curriculum with more than traditional problems. For one, the Park
School of Baltimore’s mathematics department, inspired by Paul Goldenberg’s 1996
article, wrote its first iteration of a mathematics program for grades 9–11 that treats
habits of mind as content in 2006–2008. (Interested readers can access the ma-
terial at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ltbj5o5nrg228ws/AACmjY9lulUHKlCsus-
8CV7wxa.) In addition, the CME Project high school mathematics textbook series
(2008), led by Al Cuoco, a colleague of Goldenberg’s at Education Development
Center (EDC), also provide habits-of-mind activities and associated discussions as
part of their content. There may well be a number of other mathematics texts that
include habits of mind, especially for the earlier grades, as such an approach is de-
servedly gaining recognition.
3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum 33

How best to make heuristics available to students is an open question. However,

it is clear that if problem investigations were involved enough so as to require prob-
lem-clarifying strategies, mathematics students would see their necessity and value.
And with these strategies included from time to time, we could expect that even
the most capable learners would prosper as well. But it is hard to imagine that such
practices would become part of all students’ mathematical thinking in the absence
of some focused conversation, such as including a variety of mathematics problems
calling for the same habit(s). Research is needed in this regard. But what is emi-
nently clear is that the absence of problem-clarifying strategies precludes the oppor-
tunity for engaging more complex problems for a vast population of mathematics
students and continues to keep most students limited to learning algorithms and
solving one- or two-step problems. Thinking mathematically, thinking inventively,
would seem to require a change of emphasis and focus in mathematics classrooms.
***
The cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner relates that “The young child approach-
ing a new subject or an unfamiliar problem either has recourse to the less than
rigorous techniques of intuition or is left motionless and discouraged. So too the
scientist operating at a far reach of his capacities in his chosen field” (1971, p. 96).
However, he points out “there are ways for using the mind in a fashion designed to
save work, to make seemingly difficult problems easier, to bring a complicated mat-
ter into the range of one’s attention. One learns to make little diagrams or to use a
matrix…. Or one asks, encountering a new problem, whether there is anything like
it one has encountered and solved before” (op cit., 95). And though, in 1971, “one
rarely speaks of them, and surely there are no courses for teaching them,” Bruner
believes “as a start that any new curriculum contain a syllabus designed to teach the
economical tricks of the trade as early and as effectively as possible” (op cit., 96).
In that direction, the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences stated that
“mathematics courses for teachers should develop the habits of mind of a mathe-
matical thinker….” (2001, p. 2). For those habits of mind (“economical heuristics”)
make for an informed mathematical intuition and so provide the resources toward
becoming a better mathematical thinker.
This clearly makes sense. As teachers of mathematics, we naturally want to help
students think better mathematically. But as mentioned earlier, when they are stuck
on a problem and we urge them to “Think!” with their not being familiar with
problem-clarifying strategies, we can expect they would more likely be thinking
about the discomfort they feel. Consider the problem: “Find y if 80 = 5( y − 79).” If
the student is not clear on the procedure of distributing, they may well be stumped,
and emotional disturbance may well fill their thoughts. Had they been introduced
earlier to the problem-clarifying strategy “create an easier similar problem,” they
could have a valuable idea how to begin. For example, they could come up with:
“Find x if 80 = 5x.” And that problem they can readily solve. Now the change of
representation, where x = y − 79 = 16, makes the final step for solution clear. It could
be said that this approach lacks the elegance of directly applying the distributive
property. Yet, the problem has been transformed from a frog or toad of a problem
34 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

to a prince or princess of a problem by making the problem simpler with a change

of representation. And such problem-clarifying strategies serve to develop and sup-
port students’ intuition so that it becomes more alert to when such strategies can be
applied to other similar contexts. And the teacher could in that moment revisit the
distributive property so as to make that approach more viable for that student.
Here’s a more extended application. Graph theory has established itself as a
valuable area of study in contemporary society and in high school as there is con-
siderable material that interests students. Consideration of complete graphs offers
students the opportunity to see if they can determine the general relationship be-
tween the number of nodes and the number of edges of such a graph. To begin
the investigation, students draw three dots representing nodes and connect all the
pairs of nodes establishing edges (connecting segments). They determine that in a
complete graph with three nodes, there are three edges. Using the same procedure
for a four-node complete graph, as well as for a five-, six-, seven-, and eight-node
complete graph, they generate data determining the associated number of edges.
The information of carefully counting (including more than one pair of eyes) yields
can be expressed as a set of ordered pairs, {( n, e): (3, 3), (4, 6), (5, 10), (6, 15), (7,
21), (8, 28)}. Students see that as the number of nodes increase by 1, the number of
edges increase arithmetically by 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The question, what is the general
relationship (expressed in mathematical notation), suggests itself.
How to proceed? It seems a perfect time for the mathematics teacher to introduce
the method of finite differences or a sophisticated counting procedure. Either would
do the job. But that would mean the students in effect would solve the problem by
just following the bouncing ball provided by the given method. They would be pas-
sive responders with little agency. How to have them provide the generating idea
required not saying anything.
A group of 10th graders couldn’t see how to express the general relationship con-
necting all the points. What they did see was that for the pairs with an odd number
of nodes, there was a relationship they recognized. Taking things apart, they wrote
the odd-node pairs as: (3, 3 × 1), (5, 5 × 2), (7, 7 × 3). To test their conjecture, they
drew a nine-sided complete graph and found just what they were hoping for: that
figure had 9 × 4 = 36 edges. After a while, they found a pattern for the case when n
n − 1 n(n − 1)
is odd: the number of edges would be n × or .
2 2
What about the sequence for the number of nodes being even? That is, given the
points (4, 6), (6, 15), and (8, 28), is there a pattern that can be uncovered? Quiet time
for examination and small-group conversations led to the pattern discovery that
6 = 4 × 1 + 2; 15 = 6 × 2 + 3; and 28 = 8 × 3 + 4. The prediction was that for n = 10, there
would be 10 × 4 + 5 = 45 edges. Careful drawing and a number of counters confirmed
n
exactly that. So for n even, the number of edges would be n × ?+ . How to repre-
2
sent “?” algebraically? It was clear that it is always 1 less than the added on term.
Then for n = 12, the number of edges would be 12 × 5 + 6. With some discussion,
the number of edges for an even number of nodes in a complete graph was written
n n
as n × ( − 1) + . It seemed that two equations were needed to discuss the relation-
2 2
ship. Then, the question was raised on how the complicated expression might be
3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum 35

simplified. Doing so, with dedicated energy, it became clear that both formulas
n(n −1)
were really the same: !
2
Was it worth the time and effort? It all depends on what is valued. The habits
of mind finding patterns and taking things apart are clearly instrumental in doing
mathematics. And not just mathematics: “The natural way for any scientist to think
about a problem was to break it into parts” (Bolles 1997, p. 277) in addition to seek-
ing patterns. In the present case, the effort took a class period, but it did not require
giving students a problem-solving technique for them to apply; they had the chance
to think and apply two problem-clarifying strategies that led to conjectures and their
testing. And it was very clear that the students appreciated their dedicated effort.
After all, they were seeing themselves uncovering the beauty of mathematics and
in the process, learning about how capable they actually are. Here they found they
were more capable than they thought, and the excitement and recognition was well
deserved. (There would be positive energy to draw upon later.)
The opportunity to introduce such strategies can arise often, and there is always
a value judgement to be made, of course. For example, when students are present-
ed with a conversion statement such as “one inch is approximately equal to 2.54
centimeters” and asked to write it in mathematical symbols, it is not uncommon
for them to create a literal translation, and write “i = 2.54c.” Even asked to “check
their answer,” they return to the equation and see that it literally maps onto the
English expression. So, it checks. Then, they find out they should have written it
as “c = 2.54i,” or “i = 2.54/c,” which they may or may not understand why that is
the case, as it seems so counterintuitive. Had the students developed the practice
of testing for plausibility, they would have been inclined to check their equation’s
legitimacy, and this would have provided them the needed insight without having
to learn they could not do it.
They likely know 1 m = 100 cm, which is a bit more than a yard, 36 in. Thus,
their equation i = 2.54c would determine that 254 in. was equivalent to 100 cm;
namely, a length more than 20 ft was equal to the length of a meter stick. A devel-
oping intuition suggested a literal translation; a plausibility test made clear they
needed to do some rethinking. Doing so, their intuition develops more productively.
And they have a happier mathematics experience realizing their growing capability.
This is to suggest that with mathematical habits of mind at the center of the
mathematics curriculum, all students can come to have tools that promote produc-
tive inquiry. Given the increasing success they could well experience, they would
naturally be inclined to persist and try alternative means to gain insight—that is, de-
velop further useful attitudes, most especially be more patient, resilient, and flexible
in their thinking. Exactly those qualities that promise good conversations to inform
future society’s decision-making.
***
An educated populace, in the sense that they are thoughtful and capable of learning
from setbacks and dealing well with complexity, is an essential goal of a democratic
society. To promote that development in mathematics classrooms requires students
learning to navigate relatively complicated mathematical situations and developing
clarifying means that will serve them (and us) well as they become adults. Surely,
36 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

introducing and working with problem-clarifying strategies take time. But it is the
only game in town that is in all our best interests.
One of the finest mathematicians of the twentieth century greatly concerned
about the teaching of mathematics, George Polya, wrote 70 years ago that math-
ematics should “first and foremost teach young people to THINK” (1945/1957,
p. 100; capitals in original). And he went on to say, “‘Teaching to think’ means that
the mathematics teacher…should stress know-how, useful attitudes, and desirable
habits of mind” (op cit.) And seven decades later, that focus continues. The NCT M
has in recent years produced Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics and
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (1991; 2000), where habits of
mind can be seen to be a foundational concern. For example, they write “Reasoning
mathematically is a habit of mind, and like all habits, it must be developed through
consistent use in many contexts and from the earliest grades.”
In discussing problem-solving for grades 6–8, they mention specific mathemati-
cal heuristics that would serve to develop a more mathematically able problem-
solver. For example, “Habits of persistence and curiosity” are pointed to as ways of
thinking that would “serve [students] well…in everyday life and in the workplace”
(Chap. 3, Principles and Standards for School Mathematics). How to promote that
occurrence is clear: Focus on interesting problems that require problem-clarifying
strategies and promote mathematical habits of mind. However, with straightforward
problems and algorithms, the primary classroom focus, they would be superfluous.
As a direct consequence, there is no reason to expect that persistence and curiosity
would become more the way those mathematics students come to think.
Were the discussion of useful attitudes and habits of mind an integral part of their
mathematics experience—enough to be thought of as literally content—students
would be inclined to develop a more sophisticated and resilient inner voice that
would shape and focus their internal conversations toward constructive ends, rather
than the dead ends and feelings of inadequacy that are often the consequence of
their being faced with a problem that does not fit the model they practiced. It would
seem that consideration deserves very careful attention. More thoughtful develop-
ment, of course, means the development of more valuable and valued human beings
in the role of society’s decision-makers.
***
As we all recognize, most habits take determination and continued commitment, but
once we gain that ability, it is part of who we are and it can make life so much more
engaging. But before a habit language becomes common to students’ mathematical
thinking, the opportunities for their application must be many, and the participants
need to appreciate that new and valuable practice requires time and thought. Miles
Davis, the fine musician, captured the dedicated evolving nature of the learning ex-
perience when he said, “Sometimes it takes a long time to sound like yourself.” For
all students to gain a realistic self-confidence in their developing capacities, there
would have to be considerable opportunity for them to engage in relatively complex
problems. This would likely require the omission of extended practice activities as-
sociated with solving one- or two-step mathematics problems. The emphasis on the
new standards and concern for students understanding mathematics suggests such
3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum 37

a rewriting is in order. The following sections are given to how a habits-of-mind

orientation can become more the way things are in the mathematics classroom.
I. Tools of the Trade
The mathematical habits-of-mind list that follows was chosen based on the subject
matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of the Upper School Math-
ematics faculty at the Park School of Baltimore during the years 2006–2008. Finan-
cially supported by the school and private foundations, the mathematics faculty’s
goal was to select a workable collection of heuristics—not too many and not too
few, which would hopefully become integral to the mathematics classroom conver-
sation and to the mathematical thinking of all students over time. It was understood
that such development required a mathematics curriculum that would promote their
consideration and application. The reader will note that the habits-of-mind practices
have value beyond the mathematics classroom, which is a quality that was also
appreciated. Namely, such problem-clarifying strategies could actually help solve
problems in all facets of one’s life.
Different mathematics educators take different habits of mind as their focus, as
mentioned earlier. Indeed, the list of practices that have served the mathematics
community well over time is quite extensive as you would imagine (just Google
“Mathematical Habits of Mind”). The ones discussed here have continued to be of
value over a number of years for students in grades 6–12. How to promote their be-
coming more common in the classroom mathematics conversation will be discussed
in the section following their description.
The Heuristic Set

1. Look for patterns: look for patterns amongst a set of numbers or figures
2. Tinker: to play around with numbers, figures, or other mathematical expressions
in order to learn something more about them or the situation; experiment
3. Describe: to describe clearly a problem, a process, a series of steps to a solution;
modulate the language (its complexity or formalness) depending on the audience
4. Visualize: to draw, or represent in some fashion, a diagram in order to help
understand a problem; to interpret or vary a given diagram
5. Represent symbolically: to use algebra to solve problems efficiently and to have
more confidence in one’s answer; and also so as to communicate solutions more
persuasively, to acquire deeper understanding of problems, and to investigate the
possibility of multiple solutions
6. Prove: to desire that a statement be proved to you or by you; to engage in dia-
logue aimed at clarifying an argument; to establish a deductive proof; to use
indirect reasoning or a counterexample as a way of constructing an argument
7. Check for plausibility: to routinely check the reasonableness of any statement in
a problem or its proposed solution, regardless of whether it seems true or false on
initial impression; to be particularly skeptical of results that seem contradictory
or implausible, whether the source be peer, teacher, evening news, book, news-
paper, Internet, or some other; and to look at special and limiting cases to see if a
formula or an argument makes sense in some easily examined specific situations
38 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

8. Take things apart: to break a large or complex problem into smaller chunks
or cases, achieve some understanding of these parts or cases, and rebuild the
original problem; to focus on one part of a problem (or definition or concept) in
order to understand the larger problem
9. Conjecture: to generalize from specific examples; to extend or combine ideas
in order to form new ones
10. Change or simplify the problem: to change some variables or unknowns to
numbers; to change the value of a constant to make the problem easier; to
change one of the conditions of the problem; to reduce or increase the number
of conditions; to specialize the problem; to make the problem more general
11. Work backwards: to reverse a process as a way of trying to understand it or as
a way of learning something new; to work a problem backwards as a way of
solving
12. Reexamine the problem: to look at a problem slowly and carefully, closely
examining it and thinking about the meaning and implications of each term,
phrase, number, and piece of information given before trying to answer the
question posed
13. Change representations: to look at a problem from a different perspective by
representing it using mathematical concepts that are not directly suggested
by the problem; to invent an equivalent problem, about a seemingly different
situation, to which the present problem can be reduced; to use a different field
(mathematics or other) from the present problem’s field in order to learn more
about its structure
14. Create: to invent mathematics both for utilitarian purposes (such as in con-
structing an algorithm) and for fun (such as in a mathematical game); to posit a
series of premises (axioms) and see what can be logically derived from them

For these practices to become internalized would require, as has been said, creating
mathematics situations where their value can be appreciated on a number of occa-
sions. Indeed, the only reason any of us put up with the awkwardness and difficul-
ties involved in learning most of any new behavior is it makes life easier. And until
such practice becomes natural, part of who we want to be, it takes our effort and
reflection and our appreciative understanding that development takes time.
To help move that evolution along, the heuristic set could appear on the class-
room wall, for example above the front board, in a print large enough to be read
from anywhere in the classroom. That way, when students were stuck working on
a mathematics problem, they could look up and be provided with a gentle reminder
as how they might proceed. Also, in addition to the answers section in the back of
the text, which in their explicit expression are often of little, if any, value, habits-
of-mind suggestions as how to continue engaging particular problems could be in-
cluded as well. In this way, students could have a hint of how they might reengage
any mathematics problems they were stuck on.
In terms of classroom practice, three approaches are offered.
3.1 Visualizing 39

II. Introducing Their Practice

The first approach is as mentioned earlier: Make problem-clarifying strategies an
essential part of the classroom conversation by providing problems that cannot be
solved readily. In this way, all students see that solutions are not always found by
directly applying an explicit mathematical technique but require a way of engaging
the problem that provides valuable means for proceeding. Then, with a problem
solved, taking a moment to appreciate what exactly was done, enough to have stu-
dents write down the heuristic and so in effect “take it in.” That is, appreciate the
process as much as the product.
A second way for making some heuristic more available to students is by pro-
viding a set of problems that focus on the application of that particular strategy
after students have had opportunity to see its value in engaging a problem together.
Then, students could practice applying that problem-clarifying strategy in a number
of problem settings. As a consequence, they would become more familiar with the
heuristic and contexts in which it has proven valuable. In this way, the strategy
would likely become more readily habituated and students’ intuitions correspond-
ingly more developed; of course, taking notes here as well makes good sense.
A third means is to present the strategy in a graduated format, in the form of a
three-stage model. Namely, students are presented with sets of problems that can
be productively engaged by a specific heuristic in a three-stage sequence, where:
Stage 1—presents the heuristic in response to a problem
Stage 2—provides a problem that suggests the heuristic
Stage 3—includes a problem that tacitly requires the heuristic
A few three-stage applications follow for each of three problem-clarifying strate-
gies: visualizing, looking for patterns, and tinkering.

3.1 Visualizing

Making the Heuristic Explicit The teacher could share, “At times it’s valuable to
think of numbers as represented by geometric shapes as they provide another way to
think about numbers and uncover relationships. For example, see if you can create
a visual argument to determine whether or not 32 + 52 = 82.” As the students’ pictures
make clear, when a 3 × 3 square is put next to a 5 × 5 square, the resulting figure falls
short of creating an 8 × 8 square as the form is 8 units on only one side.
To solidify that understanding, they can be asked “What does this suggest
about whether squaring is or is not distributive? —that is, would you argue that
(3 + 5)2 = 32 + 52?” This consideration can help prevent the common algebraic er-
ror many students intuitively believe is true: namely that (a + b) 2 = a 2 + b 2, as a
consequence of thinking it is analogous to 2( a + b) = 2a + 2b. With this application,
hopefully students would be more inclined to bring geometric/visual considerations
to algebraic problems and vice versa. And that would be more likely, of course, if
the particular heuristic would be introduced in other ways.
40 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

Suggesting the Heuristic The teacher could ask, “Since 82 = (3 + 5)2 = (3 + 5)(3 + 5),
how could the right side of the equality represent a square 8 by 8?” They know the
result of multiplying on the left side of the equal sign must be 64, so they are led to
see that four products must be involved on the left and can be represented geometri-
cally. With their drawing the 3-square contiguous to the 5-square, students can see
that the base is now 8 units long. Now, with adding a 5 × 3 (width × height) rectangle
above the 5-square, and a 3 × 5 rectangle above the 3-square, they can create the
desired 8-square. In this way, the experience can lead to the general understand-
ing that (a + b) 2 = a 2 + 2ab + b 2, helping to make the algebraic symbolism more
concrete.
Tacitly Requiring The teacher could ask, “If PQ and QR are diagonals of two faces
of a cube, what would be the measure of angle PQR?”

3.2 Looking for Patterns

Making the Heuristic Explicit “Create a pattern for a numerical sequence by intro-
ducing the next three terms to the sequence whose first three terms are 1, 2, 3. How-
ever, ‘4, 5, 6’ has been taken.” The object here is for students to appreciate what
Leibniz proved regarding sequences: that the next terms can be any numbers as long
as one can create a rule defining the sequence.
So, for example, students might create a rule such as the second set of three num-
bers as being twice (or ten times) the values of the first set, and the third set as being
three times (or 100 times) the value of the first set, etc. Now there is the opportu-
nity to algebraically represent the generalized expressions. For the sequences just
provided, students could come to create the expressions ka, kb, and kc, where a, b,
and c are the initial triplet, and k is the constant multiple. While the other sequence
could be written as: a10n , b10n , c10n , where n = 0, 1, 2,…, it is clearly an oppor-
tunity for students to write many sequence generators in the language of algebra.
The teacher might offer as the next triplet, 10, 29, and 66, as the consequence of the
sequence generator, S (n) = n + (n − 1)(n − 2)(n − 3) , where n represents the count-
ing numbers, 1, 2, 3,…. Sharing this with students allows them to create literally
infinite sets of triplets building on this sequence generator that Poincaré used to help
Binet understand in his design of intelligence quotient (IQ) tests that marking stu-
dents wrong or right if they get the next number of a sequence depending on Binet’s
answer is not a good idea. Working with Poincaré’s generator, students can experi-
ence a liberating moment by joining their imagination with one of the very finest of
mathematicians and come to see that polynomials could be applied here as in other
situations. (Such an investigation creating various sequences based on an initial
triplet also serves as a metaphor that wherever one is in life, the next step is open.)
Suggesting the Habit “The ancient Greeks appreciated expressing numbers in geo-
metric form. For example, they created triangular numbers, including a single point
3.3 Tinkering 41

to represent the first ‘triangle’ so as to complete a pleasing pattern. Creating the next
three, the sequence would be 1, 3, 6, 10 as each new triangular number can be repre-
sented by a row of points beneath the prior row determined by adding 1 more point
to the prior row. For example, the second triangular number is 3 as it adds 2 points
to the prior row of 1 point, creating a total of 3 points, etc. The ancient Greeks also
created square numbers, also beginning with a point for the first square number (the
1 × 1 square) followed by a 2 × 2 square, 3 × 3 square, etc. Can you find any relation-
ship between the sequences of triangular numbers and square numbers? If you can,
can you represent your finding without using words?” Careful observation will help
students uncover that the kth square number is equal to the sum of the k-1st and kth
triangular number. To demonstrate that relationship, students can draw a line just
above the main diagonal of any square number, and the two triangular numbers will
appear above and below the diagonal. (This is surely a nice visualizing problem as
well.)
Tacitly Requiring “What is the unit’s digit of 3101? What is the unit’s digit of
2573101?” The student will appreciate that listing powers of 3 and their correspond-
ing numerical values might not provide all the structural insight being sought; the
power needs a change of representation.

3.3 Tinkering

Making the Heuristic Explicit “We’ve seen how the quadratic equation
h(t) = − 16t2 + 40t + 3 has served as a model for relating how high an object that
was initially 3 feet off the ground and thrown up with an initial velocity of 40
ft/sec would be at a given time t. Now consider the general quadratic equation,
f(x) = ax2 + bx + c. Describe carefully what the effects of each of the constants a, b,
and c are on the shape of the graph of f(x).” This tinkering activity, best done on a
graphics calculator, or a graphing program such as the comparatively more efficient
Desmos, provides students with the opportunity to appreciate the value of varying
one parameter at a time so that each of the constant’s unique roles can be studied.
A particular insight hopefully students come upon is that of comparing what hap-
pens when the lead coefficient changes sign, as well as what happens when any
of the coefficients take on the value of 0. Parenthetically, it is important to note
that the particular case was introduced before the general. Providing a particular
instance first gives students an opportunity to immediately see how the construct of
a quadratic equation can be applied. Then, tinkering with the general expression by
considering the effect on the shape of the curve of changing each of the coefficients
makes for an informative understanding of the parabolic form.
Suggest the Heuristic “What is an easy way to multiply any number, n, by 99? The
product would always have what form?”
42 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

Tacitly Requiring “John draws a triangle and two of its altitudes. He then states,
‘See…any two altitudes of a triangle will intersect inside the triangle’. Is John’s
conjecture correct? If so, explain why. If not, give a counterexample.” Tinkering
will provide the opportunity to draw different triangles, not all of which are acute
or right triangles.
***
As mentioned earlier, there are other venues for presenting a habits-of-mind orien-
tation. The Problem-Solving Strategy Inventory created by the British Columbia
Ministry of Education (Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC V8V 2 M4, Canada)
asks students to make explicit whether they considered any strategies when they
were working on a problem. The list of strategies include: make a table, look for a
pattern, work backward, etc., and space for “other.” This is, of course, a valuable
self-assessment practice as it has students reflect on what they have or have not
tried and provides specific means for them to choose from. The list can naturally be
added to as new practices are seen to have value. Having students not only make a
list of the particular strategies but also the contexts that prompted their application
helps them see where they may be applied in the future. Collecting such information
(in a “toolkit”) promotes those practices naturally coming into existence.
In this way, the learning experience provides the opportunity to re-view— not
just review but revisit with fresh eyes. Namely, considering “What did we do” to
make progress, that is “What were the heuristic means used to make progress?”
helps make the big point. In this way, students can acknowledge the worth of the
critical mental actions that moved things forward—the problem-clarifying strate-
gies they used that enabled them to secure the mathematics solution. With reflec-
tion, they realize they are more capable than they were; and that would seem a most
essential element of an education.
It is worth repeating that there is more to take from the experience: the stu-
dent’s recording of the effort. Most often students, if they take notes, write down
the mathematical argument that concludes some investigation or the algorithm that
makes the solution explicit. Namely, they tend to record the product of the experi-
ence, the “logical bones” of the framework. And this is what the teacher would
hope and expect would become a habit, especially with using textbooks that pro-
vide a model. However, considering problems that go beyond applying a particular
problem-solving technique should compel students to also make a habit of making
note of the process, the organic development. Without their including the problem-
clarifying strategy(ies) that enabled the problem to be engaged productively, all that
the “good” notetaker will have will be the skeleton of the engagement: the problem
and the formal solution. The essential middle ground will be nowhere to be found
and that suggests their note-taking, and likely their mathematics education, will un-
necessarily be of limited value. However, with the solution approaches on the board
being annotated, the mathematics teacher can help students see the inquiry process
and how the particular problem-clarifying strategies helped to generate progress. In
this way, after a while, the valuable practice of note-taking of the thinking process
becomes a new habit—the earlier inconvenience of its practice is forgotten, and the
gaining of a more successful way of connecting what was known with what was not
is gained, just like any other habit worth having.
3.3 Tinkering 43

III. Assessing a Habits-of-Mind Classroom

A habits-of-mind language is likely not what we as mathematics teachers have been
accustomed to in working with much of the mathematics curriculum. Nor has it
likely been part of the conversation we as students experienced in mathematics
classes. Indeed, it could be said that mathematical habits of mind is a hidden cur-
riculum, a middle ground one cannot see for standing on it.
However, with a mathematics curriculum that includes more mathematics prob-
lems that are not directly solvable by a set procedure but calls for additional math-
ematical thinking, there could be informal assessments. For example, mathematics
teachers could observe how successful students are on their homework where a
heuristic was needed as well be alert to the frequency of problem-clarifying strate-
gies language that is being used during classroom problem-solving conversations.
Such feedback provides valuable understanding regarding which practices have
become or are becoming part of students’ mathematical thinking. Also, students
self-reporting from time to time with regard to which heuristics are becoming more
a part of their thinking would be a valuable means to learn how they are progress-
ing. Especially, if students understood that the object of their self-reporting is not to
impress the mathematics teacher with what the teacher wants to hear.
In this way, there is in effect an ongoing habits-of-mind assessment conversa-
tion, which the students can see is important to the teacher and valuable to their
mathematical thinking. Additionally, formal assessments also provide opportunity
for such feedback. In the early going, it may be reasonable to let students use a
problem-clarifying strategies list on exams as it makes opportunity for their grow-
ing appreciation, and as a direct consequence, those practices become increasingly
more in mind. After a while, students will hopefully see these strategies are literally
the door to light and happiness in solving mathematics problems of any complex-
ity. That is, familiarity could here generate contentment as the positive emotional
expression of a developing realistic confidence.
***
The commitment by the teacher to making problem-clarifying strategies a primary
focus, explicitly embedded in mathematics classroom conversations, requires as
said more than once a commitment to ensuring the curriculum calls for that think-
ing and language. Namely, mathematics problems that promote and support stu-
dents asking questions of the sort: “Any patterns here?”, “What tinkering might
be good?”, “How could I represent the situation more simply?”, “Is my answer
plausible?”, etc. need to be made available consistently, perhaps by the teacher’s in-
cluding such during a problem-solving engagement. Such questions give shape and
clarity to the inquiry process, to the thinking that can carry one through. Naturally,
it would take time to develop, but it would seem the thing to do: A habits-of-mind
orientation promotes reflection, experimentation, and the opportunity for testing
one’s thinking toward constructing convincing demonstrations. Such an approach,
while initially taking more time, deserves the attention of all mathematics educa-
tors as those means are essential for students doing mathematics well, for thinking
productively.
44 3 Habits of Mind—The Heart of the Mathematics Curriculum: Some Instances

To promote that happening, it would seem the object is to make thinking a more
conscious activity in the classroom rather than leave it to the subconscious (where
most of our thinking seems to occur) as in the serendipitous moment of the student
who somehow sees what to do and is called on. For in helping all students become
more aware of the thinking process, they can all become more capable mathemat-
ics students and thoughtful individuals. Naturally, a mathematics classroom experi-
ence committed to such thinking would mean that the content of problem-clarifying
strategies would appear often—for introduction, be fostered, and acknowledged on
a regular basis—so those practices in effect come to be integral to the classroom
conversation. As John Dewey noted, it is our habits that give us character; and by
implication, as mathematics educators, we have an obligation to locate and work
with those habits that give the discipline of mathematics its character.
Indeed, it could not be some preconceived quantity of what is to be learned
that should be our focus, for surely no one knows how much anyone, including
themselves, no less a collection of individuals, could learn in some period of time.
Rather, it is the desired quality of that experience that should be made explicit and
sought after. It is also worth recognizing that whatever the educational times and
the accompanying claims of what particular mathematics content ought to be being
taught, or whether it should emphasize the basics, or applications, or mathematical
structure, what would always be good and right and true to include are problem-
clarifying practices that make engaging mathematics the exciting and rewarding
enterprise that it is. Inasmuch as heuristics actually promote productive thinking
in general, their focus could well enrich the personal and societal decision-making
throughout our students’ lives, enabling them to deal better with the complicated
problems that are sure to be made “available” to them as they get older.
All in all, with the K-12 goal to create a community of life-long learners who
are thoughtful, capable, and caring citizens in a global society, the fundamental
concern of the mathematics community would seem to be that of fostering a class-
room culture, wherein the participants have opportunity to develop and share the
“tools of the trade” that help unify and liberate their individual and collaborative
mathematical thinking.

References

Aristotle. (1971). The basic works of Aristotle. In R. McKeon (Ed.), New York: Random House.
Bolles, E. B. (1997). A second way of knowing. In E. B. Bolles (Ed.), Galileo’s commandment—An
anthology of great science writing. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Bruner, J. (1971). The relevance of education. New York: W. W Norton.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). Issues in mathematics education II-the
mathematical education of teachers. Washington, DC: AMS/MAA.
Cuoco, A. (1998). What I wish I had known about mathematics when I started teaching: suggetions
for teacher-preparation programs. Mathematics Teacher, 91(5), 372–374.
Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at
China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1),
61–75.
References 45

Friesen, S. (2006). The Galileo educational network: Developing a mathematical habit-of-mind.

Mathematics Teacher.
Halmos. P. (1980). The heart of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 87, 519–524.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Reston: Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Reston: Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of math-
ematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Polya, G. (1945/1957). How to solve it (2nd edn.). New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: Reasoning about functions of two variables.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 431–466.
 Part II
Promoting Mathematics Students’ Social
Development

A society is a number of people held together because they

are working along common lines, in a common spirit, and
with reference to common aims. The common needs and aims
demand a growing interchange of thought and growing unity of
sympathetic feelings.
John Dewey

Introduction
The classroom experience can be seen along a spectrum from each student investi-
gating whatever is found interesting to those where all students are presented with
the same material. Each is a society in microcosm. So John Dewey makes the case
that before deciding what the educational experience is to be, the decision must
be made regarding what type of society is desired. With that decision made, the
classroom experience would naturally follow promoting those behaviors and rela-
tionships reflective of the society to be furthered. If we mathematics educators take
this seriously, then we need to be clear what practices and interactions we value as
expressions of the citizens of the society we want to promulgate in our classrooms.
Toward making those objectives more evident, the first chapter in this section,
“Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics Classroom,” looks at the values that
shaped the practice in that mathematics classroom, where students learn they can
depend on themselves and each other in the engaging process of becoming edu-
cated. This is not to say “everybody is equal,” for the teacher is the one in charge, of
course. What is evident is that the process of coming to make sense of things is very
much in practice, with students sharing their thinking and questioning, listening to
one another so as to gain a richer understanding, and everyone appreciating that it
does take work, individually and collectively, to solve problems. While the class-
room experience is with respect to a third-grade mathematics class, its relevance
and value to grades 6–12 and the society being sought is quite apparent.
The chapter that follows, “Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry,” focuses
on the questions mathematics teachers can ask to enrich students’ reflective think-
ing. Inasmuch as the questions we ask determine what we think about and serve as
the connective tissue when students are working together, helping students come
48 Part II Promoting Mathematics Students’ Social Development

to see what questions tend to be productive when engaging problematic situations

would seem a valuable part of their mathematics education. With the inquiry pro-
cess seen as content worth studying and drawing upon, every student could develop
further their reflective capacity so as to support their own and each other’s investi-
gative/creative efforts in the mathematics classroom. In this way, all students have
the opportunity to be valued participants in a society open to hearing the thinking
of all of its citizens.
The last chapter in this section considers “Collaborative Mathematics Investiga-
tions.” Here, students truly have the opportunity “to see the importance of building
community in their mathematical work” (Su 2010, p. 168). These student investiga-
tions begin with a focus problem established with the teacher that can be pursued
in more than one direction, making for “multiple centers” of engagement. The op-
portunities for exploration, changing one’s mind, listening carefully, working with
someone else’s ideas, being able to explain oneself clearly, compromising, and lead-
ing and following make for everyone’s benefit. Then, with resolution of the focus
problem, multiple investigations again become available as students pursue ques-
tions or aspects they found interesting during the initial investigation but did not get
a chance to act on at the time. In this way, students have opportunity to give shape
to and inform their education and enrich the collective mathematics experience and
the mathematics curriculum for all involved. In this way, students come to experi-
ence that their interests and collaborative efforts matter, and together they create a
community that is fun and rewarding being part of.
Chapter 4
Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics
Classroom

In what follows, we have the opportunity to “listen in” on the thinking of teachers
and administrators reflecting on a mathematics class they observed, along with the
thinking of some readers who reacted to the article written about that class experi-
ence. How their values and concerns connect or not to those of ours as mathematics
teachers give us an opportunity to reflect further on what values shape the math-
ematics experience we provide and hope to provide.
A third-grade mathematics class engaged in “collaborative inquiry learning” was
the subject of a newspaper article, “Elementary math focuses on real-life problem
solving” that appeared in The Windsor Star (NCTM Smart Brief, May 21, 2013).
The writer observed “kids are learning math slowly, intensively and collaboratively.
Instead of mowing through work sheets, they’re breaking off into groups, discuss-
ing the different ways to solve the problem, drawing diagrams, writing out answers
in sentence form and presenting their solutions to their classmates, who respond
with raised hands and their own ideas.”
What makes it of special interest here includes the negative assessments provid-
ed by some of the article’s readership. One person wrote the hour-long investigation
to determine “‘if a grasshopper covers 25 centimetres each jump and jumps eight
times, how far does it go?’ was quite literally a waste of time.” Yet not only was
there criticism directed at the problem-consideration time frame, for “with a strong
knowledge of the basics it shouldn’t take more than a minute to solve the problem,”
but also with students working in groups, as it is “very easy to sit back and let
others do the thinking in a group setting.” Another reviewer concluded, “In a time-
strapped world we should teach the kids to solve the simple problems quickly and
move on to bigger questions.” These observations would seem hard to argue with.
Surely, mathematics educators can imagine the grasshopper problem being pre-
sented to a class and after a short while asking for hands and along with student
responses would be explanations how multiplication as repeated addition works
in this situation. This could well have been done in a few minute’s time. That ap-
proach would clearly be not uncommon. Indeed, it would seem to be the standard
way to engage the problem in contrast to the class at St. Angela Catholic Elementary
School in Windsor, Ontario.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 49

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_4
50 4 Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics Classroom

What led the folks there to design the mathematics experience as they did were
the objectives being sought as a consequence of the values they held. They believed
it would be best for students to work alone and collaboratively in an investigative
effort to make mathematical sense of that question. Apparently, the educational con-
sequences were appreciable. A 3-year evaluation process done by the Ministry of
Education found: “improved student performance,” “improved teacher’s belief in
their ability to teach math,” and “increased interest and engagement by students.”
These are clearly not minor outcomes. But let us consider the value framework that
set the class in motion.
Considerably more than a solution to the mathematics problem was being
sought. Underlying collaborative inquiry learning is the commitment to and un-
derstanding that the process of engagement is an essential aspect of the learning
product. In contrast to coming up with a procedure and an answer as efficiently
as possible as directed by the mathematics teacher, a common spirit of engage-
ment is promoted so that a number of successful approaches may be uncovered.
The school’s principal shared that “we are preparing kids who are patient problem
solvers.” And the youngster who was reported to push his thinking further so as to
determine the answer in meters (not just centimeters) demonstrated how the experi-
ence promoted problem posing/creating as well. A teacher who observed that class
in effect responded to the reader who saw the hour activity as a waste of time in “a
time-strapped world.” Her comment was that “By working through and struggling
through one problem, we slow everything down in this hectic, hectic world and say
there’s a lot of richness in this task.” Both agree that life is complicated and know-
ing how to solve mathematics problems deserve priority. But the school is seeing
the greater gains made with an eye toward an unknown but guaranteed complex
future. For the “real-life” problem considered was not just that of determining the
distance the grasshopper hopped.
The real-life educational problem apparently had to do with the teacher promot-
ing students’ interests so they would engage the mathematics question with dedi-
cated energy, and in the investigative process develop and share their perspectives
and ideas, and work together to make sense of things. Their thoughtful consider-
ations apparently led to developing various representations, along with raising and
testing ideas, in an effort to gain mathematical solutions. The shared interest meant
students would have to listen carefully to each other and try to express themselves
clearly. Such a collaborative environment would suggest the opportunity for stu-
dents becoming more open-minded, more adept at recognizing essential informa-
tion, and more successful in securing a satisfying understanding.
***
It is not being claimed here that the classroom format is the model for every math-
ematics class. But to highlight that whatever mathematics classroom experiences
we offer be looked at through the lens of the personal, social, and intellectual values
we seek to promote. If, for example, we wanted to promote self-reflective, socially
responsive, confident individuals, then we would design our classroom environ-
ment so that those qualities would have the best or at least a good chance of being
present. The third-grade lesson was to point out that regardless of the classroom
4 Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics Classroom 51

approach, whether a lecture, guided discovery, flipped, blended, constructivist or

whatever, the question remains, what exactly are the objectives that we are work-
ing towards. After all, student’s intellectual, social, and psychological development
would seem the foremost consideration from the perspective of a society enlivened
by its citizens.
Learning mathematics offers a wonderful context in which to promote all three
dimensions of that development. Its commitment to imagination, experimentation,
and reflection are at the foundation of thinking (and doing). And its social value
can be found not only in its essential role in the sciences, the physical as well as
the social, but in the collaborative efforts that have generated so much interesting
and valuable mathematics, including those experienced in our classrooms where
students learn to work together, compromise, and respect each other’s efforts. In
addition, with the opportunity to learn how to deal well with challenges, requiring
being more flexible in thinking, and how to draw upon emotional reserves so to
secure the resilience needed to proceed, such practices promote students’ psycho-
logical development.
Essentially, the consideration of that third-grade mathematics classroom was to
raise the questions underlying this chapter and book: what are the intellectual, so-
cial, and psychological capacities that we believe ought to being developed and
promoted and what practices would enable their being secured in the best interests
of society. Knowing that, we can shape our students’ mathematics experience and
have a realistic confidence in their gaining success.
What seems a good rule of thumb is as Dewey noted: We need to think how we
can prepare students for a future we do not know by giving them command of them-
selves. That would seem to mean that in their best interests and those of a demo-
cratic society, we help them develop as reflective, resilient, and responsive human
beings. With that as our aim, we can better decide how to structure the mathematics
classroom experience. Then assessment naturally follows, as it would be looking to
see whether or not those valued dispositions and practices are in fact developing.
Such a perspective helps ensure we do not take too narrow a view of what is a
productive environment for learning mathematics. It implies that we would ques-
tion, for example, the value of having students spend their time on work sheets as a
common mathematics classroom activity, even if it seemed some students enjoyed
doing so. For “It is possible for the mind to develop interest in a routine or me-
chanical procedure, if conditions are continually supplied which demand that mode
of operation and preclude any other sort” (Dewey in Dworkin, italics in original,
pp. 108–109). Spending classroom time practicing procedures that have little viabil-
ity in the world would not seem socially responsible from the school’s perspective
or personally responsible from the student’s. As Dewey noted: “were all instructors
to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is
the measure of educative growth something hardly less than a revolution in teaching
would be worked” (1916/1944, p. 176).
In that direction, it seems fundamentally important to “psychologize” our math-
ematics lessons so that they connect to where the students are and create a learning
52 4 Lessons from a Third-Grade Mathematics Classroom

environment that promotes those values essential for developing a more thoughtful,
more open-minded, and more socially responsive citizenry. How to help promote
that development is the aim of the next two chapters.

References

Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Press.

Chapter 5
Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry

A critically important but hidden expression of students’ successful mathematics

experience is the questions they ask themselves. For it is the questions that we ask
that gives shape to our thinking, our effort at making sense of things. Were students
increasingly able to consider and share thoughtful questions, they would be more
able to build on each other’s thinking, and in essence establish more consistently
productive collaborative inquiry. Societal implications are evident.
That suggests an essential part of our work as mathematics educators would be
to share what problem-solving experience has made clear are effective questions
to ask. For trying harder to reach a goal only has benefit if there is an appreciative
understanding of valuable means. For that exact reason, weaker students tend to ap-
preciate a highly structured learning environment given to explicit instruction, what
is referred to as “fully-guided instruction” (Clark et al. 2012). It not only lessens
the stress of not knowing how to solve a problem, but the stress of not knowing
what to ask to move things forward. Such directed instruction is a qualitatively dif-
ferent mathematics experience than that shaped by students’ productive questions.
And those qualities matter when considered from the perspective of being a valued
citizen in a dynamic society.
A major obstacle to students developing their heuristic capacity, in addition to
it being muted by a mathematics experience that rather exclusively focuses on pre-
senting step-by-step procedures, is that essential thinking is usually invisible in the
presentation of final mathematical arguments. This is especially frustrating for dili-
gent students who work really hard taking notes. For the valuable questions asked
and mathematical problem-clarifying strategies drawn upon that actually fostered
the choices of the particular solution approaches are generally omitted from the
formal demonstration. That is why it was suggested prior that we make more visible
the critical questions and the reflections and heuristic actions that led to the techni-
cal moves to secure the desired conclusions. In that way, we promote the chance for
transfer of learning by providing “thick description” of the thinking that underlies
the formal presentation. In this way, the questions pursued and problem-clarifying
approaches that were called upon in shaping the argument are made as evident as
well, not just the polished product.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 53

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_5
54 5 Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry

***
What gives the questions teachers ask their heightened import is not only that they
shape the classroom conversation but importantly inform students how they them-
selves should go about inquiring. This suggests that the nature and quality of the
questions students would be asked would be very much part of the mathematics
teacher’s planning and curriculum. Professional development and evaluation ex-
perts can be found who agree with the importance of that focus. For example, Char-
lotte Danielson, in her fourth edition of The Framework for Teaching—Evaluation
Instrument writes: “Questioning and discussion are the only instructional strategies
specifically referred to in the Framework for Teaching, a decision that reflects their
central importance to teacher’s practice” (2013, p. 63). And while some of us are
more inquisitive than others and some of us are really good at presenting lectures,
the questions we ask are pretty much decisive regarding the understanding that
will be pursued. So in terms of promoting an educated populace, the work of the
mathematics teacher would seem to be in good part to model good questions so as
to determine where needed energies are best placed to promote productive decision-
making. With students learning to raise questions that enable progress to be made
in disentangling complicated mathematics problems, they become more thoughtful
and interesting to themselves and others.
Having the emotional resilience to handle the state of doubt and confusion that
often accompanies perplexing considerations is of course essential, as our emo-
tions create the immediate environment in which those questions can be asked and
pursued. So it is important for students to know that “It is primarily through the
recognition of error that we are enabled to achieve major insights and proceed with
learning” (Raths et al. 1986, p. 166). Many mathematicians discuss how mathe-
matics literally evolves from the errors made (cf., Lakatos 1976; Davis and Hersh
1981), and scientists as well, of course. The inventor and billionaire, James Dy-
son, regarding the mental environment he creates at his workplace—“I’m very keen
on wrong thinking. That’s the creative bit: watching the failures” (TIME, Aug 19,
2013, p. 60).
This is to suggest that learning to appreciate the positive side of making errors
needs to be part of the classroom conversation inasmuch as “To many persons both
suspense of judgment and intellectual search are disagreeable; they want to get
them ended as soon as possible” (Dewey 1933/1936, p. 16). To help change that
scenario, when students engaged with a problem do not know what to do they need
to know what to ask. To make that more possible would seem an essential consider-
ation in shaping the mathematics classroom conversation.
How we can help all students of mathematics appreciate the process of thinking
through the confusion and for a good number dealing with the attending discomfort
they experience is an essential part of our work. What we need to help them under-
stand and develop the capacity for is that “To be genuinely thoughtful we must be
willing to sustain and protract that state of doubt which is the stimulus to thorough
inquiry…” (Dewey 1933/1936, p. 16; italics added). And our students will be more
inclined to do that not only as a consequence of our modeling questions that pro-
mote productive thinking, but by there being the class time and outside time that
give them the opportunity to spend thinking, posing questions, and engaging them.
5 Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry 55

That space creates the needed room for their thinking productively, and an environ-
ment where they feel safe sharing their thinking—namely an environment where
the spirit of inquiry provides the intellectual, social, and emotional energy to engage
mathematics problems for extended periods of time.
While questioning would seem to be of the very fabric of the mathematics class-
room experience, not only what to ask but when can be a complex affair. For in-
stance, if we as the mathematics teacher ask for an answer to a question that is
not time-wise appropriate, this could well promote impulsive thinking and what
students offer could well be off the mark. This complication strongly suggests that
silence must be appreciated in the mathematics classroom experience. It creates a
needed space in which the participants can take stock of things. Research suggests
that increasing the “wait time” between our asking a question and calling on a stu-
dent tends to elicit a response more associated with the student’s true belief (Rowe
1974). And in doing so that is surely time-wise efficient.
(An interesting class experience is to have students do nothing for 1 min. With
students not watching the clock but consciously living in the minute, they usually
find it to be longer than they think. A lot longer, especially if students have hardly
had a silent minute to think in a mathematics classroom where covering the curricu-
lum is the driving force. Hopefully, students have silent times to think alone, even
if they are in groups.)
To make the content of inquiry an integral part of the classroom conversation
clearly takes time and focus. A framework valuable in this regard is adapted from
Teaching for Thinking (Raths et al. 1986). To use it well, they suggest the teacher
tape themselves for 10 min a day, and use the checkoff list to evaluate the nature
of the questions asked. Their work with teachers led them to conclude that “Should
you do this, the likelihood is great that you will begin to notice a marked change in
the quality of your interaction with students” (pp. 174–175).
As all frameworks, this framework can be worked with, and it has been in what
follows. It was extended to include teacher’s asking questions that promote stu-
dents summarizing their and other student’s findings. This of course is a helpful
means to promote students listening carefully to themselves and others, and pro-
vides needed opportunity to reflect on shaping what a well-rounded yet concise
evaluation sounds like. Added also are questions associated with the earlier focus,
namely those drawing upon problem-clarifying strategies. For example, asking stu-
dents how they might make the problem simpler or take things apart or check for
plausibility helps students become more comfortable using the “tools of the trade.”
Clearly, productive questioning lays at the very heart of the intellectual frame-
work that makes doing mathematics well or most anything else involving thought-
ful decision-making. Using this assessment lens as a means for promoting more
thoughtful student questioning/thinking can become an essential and explicit part
of the classroom mathematics curriculum. That is, if we think of questions as the
foremost determinant in shaping the classroom discussion, which seems to make
sense. Introducing this framework into our mathematics teaching might well mean
we have to alter our own practice, which is not an easy matter. But that of course is
56 5 Sharing a Language for Productive Inquiry

what is involved in doing anything better—namely, making changes so as to gain

more productive habits. Here it is:
Coding sheet for tallying teaching for thinking responses (Raths et al. 1986,
p. 175; adapted).
Consider each of the following being presented as questions—“Can anyone…?”
• Provide a paraphrase reflecting main idea
• Share conjectures they have
• Make clear the information that is available
• Provide an example to illustrate idea
• Make clear the assumptions being held
• Share how they came to hold a particular view/idea
• Evaluate a shared idea
• Consider alternatives given an apparent dead end
• Share supporting evidence
• Share any hypotheses that seem plausible
• Share exactly what needs to become clear
• Test a particular hypothesis
• Provide a summary
And
• Make the problem simpler
• Take things apart
• Test for plausibility
• Change representation (e.g., from particular to general or vice versa, algebraic to
geometric or vice versa)
• Tinker (e.g., make a variable a constant, introduce numbers)
• Make a diagram (e.g., of what is known and what is not, a web, a table)
• Organize a proof (reasonable argument)
• Apply the principle to new situations
This list divides questions into those that focus on what the situation is, and having
made that clear, what questions would move things forward. Students are asked
to reflect on what has been said to ensure a secure hold of what is known (by ask-
ing them to paraphrase, provide an example, make clear what the assumptions are,
share supporting evidence, explain how they came to an idea, and make explicit
what remains confusing); and what students could think about or are thinking about
to move the conversation forward (by sharing conjectures, considering alternatives,
sharing a hypothesis, testing a particular hypothesis). The partition helps students
appreciate that thinking/problem solving is as much about taking stock of where
they are in the problem-solving process as well what might be some promising
direction(s). It is made clear that not only is it a good idea to stop and consider what
really can be held as solid as versus what remains in need of evidence, but also that
dead ends are to be expected to be found in the problem-solving landscape. With
students hearing this language on a regular basis in class, it would seem those men-
tal actions would in time become “furniture of the mind” as they work their thinking
into a coherent framework.
References 57

Yet of course, this is not to suggest that students would not come up with these
or their own questions with regard to both clarifying where the thinking is at and
what could be promising directions to pursue. Problematic situations promote their
own questions, and with students having the time to reflect on those situations there
would surely be opportunities for thoughtful conversations toward their resolution.
Becoming educated means to expand our understanding, and productive questions
naturally provide the setting.
Ultimately, with mathematics teachers promoting and supporting conversations
that help students formulate clarifying questions and potentially valuable directions
to take, there is good reason to believe such conversations would have a signifi-
cant impact on students’ thinking and their mathematics learning. With thoughtful
question-asking a common mathematics experience across the grades, societal im-
plications are suggestive.
When we ask ourselves a question, we are requesting a response from ourselves,
and hence feel obligated to respond. We have, in effect, baited the hook and as the
direct consequence are all the more likely to “get a bite” if we keep at it. Whether
the catch is worth keeping or should be tossed back, that is part of the tension and
excitement of thinking. But the question set offered here could well be expected to
promote more rewarding ideational moments. The investigations presented in the
next chapter consider an inquiry environment.

References

Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning—the
case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 6–11.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching—evaluation instrument. Princeton: The Dan-
ielson Group.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Birkhauser.
Dewey, J. (1933/1936). How we think. New York: Henry Holt Company.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Raths, L. E., Wassermann, S., et al. (1986). Teaching for thinking: Theory, strategies, and activities
for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Relations of wait-time and rewards to the development of language, logic,
and fate control. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 291–308.
Chapter 6
Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

Group-based learning activities are quite a common phenomenon in school for good
reason. Research supports the practice as a productive means for student learning,
and grouping represents in microcosm what will extend to students’ lives as adults
working together. With sufficient opportunities for group investigations, mathemat-
ics educators can promote students’ personal, social, and intellectual development,
including the asking of good questions that help ensure productive interactions es-
sential for a vibrant society.
Academically speaking, student collaboration is very promising. For instance,
“When students worked in small groups, taking significant responsibility for plan-
ning, undertaking, and reporting on research into subject matter, most scored sig-
nificantly higher on content-area tests of math, history, literature, science, geogra-
phy, and reading comprehension” (Harvey and Daniels 2009). And “When students
engage socially in talk and activity about shared problems or tasks, their questions
can stimulate not only themselves but, also, another group member to use the rel-
evant thinking strategies and processes (e.g., hypothesizing, predicting, explaining)
in their search for an answer” (Chin and Osborne 2008, p. 3). In group investiga-
tions where mathematics students have to draw upon problem-clarifying strategies
and questions that promote reflective thinking, there is good reason to think those
activities would be truly enriching educational experiences. Yet, grouping students
may not be as simple as dividing by a single-digit group-size divisor.
As any experienced mathematics educator knows, teaching the entire class at
the same pace has the potential to make the classroom experience very trying—in
particular, for those who learn more readily and those who need more time, not to
mention the teacher. Hence, the pedagogical adage of “aim for the middle.” Some
educators, apparently not sold on the aesthetic of “the greatest good for the great-
est number,” have in effect used the heuristic of take things apart by having small
groups of students work on different facets of the curriculum simultaneously. This
is obviously quite a challenging experience for the teacher trying to keep all the
ideational balls in the air at the same time. Differentiating instruction is a complex
undertaking, yet it offers a valuable educational opportunity in responding to each
student (cf. Tomlinson 2001).

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 59

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_6
60 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

A variation is to have students of similar academic abilities grouped together,

with the hope and expectation that everyone can participate. (This seems to be par-
ticularly true with mathematics, science, and language classes.) There are potential
gains as well as losses with this hierarchical approach. Clustering classes this way
means there is little if any opportunity for some students to interact with some oth-
ers, and those students who struggle would only have each other to count on. And
this could be problematic for a democratic society where people of varying abilities
and backgrounds would need to share perspectives and try to work together to reach
an acceptable resolution.
A response to dealing with the range of student abilities has been to group togeth-
er students so that the more able and/or more inclined help those who have greater
difficulties learning/connecting to the material. The problem here is that those who
are naturally more capable and/or more dedicated do not have the opportunity to
explore matters as deeply as they might hope due to their obligation to others in
the group; as importantly, the less able or less inclined tend to find themselves on
the receiving end of the educational experience, too rarely feeling they have added
to the group’s understanding. Such a practice, while well intentioned, could fail to
foster productive interactions and positive feelings.
Grouping students for working on projects is gaining following in classrooms.
The most prominent seems to be project-based learning (PBL) where “students go
through an extended process of inquiry in response to a complex question, prob-
lem, or challenge” (cf. “What is PBL?” www.bie.org/about/what_is_pbl and “8 Es-
sentials for Project-Based Learning” in Educational Leadership, September 2010,
Vol. 68, No. 1). This approach provides opportunity for students’ collective efforts
to be shared with others in the community. While some students may well “have
difficulty with open-ended situations and with ill-defined problems” (Thomas 2000,
p. 29), the intervention of “providing a structural set of inquiry steps for students to
follow” (Thomas 2000) would seem a questionable solution. That surely precludes
the opportunity for promoting flexible thinking and students learning to respond
well to novel situations. So it clearly requires a careful balancing act regarding what
to discuss without being too prescriptive. It would suggest both reminding students
of what questions would make for furthering the inquiry as well as having them
reflect on possible problem-clarifying strategies or questions they think/feel might
be of assistance in helping shape a productive inquiry.
Whatever the grouping format, it would surely be a goal that every student
has the opportunity to have their voice be valued in promoting the collective un-
derstanding. For “While what we call intelligence may be distributed in unequal
amounts, it is the democratic faith that it is sufficiently general so that each individ-
ual has something to contribute, and the value of each contribution can be assessed
only as it enters into the final pooled intelligence constituted by the contribution of
all” (Dewey in Ratner 1939, p. 403). To increase the likelihood that every student
would be appreciated in any group investigation would in part be to give time prior
to forming groups so that everyone has time to think about the problem to be in-
vestigated. This individual reflection-time increases the chance that more students
will have something to bring to the group to begin the investigation. It could well
be a finding gained by applying an insightful question or a productive heuristic,
6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations 61

including coming up with what seems a promising conjecture, or just a realization

that some direction is closed, given an instance of some quantitative analysis. Seed-
ing the conversation seems essential, and so everyone needs time to formulate their
thinking.
However, as mathematics educators know well, getting all students involved is
not an easy matter. With students at a distance from the focus of the conversation,
the teacher’s experience and observation can well be that “I taught it, but they didn’t
learn it.” That statement has the same logic as the salesperson who claims they sold
something but no one bought it, as Dewey noted. In life-enriching contrast, with
students of “one mind” working on a shared concern from varied points of view, our
work as mathematics educators does not require creating/struggling with student
discipline, for their very engagement in the learning experience does that.
To help ensure that happening “it is part of the educator’s responsibility to see
equally to two things: First, that the problem grows out of the conditions of the
experience being had in the present, and that it is within the range of the capacity of
students; and, secondly, that it is such that it arouses in the learner an active quest
for information and for production of new ideas” (Dewey 1938, p. 79). It is in such
settings shaped by students’ focused collaborative energies, including the questions
that serve to clarify where things presently stand in an effort to move the conversa-
tion forward, we can appreciate the difference between keeping students busy and
seeing them involved in something they find engaging. (This is not to say of course
that for a classroom experience to be valuable all the participants must be working
in groups. For an intellectually stimulating whole-class lecture or a “good” problem
to ponder are each alone quite sufficient to engage students individually as well.)
Yet working in groups can provide a setting for students to ask questions and
play out ideas they are not particularly sure of or comfortable with “announcing”
to the whole class. Additionally, having the opportunity to sit facing each other
promotes interactions that require listening carefully to one another and the need
to reflect on questions and statements shared. It is not unrealistic to expect in such
a setting everyone respecting the group’s effort for what is uncovered as a conse-
quence of the give-and-take is often what none of the parties knew would be the
resolution. Also, such a setting provides for continuous feedback—i.e., an ongoing
“ungraded assessment,” from which all can learn, and each can become a more pro-
ductive member of the group. If we as mathematics educators are concerned with
students’ social development and their capacity to engage challenging questions
collaboratively, then grouping would be a common experience in our classrooms.
***
A “multiple-centers” investigation, though not being argued as the everyday class-
room-grouping procedure, divides the class by student interest in response to a fo-
cus problem. It need not be a “real-world” problem, but it does need to be devised
so as to ensure more than one approach is available to shed light on the inviting but
challenging investigation. As a direct consequence, a broader mathematical under-
standing can develop than when working toward finding a single path to a solution.
The varied entry points naturally increase the chance for a greater number of stu-
dents to participate and for uncovering a variety of interesting avenues to pursue.
62 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

When enough time has resulted in individuals and small groups having come to
findings including questions they believe are significant, the teacher aware of each
group’s state of understanding either helps them focus their efforts further or, find-
ing the time sufficient, brings everyone together. It could be to celebrate the victory
of the conceptual hunt or to bring questions for everyone’s consideration to see if
some further headway can collectively be made. In either case, discussion is given
to how ideas have come together and what heuristics and critical questions were
made good use of.
With the eventual solution of the focus problem, students then have the opportu-
nity to self-select extensions of the initial investigation. Multiple centers are again
formed, but now with students working alone or in new groups as a function of
their newfound interests as a consequence of the initial investigation that the teach-
er agrees has the potential to add to the collective educational experience. After
a second interval of time, students are brought back together, and this time their
efforts are presented to the class in a quasi-cohesive ordering determined by the
teacher based on how those multiple-centers investigations fit together, including
incomplete findings and unanswered questions. In this way, the learning experience
established by students’ individual and collaborative inquiries and initiatives is ac-
knowledged, and every student can be recognized for having added to the general
understanding.
Depending on the teacher’s thinking, extensions that enrich the collaborative
effort can come from other disciplines, not necessarily from mathematics. For ex-
ample, with regard to the mathematics of fountain arcs which is one of the multiple-
centers investigations to follow, student findings include the result of researching
the history of fountains as that focus was considered a valuable addition to their
learning experience with connections made between the evolution of fountains and
humanity’s development being established.
That some questions may go unanswered needs to be appreciated as well—only
television mystery shows find the solution in the allotted time however complicated
the problem. In the reality of the mathematics classroom, students learn that prob-
lems may well take an extended period of time to make headway, which of course
means they may not be resolved in the present, if at all. (The physicist J. Robert Op-
penheimer wanted to share with 14-year olds the most difficult problems in physics
so that they would have years to play with them. With their not yet having bought
into the accepted way of seeing of the educated group, he was acknowledging the
virtue of having a naïve perspective and the human imagination, given time.)
When engaging the focus problem, because of the varied perspectives that arise,
students realize it really is important to listen carefully to one another, most especially
to those who hold competing hypotheses and contrary viewpoints. Different perspec-
tives may promote at times a friendly competition as well as a more comprehensive
understanding and calls for compromise in promoting further avenues for consider-
ation. Such an interactive engagement makes it eminently clear that “…education is a
process of living and not a preparation for future living” (Dewey 1897, p. 79).
***
6.1 Four-of-a-Kind 63

Four multiple-centers investigations follow. The mathematical content ranges from

a sixth grade investigation to one at the precalculus level.
The first, “Four-of-a-Kind,” promotes students creating/uncovering patterns by
tinkering with four of the same number and any combination of the basic four arith-
metic operations. Along the way, the investigation provides multiple opportunities
for students to practice arithmetic and to uncover mathematical relationships that
promote their inventing symbolic representations to express the general findings.
In so doing, a connection is made between working with numbers and the value of
algebra, which is a foundational concern in mathematics education.
The second, “Would 400 be Better than 360?” provides students with the op-
portunity to use their imagination in coming to decide whether a circle ought to be
divided into 360 or 400 parts. The latter suggestion, as will be discussed, was the
suggestion-cum-claim of Simon de Laplace, one of the finest mathematicians of the
eighteenth century. The investigation allows for varied explorations with number
and geometry, and introduces the significant role aesthetics can play in decision
making in mathematics.
The third, “Mathematics of a Fountain Arc,” engages mathematics students in
trying to create a mathematical model that represents the path of a water fountain
arc rising from the surface of the fountain at a particular angle and returning to the
fountain at a given distance away. Here students have the opportunity to transform
the basic quadratic equation associated with the height a projectile reaches at a
particular time with another quadratic equation that requires additional parameters.
The last multiple-centers investigation, “Approximating the Area of a Simple
Closed Curve,” requires students to create a mathematics formula and test its accu-
racy. The opportunity to satisfy their mathematical intuition and develop convincing
arguments leads them to explore a variety of geometric forms, come face-to-face
with a dead end, and finally determine the best “approximating” rectangle to repre-
sent the area of a simple closed curve.

6.1 Four-of-a-Kind

A pervasive educational concern, from state education departments to work-force

study groups, focuses on students having success in algebra. The general belief
is that “Algebra, in particular [has] become increasingly essential to educational
advancement and career opportunities” (Ball 2003, p. 3). How to create that bridge
begins of course with enabling students to make the transition from working with
numbers successfully to working with abstract symbols so they not only feel com-
fortable but actually enjoy engaging and representing general mathematical rela-
tionships symbolically.
This multiple-centers investigation is directed at fostering that development. It
provides a number of opportunities for students of all abilities to collaborate in un-
covering number patterns, determine the need for an order of operations, and come
64 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

naturally and logically to incorporate symbolic representations as the result of their

generalized findings.
It begins with students being asked to represent the number 1 using four of each
of the numerals from 1 to 10 drawing upon the basic operations of addition, sub-
traction, multiplication, and division. For example, 1111, 22 22 , to 4 tens, as in
1010 10 . With students working alone and together in uncovering many equivalent
10
expressions, this investigation provides multiple opportunities for students to be-
come more comfortable and facile with the basic arithmetic operations. In addition,
it creates many opportunities for raising questions that require justification and pro-
mote generalization, which are the other two practices along with representation
that are considered “central to the learning and use of mathematics” (Ball 2003,
p. 36). Because students uncover many instances where the representations have
the same form, the investigation promotes students inventing symbols to express
those general relationships. Some used an asterisk, others a wagon wheel with four
spokes, others a large X, and others a square form to represent that any of the nu-
merals 1–10 could be used all four times to create the numerical value of 1. In ef-
fect, they were recognizing the value of using symbols, and in so doing developing
an algebraic awareness and appreciation.
To represent some of their findings here, the commonly accepted symbol,
n, where n is any number from 1 to 10 is used. For example, students readily
nn
found that for any n,  1 , and many other ways to represent one, including:
nn
(n  n)  (n  n), (n  n)  n , n  (n  n) , (n  n)  (n  n) , (n  n)  (n  n) , and
n n
(n  n)  (n  n). Some students claimed the initial expression and the first in the
list here were different, as the first was a fraction representation of 1 with the second
representing the division process. They also saw the need for parentheses upon real-
izing that number operations are binary and came to see the commutative property
of addition and in pretty sophisticated terms. As students reflected on these patterns,
they drew upon another key habit of mind, that of proving, and with the essential
assistance of algebra they appreciated that in many of their findings all the counting
numbers from 1 to 10, and beyond, would be included!
With the focus problem solved, a number of activities were then established by
students’ questions. They were excited to see if they could express other numerical
values from 2 to 10 using four of each kind. (Some youngsters decided to name their
group after the name of the number they were investigating.) Valuable assistance
was provided by the teacher who put up large sheets of paper around the room and
into the hall with a different numeral at the top of each sheet. When students found
a new way to express a particular number using four of any number from 2 to 10,
they wrote it on the appropriate sheet. After a good while for investigation and
small-group discussions, students walked around looking at the sheets to look at all
the findings and see if they could uncover other generalizations and represent them
symbolically. (The excitement of the conceptual hunt was much in evidence.)
This multiple-centers investigation naturally led students to draw upon the prob-
lem-clarifying strategies of tinker along with consider similar problems, and they
6.1 Four-of-a-Kind 65

found themselves considering how grouping quantities work, including working

with parentheses. They invented commutative and associative rules, determining
where they worked and where they did not. They shared hypotheses that seemed
plausible and provided examples to illustrate their ideas, and asked a number of
questions on the list offered earlier. All in all, the investigation provided a variety
of opportunities for instructive student exploration including final considerations
taking the form of algebraic representations.
When all students came back together after their multiple inquiries, there was
opportunity for the teacher to help them verbalize what they had written and share
their supporting evidence. For example, some of the “cross-number” discoveries
students made by observing different sheets in the hallway included their noting that
in addition to 6 − (6 + 6)/6 = 4 and 7 − (7 + 7)/7 = 5, the other digits also fit that form,
being “two less,” except for 4 twos as the form generated 0. Some students, express-
ing the mathematician’s desire for completeness, wanted to expand the number set
to include 0, but others argued for leaving that to another time. The ensuing conver-
( n  n)
sation uncovered that in general n  could be written as n − 2, which they
n
really appreciated for its simplicity. Similarly, 6 + (6 + 6)/6 = 8 and 7 + (7 + 7)/7 = 9
( n  n)
could be represented as n   n  2.
n
Other generalizations promoted more conversations about algebra. For example,
students found instances such as (7 × 7 − 7)/7 = 6 that led to generalizing to any num-
( n  n  n)
ber n, with  n 1. This was quite perplexing to a number of students, so
n
returning to numerical examples and changing representation made a big difference.
Namely, with the expression (7 × 7 − 7)/7 rewritten as (7 × 7)/7 − 7/7, students saw
that they were really finding 7 − 1 = 6. And with the generalization, they saw that
the final expression did make sense. Another form they enjoyed discovering was
prompted by their representing 5 using 4 tens in the form 1010 . They generalized
nn n 1010
it as 2n  2 . This helped reinforce for some students that when there is no symbol
written between a number and a letter it is “saying multiplication.”
Finally, putting together a page of all the generalizations they had uncovered pro-
vided a summary of students’ efforts and made clear the big ideas they had captured
in algebraic expressions and the associated questions; and each expression attested
to its efficiency and elegance. Here a real appreciation for engaging mathemat-
ics, including the helpful heuristics of tinkering, looking for patterns, and changing
representations, was experienced. Yet, despite good efforts, limitations were also
found, as 10 could only be created using 4 twos, fives, eights, nines, and tens; and
5 could be expressed using 4 twos to 4 tens except for 4 eights. But even with the
empty spaces in their charts, they knew they had made a good effort and wondered
if they would be filled in later or perhaps never because it could not be done. That
too helped them appreciate the excitement that mathematics provides. Overall, they
were very pleased with their investigative efforts. And, as often is the case with rich
inquiry, they received the gift to wonder further.
66 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

Several features of this unit are worth highlighting in addition to its success at
making the entire enterprise of algebra both intelligible and exciting:
• There is a game-like quality to this challenge, but the competition is with the
material and not between students. It was not “Who can do this first?” but rather,
“Can we figure this out?”
• Key here was the way the unit was introduced, using an introductory focus prob-
lem to get things going and making sure everyone could see what the real issues
were.
• Then student interest extended their investigations to all the numbers from 2
through 10. Interest groups were formed and student’s questions promoted mul-
tiple avenues and strategies, and they posted their findings and considered the
work of others. This meant that all individuals and groups could be valued par-
ticipants in the conversation which produced the kind of synergy that can make
group work exciting. It would include the more adventurous working alone and
the socially inclined playing out considerations with others.
• Further, because of the multiple approaches, the richness of the problem came to
the surface and students fed off of its complexity, becoming excited about creat-
ing their own grammar and proofs.
• Finally, the various occasions for collective reflection gave the teacher many of
those “golden” moments to underline themes, particular questions, strategies,
and habits of mind that had been employed. And of course, the value of symbolic
representation and its expression as algebra.

6.2 Would 400 Be Better Than 360?

This multiple-centers investigation helps students understand how a different way

of thinking can promote exciting mathematical considerations and uncover from
history some really interesting decisions.
Students in grades 6–8 are told, if not earlier in their education, that a circle has
360° and a triangle 180°. That the former has no apparent angles, while the lat-
ter is constituted by them and is half the measure of the former, hopefully piques
students’ imaginations as two obviously disparate shapes seem to share an intimate
quantitative relationship. A further distinction that was needed to be made was that
the statement “a circle has 360°” was an expression of agreement, not the conse-
quence of a formal argument as was “a triangle has 180°.” Each would require
discussion but of a different kind.
The focus problem was prompted by the extraordinary claim of the exceptional
eighteenth century mathematician and scientist Simon de Laplace. In exhilarated
response to the reality of the French Revolution and its promise of a new beginning,
he declared he would create a new beginning for standard measures. He would
divide the day into 10 h, the hour into 100 min, the minute into 100 s, temperature
into 100° from the boiling to the freezing point of water, and divide the circle into
6.2 Would 400 Be Better Than 360? 67

400 parts! (The interested reader may wish to read about Laplace in Stephen Jay
Gould’s delightful essay “The Celestial Mechanic and the Earthly Naturalist” in his
Dinosaur in a Haystack—Reflections in Natural History, 1995.)
Laplace’s celebratory impulse to re-quantify standard measures naturally sug-
gested to some students to wonder about other common measures they had learned
(Why is a foot 12 in.? A mile 5280 ft? In addition, the length of a meter, which was
also created in recognition of the French Revolution). These instances provide a
valuable lesson in students’ coming to understand that “the way things are” is often
the consequence of an individual’s or group’s efforts. As such, it may deserve to be
greatly appreciated or be reconsidered, especially if a new way of thinking creates a
better situation, such as having greater application or broader or deeper explanation
or value. From such considerations students can appreciate how humanity’s under-
standing grows. (The interested reader can see how metric time actually plays out at
http://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2015/04/16/metric-time/.)
From Laplace’s inspiration, the focus problem was “Is there any reason to think
that a 400 unit circle would be better than a 360 unit circle?” What “better” meant
and what it means when making assumptions or definitions in mathematics created
ongoing conversations in the investigation.
Some students reasoned that a circle would still look like a circle even if it had
400 and not 360 divisions. And the area and its circumference would also remain as
they are, disassociated as they are from any angle measure. A general conversation
arose regarding how 400° could fit where 360° fit! This impossibility prompted the
realization that the size of a degree would have to change. The new degree would
have to be nine-tenths of the original degree! Would it still be called a “degree?”
While there was some interest in inventing a new name, the students were informed
one already existed, a “gradian.” To express a measure in gradians, the superscript
circle was replaced with a superscript g. That agreement allowed students to put
their energies to consider whether dividing a circle by 360 or 400 parts would be the
better choice. The focus on dividing prompted some students to consider factoriza-
tions, others divisors, while others wanted to explore some geometric consequences
of using 400.
Those students considering factors found the prime factorization of 360 to yield
2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, while 400 had 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5. That 360 had three distinct prime factors
while 400 had only two was counterintuitive to what some students thought would
be the more “complex” number, as 400 was greater than 360 and both were even.
That observation provided an opportunity for their gaining a more informed intu-
ition. The factorization helped them appreciate that looking at things from different
angles could yield deeper understanding (a truth they appreciated from studying
history, though using the word “angle” in this circumstance caused a not insignifi-
cant amount of laughter).
Those students considering the divisors found for 360: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
12, 18, and a bunch more; for 400: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 25, 40, and more. Their
investigations led them to the finding that 360 having more divisors was the more
“complex” number in this context as well. Sharing their findings with the other
group led them to wonder whether there was a connection—was there actually a
68 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

quantitative relationship between the number of prime factors and the number of
divisors? The teacher suggested that that investigation would be a good one to pur-
sue after the focus problem was resolved. Such a suggestion was not an uncommon
occurrence where the initial investigation prompted interest in more than one direc-
tion, but with collaboration a key concern, it seemed best to keep everyone focused
on the same problem. (The tension between “the one and the many” often cast a
shadow over the educational road to be taken.) Multiple investigations can make for
an appreciated resolution, when teachers think appropriate.
After writing out the complete divisor listings, some students realized that it was
not necessary to divide beyond a certain point. They saw that the factors of 360
included 18 and 20, and writing the divisors as pairs of factors made the process
shorter. That is, there was no reason to find any divisors after 20 as they would be
part of an earlier pair—for example, 25 would have been found when dividing by
16. The question of when they could stop looking for new divisors was answered
when they examined carefully the list of divisors with 400. It was clear that once
they had the divisor 20, the division resulted in 20 being the other factor, so then
further factors would just match an earlier pair. For 360, which did not have a whole
number square root, they came to see the last pair they would need to find would be
the whole number closest to the square root of 360. They were very eager to share
their finding with the entire class.
Meanwhile other students, apparently more visually inclined, saw that a 400g
circle meant a quarter-turn resulted in a 100g rotation. That is, a “right” angle would
be 100 not 90 were the circle to be partitioned into 400 parts. Some students saw
that as a real improvement over the initial “odd choice” (created of course from the
assumption of a 360° circle). So, if a right angle now has 100g, what were some im-
plications? For example, what would be the sum of the angles of a triangle? Some
students conjectured that since a 360° circle is associated with a 180° triangle, then,
since the forms are not changing, the “parallel” would be that a 400g circle would
be associated with a 200g triangle. The teacher shared that thinking was an instance
of argument by analogy, and that was an interesting topic for future investigation
as well.
They tried to push further to try to prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle
must be 200g. Not having seen the 180° triangle proof that begins and ends with the
masterly stroke of a line drawn through a vertex of the triangle parallel to an op-
posite side meant they were only able to consider special cases. For example, they
saw that with a right angle now 100g, a square would have 400g. And as a diagonal
divides the area of the square into two equal halves, that would include the angles
as well. So, for isosceles right triangles, the sum of the angles would be 200g. They
agreed that would be the case no matter how small or large the square was since
the angles would be the same. Whether they generalize to other triangles led some
students to work alone to see what they could discover/create.
Some realized that if a right angle was 100g, half would be 50g, a quarter angle
25 , and then get quite messy. But being able to create those angle measures by fold-
g

ing a right angle carefully in half and then in half again, they were able to construct
6.2 Would 400 Be Better Than 360? 69

a 75g angle as well. Then they drew other triangles where one of the angles was
50g and another was 75g. The question was if the other angle was 75g so that the
triangle would have a sum of 200g. They drew triangles with an angle of 125g and
an angle of 25g as well, and then determined if the remaining angle was 50g. Those
collaborations led to the conjecture that all triangles have a sum of 200g. It took a
moment to recall that it all depended on if there would be 400g in a circle. And a
conversation led to the appreciation that a handful of demonstrations do not make
for a completely convincing argument.
Other students made other connections. Some saw that if the sum of the angles
of a triangle was 200g, then an equilateral triangle would have really numerically
messy angle measures (200g/3 = 66 × 2/3g each). Here the question of whether 400
was really a better choice for a circle was raised again. Given that the triangle is
the building block of all figures with straight sides (as a convincing consequence
of drawing figures and generalizing), with the “perfect” triangle having such arith-
metically unpleasant angle measures, the role of aesthetics naturally arose. Com-
parison with the 180° equilateral triangle which has 60° angles naturally had much
more appeal.
The conjecture was also made that inasmuch as a triangle has 200g and a square
400g, then a 5-sided figure would have 600g, and “it keeps going.” Those groups
were asked to describe “it keeps going” in the language of mathematics. After a
while they were convinced that the sum of the angles would be “200g times the
number of sides ˗ 400g.” They were asked to see if they could make the statement
in mathematical symbols and simplify it, and they did. They enjoyed their success,
with their dedicated effort providing that emotionally satisfying moment.
Bringing individuals and groups back together made for a dynamic learning ex-
perience with a number of students and groups sharing what they found. Here the
teacher had students revisit all the high points, including the interesting relation-
ships, supporting evidence, helpful questions, and valuable habits of mind associ-
ated with the different journeys so that everyone gained a more informed education.
The realization that being able to prove something in general is not an easy matter
was seen as something that was true. (This suggested that a viable next topic for
the class would be “proving”—considering that what mathematics statements they
knew or could easily conjecture would serve as appropriate curriculum.)
With the further opportunity for pursuing their own investigations, some stu-
dents chose to look into the gradian as a unit of measure while others went to find
out more about analogies, and others pursued some of Laplace’s other claims. For
instance, they considered what Laplace’s 10-h day and 100-min h would do to our
time and daily schedules (make things “slower and faster!” and more complicated
and wearing!). Interestingly the conversation turned to uncover the question why
60 min had come to constitute an hour, and a Google investigation led to find base
60 established by the Babylonians and Mesopotamians. Compare and contrast as
valuable means for promoting learning was clearly in practice with students ap-
preciating that 60 was a basic unit of angular measure while a basic unit of linear
measure was 12. Some students appreciated learning about the invention of the
70 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

Table 6.1 In search of a relationship

n Prime factorization Divisors
12 2, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12
10 2, 5 1, 2, 5, 10
30 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 30

meter—that 10,000,000 of them laid end to end was the distance from the North
Pole along a meridian to the Equator through Paris! “Why do that?” (Time would
tell.) Further researching provided some wonderful stories from history, including
some competing explanations.
Others went back to seeing if there was a relationship between the prime factor-
ization of a number and its number of divisors. Make a table being a time-honored
problem-clarifying strategy led students to create the following (Table 6.1).
The first two cases led some students to immediately “see the rule!,” but the
third case meant they had to put their initial conjecture aside. (This gave the teacher
the opportunity to mention the well-practiced “hasty generalization” that needs to
be kept an eye on.) After further observation and reflection they came to the think-
ing that they did not see any pattern. They were then asked if they could make the
problem simpler. What would that mean became the focus. They agreed they would
choose numbers whose prime factorization could be written as a power of a single
number (see Table 6.2).
These cases suggested the number of divisors was “always one more than the
number of prime factors!” How could they know that relationship worked all the
time? Time for thinking and imaginative observation. Someone saw why and excit-
edly explained it to the group who, after thinking about it, agreed. Now their atten-
tion turned to working with numbers with “mixed prime factors.”
All involved appreciated the investigation—their own and each other’s efforts
and findings. They liked learning that the math facts from history included some
measures that were the result of social agreement, while other measures came about
from logical arguments that also required some basic agreements. Also of interest
was how aesthetics plays a role in mathematics, including what is involved in prov-
ing. Those students who had worked on trying to uncover the relationship between
the number of prime factors and the number of divisors did so, after a while of dedi-
cated effort, and their efforts were roundly appreciated. A report on analogies came
a few days later and also received wide appreciation.

Table 6.2 A more informative set

n Prime factorization Divisors
9 3, 3 1, 3, 9
27 3, 3, 3 1, 3, 9, 27
8 2, 2, 2 1, 2, 4, 8
16 2, 2, 2, 2 1, 2, 4, 8, 16
6.3 Mathematics of a Fountain Arc 71

6.3 Mathematics of a Fountain Arc

Looking at something in more than one way, as exemplified by analogies, meta-

phors, competing paradigms in science, and antagonists in literature and history,
naturally adds richness to our experience and in general serves to heighten one’s
thinking. The Fountain Arc investigation creates such an opportunity. The initial
discussion is provided by considering quadratic equations representing parabolic
curves and the heights reached as a function of time. The focus then turns to the par-
abolic curve that the common water fountain arc demonstrates, and the uncommon
considerations needed to describe it mathematically. If the investigation is given
full exploration it provides an engaging science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM) activity.
To help students understand the quadratic equation in the context of space and time,
taking things apart is really valuable. For example, consider y = −16t 2 + 40t + 3. Con-
sidering the terms separately uncovers that there is the upward velocity of 40 ft/s
for the projectile, which is initially at a height of 3 ft. off the ground that interacts
with the downward accelerating force of gravity near the Earth’s surface. If there
was no gravity the object would travel 40 ft for every second in the air and after
10 s be 403 ft. above the ground. But it would never reach that height, of course,
as gravity’s downward force results in the object’s time in the air to be less than 3 s
since 16t2 > 40t + 3, for t = 3.
A side conversation that seemed worth including early on was to ensure that all
students retained their familiarity with how to convert feet per second into miles per
hour. That would give them a renewed opportunity to practice solving proportions,
and since some of the high school audience already drove cars, and others were
soon to, it would also serve to help them better appreciate the very concrete but
abstract measure of “60 miles per hour” that many of them drove at. Finding that
60 miles per hour was actually equivalent to 88 ft/s not only allowed them to deter-
mine what 40 ft/s was in miles per hour, it also helped them realize that 60 miles per
hour is moving really fast—pretty close to the height of a 9-story building in 1 s,
or the length of a football field in little more than 3 s. Hopefully, they would gain
greater respect for driving at such speeds.
Moving the subject back to the quadratic equation by considering different gravi-
tational forces and other velocities as initial starting points (assisted by their graph-
ics calculators) helped students become more aware of their impact on the shape of
the parabolic arc. After students had gained a comfortable understanding, another
parabolic arc was presented, this time one made by the path of a water arc in a
fountain. Closer consideration made clear a different way of seeing the quadratic
equation was required. The focus problem came into view.
Now the angle at which the water left the surface must somehow be accounted
for, and the horizontal distance the water traveled so as to ensure that the water
came down inside the fountain. Here was the same visual representation of a para-
bolic arc, only this time with more to consider, a lot more. How to somehow include
72 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

these other parameters in the equation became the driving question. There seemed
to be too much to put into one equation!
There are many sites on the Internet where students can see fountain arcs, includ-
ing viewing them in motion. The variations are considerable and often dazzling.
They can find water jets that shoot straight up and rise over 300 m (more than the
height of a 90-story building), along with their initial velocities. Looking at the
spectacle, students found themselves wondering how much water is in the air at any
time; how long did the water that leaves the surface remain in the air, and a number
of other interesting mathematical questions to be pursed in time. These connections
promoted students seeing the problem as “real”—in their own terms—and so worth
their time and effort.
They broke up into interest groups all sharing the same concern: How to make
the problem simpler. They agreed the initial height could be set to 0 as the water arc
begins its journey from the surface of the water in the fountain. (If the water was to
come out of the mouth of a stone dolphin for example, that can be dealt with later.)
How to make it simpler? Asked to describe clearly what they were trying to do led
some to focus on the exit angle from the surface of the water and sketches that left
out the effects of gravity. Visualizing, they saw that if the water left the surface at
an angle A, then (tan A) x would be the height of the water x horizontal units from
where it began, were gravity not a factor. But of course it was a factor, so some
students established the equation y  16t 2  (tan A) x. They realized they had to
be able to express one of the variables in terms of the other. Time to think, make a
diagram, provide an example to make an idea concrete….
Making a drawing really helped. In this way, some students could see that the
right triangle used to represent tan A as y / x could have a hypotenuse represented
by vt (see Fig. 6.1) as that would be the distance traveled free of the effect of gravity.
x x
That meant cos A = , and solving for t in terms of x resulted in t = . This
vt v(cos A)
change of representation was very much appreciated.
Their general equation could then be represented as a function of one variable
x
with y =  16( ) 2  (tan A) x ! Students picked different values for the angle
v cos A
and the initial velocity, and graphed them on their calculators. Now there was the
opportunity to design fountain arcs with systems of equations and entertain and be
entertained by all sorts of interesting questions.
Meanwhile, other students also taken back by “all the variables” made the prob-
lem simpler by considering separately the horizontal component x in terms of t,
and the vertical component y also in terms of t. They did this by seeing that if the

Fig. 6.1 In search of an

understanding vt
y

A x
6.3 Mathematics of a Fountain Arc 73

Fig. 6.2 Simplifying the

YW
complexity YW VLQ'

' YW FRV'

hypotenuse is vt, then the horizontal component, x, as a function of time, could be

represented by x = vt (cos D), and the vertical component y = vt (sin D) (see Fig. 6.2).
But gravity naturally affected the height, so the equations they came up with were
2
x = (v cos D)t , and y  16t + (v sin D)t . (The situation naturally prompted a short
discussion of “parametric” equations.)
Now these students could pick initial values for the angle of the water as well the
velocity at which it would leave the surface of the water’s edge and determine the
height and horizontal distance traveled. At this time, there was enough understand-
ing to create fountain designs containing a number of water arcs. Some students
considered how to make two arcs with different velocities reach the same height
as a function of different exit angles. Others got involved in determining an equa-
tion where the horizontal distance traveled equaled the maximum height. Twice the
maximum height. (They were playing with the equations in lieu of playing in the
water and having a really good time.)
Students who came up with the height as a function of horizontal distance real-
ized they could not use that formula to create water jets as the 90° angle was re-
quired and tan (90°) is undefined. Others who had found that y = −16t 2 + (v sin D)t
could. They saw that when the measure of angle D = 90°, then, y = − 16t 2 + vt . Re-
flecting on that equation, students appreciated what it said: distance up = vt affected
by gravity down, −16t 2. Plausible indeed. This gave them greater confidence in
their equations.
In addition to creating a variety of quadratic equations to represent water arcs
and water jets (the latter are known as “degenerate parabolas”), lots of other ques-
tions were played out. Students created their own designs with water arcs and jets
at a variety of angles and velocities reaching different heights. Some of the math-
ematically ambitious students accounted for a horizontal and vertical shift in their
equations, corresponding to where they wanted their fountain arcs to begin in the
fountains they designed.
With the focus problem resolved, because of the heightened (sic) interest there
were multiple centers for further investigation. Some students interested in engi-
neering read up about pipe size and power requirements (e.g., at www.tryengineer-
ing.org/lessons/waterfountain.pdf); others made laminar nozzles after seeing them
on YouTube.com, where water turbulence is so reduced the water leaving the nozzle
appears as made of glass! Some students examining water jets determined how long
the water would be in the air as a function of height (t = 0.5 h ). Others determined
2v2 (sin A)(cos A)
the maximum horizontal distance for any angle A as . Then they
32
found the maximum distance for any velocity would occur when A = 45° (this find-
74 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

ing came about from a number of directions, including experimenting, intuiting, and
using the double angle formula for the sine).
More opportunities were explored and shared as well. Determining the equation
for the water arc at one of the school fountains required careful measurements, of
course, given the scale. And finding the angle of the water from the faucet was an-
2h
other challenge, resulting in the angle formula A = tan −1 ( ). Other students with
x
special capacities in drawing helped other students design fountains; while others
interested in history researched fountain designs and uses. Because of the multiple
considerations, when presentations were made, everyone had something to offer
that was appreciated. (What is also to be appreciated is that a good number of the
considerations listed on the coding sheet for promoting students’ thinking were
alive and well applied in this investigation.) With their mathematical understand-
ing, they were even more attentive to fountain designs they found on the Internet.

6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve

The last multiple-centers investigation involves students engaging the physi-

cal world, but more as a thought experiment. It provides another opportunity for
students to appreciate coming at a mathematics problem from a number of dif-
ferent perspectives and to engage questions and propose solutions based on what
is thought to be convincing evidence and ultimately make a decision if what is
proposed is plausible. Going at this problem from a relatively naïve perspective
(without recourse to calculus) made for a rich investigation.
The problem is raised by presenting data provided in geographic tables, such
as with lakes or states. There we usually find the given dimensions of maximum
width, maximum length, and area. A number of students expressed that they always
wondered how an irregular form, like a lake or a state, had its area of square miles
determined. Drawing a simple closed irregular curve on the board and embedding
it in a rectangle (Fig. 6.3) made clear that the data given was not self-explanatory.
That there should be a way to approximate the area of a simple closed curve, such as
the shape of a lake or a town, with a better fitting rectangle created the opportunity
for another multiple-centers investigation.
To gain a better approximation some students created right triangles in the cor-
ners of the rectangle whose areas they subtracted from the area of the rectangle. The

Fig. 6.3 Bounding a simple

closed curve
6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve 75

Fig. 6.4 Partitioning the

simple closed curve

question arose how successful would that approach be with “really different” corner
regions of the closed curve. Another group divided the region by drawing vertical
and horizontal segments within the figure with the underlying goal of counting eas-
ily determined areas of square units (see Fig. 6.4). Naturally, there were irregular
regions that remained to be accounted for here as well. Working carefully, these
students came up with approximations they thought were good. Having both groups
revisit the focus problem led to the realization that their approaches were at some-
what of a distance from the search for an “approximating” rectangle. However, their
effort was not wasted—their estimate of the area would serve as a test of their final
approximation formula. (It seemed fair to assume they better appreciated the notion
of listening carefully.)
The search to make the problem simpler triggered the thought for some students
to find an average, a representative value, amidst the otherwise random collection
of lengths and widths. The decision of how many vertical and horizontal segments
to draw was the result of their agreeing on what “looked right.” Now they took a
guess: The rectangle with average height and average length would provide a good
approximation. A number of students thought that was a promising idea. Some stu-
dents went off to work with scale drawings, others to consider a form whose area
they could determine and use to test whether their conjecture of average height ×
average width yielded a good approximation. A trapezoid came to the minds of
some students, while a circle did to others as the latter more closely represented the
curvilinear shape of the region in question. All group efforts were directed at deter-
mining if the conjecture was plausible, and if they could establish a proof.
***
Students who had decided to use a circle realized that as it has axial symmetry
there was no need to make a distinction between length and width, which meant
determining an average length or width would serve as the average value in both
dimensions. (Some students were concerned about using a form where both values
were equal. They would need to decide whether to seek another approach or see
what happens with their initial “special case.”)
A radius of 8 cm and vertical chords 2 cm apart were chosen. Then, after drawing
seven vertical segments, represented by the six chords and the diameter (Fig. 6.5),
they agreed that measuring by hand was too inaccurate.
Others in the group realized they could use the Pythagorean relationship to de-
termine the lengths of the chords exactly! A series of right triangles was created
in a semicircle with the diameter, the hypotenuse, and the right angle formed on
the circumference, as an angle on a semicircle would be a right angle if the chords
creating the angle went to the opposite edges of the diameter. The perpendiculars
76 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

Fig. 6.5 Partitioning the

circular region

    FP

Fig. 6.6 A means for mea-

suring chord lengths

4 12

drawn to the hypotenuse created similar triangles (Fig. 6.6). With the hypotenuse
length 16 cm and the horizontal segments of lengths 6, 4, and 2 cm from the center
vertical segment toward the edge of the circle, they determined the vertical lengths
of the altitudes drawn to the hypotenuse of the three right triangles to be exactly
60, 48, and 28 cm. To find the total length they saw that the chords represented
by the vertical segments were twice as long plus the length of the diameter of 16 cm.
The average of the sum of these seven segments
(2 60  2 48  2 28  16  2 60  2 48  2 28 ) / 7  13.69 cm served as both the
average length and average width of an “approximating” rectangle. This finding
yielded an area of 187.49 cm2. The question was how good an approximation it
was in comparison with the area of the circle, which was π(8)2 ≈ 201.06 cm2. Was
187.49 cm2 close enough to 201.06 so that the conjecture would be kept? The rela-
tive error was (201.06 − 187.49)/201.06 = 0.07. Here students appreciated that to
determine “how close is close enough?” drew upon their intuition—an informed
judgement that included their feelings. More segments to create a better approxima-
tion seemed called for. They wanted to feel more convinced.
With the radius still 8 cm, instead of seven chords, they considered 15
chords by dividing the horizontal axis into 1 cm segments instead of two.
Now the sum of the vertical segments including the diameter could be deter-
mined, accounting for the entire segments on both sides of the diameter as:
6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve 77

Fig. 6.7 Another variation on A 4 cm

making the problem simpler
2 cm

D 8 cm C

4( 63  60  55  48  39  28  15 )  16  197.75 cm. Since there were 15

measurements, the average height was approximately 13.18 cm, and so the area
of the “approximating” rectangle yielded 173.80 cm2. The relative error here was
(201.06 − 173.80)/201.06 = 0.14! This value was twice the earlier error measure. It
seemed the more data the more reason to claim the choice of the averaging rectangle
was not a good fit. The conjecture was rejected. Time to regroup.
Those students who chose to use a trapezoid considered an isosceles trapezoid,
making the problem even simpler for it made for fewer calculations. Some won-
dered if it was so specialized that it might not generate a finding that could be ap-
plied to irregular closed curves; others argued that it would, based on their airtight
argument that “an area was an area.” But all agreed if the approximation formula
was not good in the simpler case, there would not be any reason to think it would
work with a more irregular form.
Considering the isosceles trapezoid, ABCD (Fig. 6.7), where the top base is
4 cm, the bottom base is 8 cm, and the height is 2 cm, yielded an area of 1/2(2)
(4 + 8) = 12 cm2. Now they knew what the area was exactly.
To get an average height, they drew vertical segments 1 cm apart such that the
sum of the seven vertical segments (1 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1) was found as 12 cm; the
average height = 12/7 cm. Some students intuitively thought that the average width
would be 6 cm, the average of the two bases of 4 and 8 cm. Assuming the average
width was 6 cm, the average width times the average height yielded the area of
12 2
the “approximating” rectangle as (6)  10 cm 2 , which yielded a relative er-
7 7
ror of 0.14. Was that enough to reject the approximation formula? They agreed it
was worth creating more vertical segments to get a better approximation. However,
some students focused on how well the average height represented the set of vertical
segments drawn to the bases. They saw that the average height could not be 2 cm
no matter how many segments were chosen—all the vertical segments outside the
inner rectangle of the trapezoid would be less than 2 cm! So they now believed more
deeply that the initial conjecture could not be true. The students had come up with
what they thought was definitely a counterexample. Now their problem was to try
and come up with some alternative given the apparent dead end.
Students who had decided to work with scale drawings, unknowingly following
the advice of Archimedes that careful drawings are very informative, also saw that
the average height × average width generated an approximation that was too small.
All agreed: A different direction was needed.
***
78 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

Was all the work for naught? Clearly not. Much had been learned. Should the teach-
er have told the students earlier that the conjecture would not hold up? Hopefully
not. Part of becoming a thoughtful and capable thinker is being able to withstand
setbacks and have the resilience to bounce back from disappointments of misdi-
rection. (Apply the discussion regarding the value of learning from failures here.)
Inasmuch as life tends to present all of us with considerable “opportunities” for
problem-solving, if students do not develop their capacity for resilience and persis-
tence from their school mathematics problem-solving experiences, but actually the
opposite, a great disservice will have been done to them and to society. For these
students could well “enter” the larger world having developed an aversion to work-
ing on problems that are complicated and all that implies. Clearly, that is not in their
or our best interests.
Besides, it is to be appreciated that there is learning when conjectures are found
to not work. As noted earlier, students have added to their knowledge by eliminat-
ing some approach that seemed reasonable but was not. Here students can appreci-
ate that an idea is at bottom a tool for decision-making—and when dealing with
complex situations, we often discover that we need a different tool for the job than
initially anticipated. That is to say, the reality of problem-solving experiences of
coming up with models that do not work is to naturally be expected when engaging
complex situations. If students are going to develop the mental flexibility to rethink
their mathematics effort, which is essential when working on complicated prob-
lems, they need opportunities to have such experiences in mathematics class, and it
needs to be appreciated rather than just taking from the experience that they were
wrong. That is, that time is not “wasted.” It is a critical part of their real education,
which is informed by learning from one’s mistakes in judgment as well as practice.
***
How to regroup and create further collaborative energy and focus needed to be
thought through. New hypotheses were needed. Perhaps the best rectangle approxi-
mation was one found by finding three-quarters of the average length and average
width. That did not “feel right.” Was there anything they could learn from the for-
mula for the trapezoid became the focus for some students. The standard formula
h
of (b1 + b2 ) —was saying 1 the maximum height times the sum of the bases was
2 2
the area. How did that relate to the area formula being sought? It did not. But with
(b + b )
a change of representation the area formula could be re-presented as h 1 2 ,
2
which “spoke” to them: The maximum height × average width would be the “ap-
proximating” rectangle formula! That this should be the best approximation to the
curved form became their hypothesis. But, only if the average of the two bases actu-
ally did represent the average of all the widths. They became involved in trying to
determine whether that was the case. That consideration was surely at the heart of
their investigation. (The notion of a “lemma” was introduced.)
Those students who had come to think that the successful approximating rectan-
gle was found by finding the average height and the maximum width of the closed
shape wanted to share their findings. Some student looked at a triangle and realized
that the formula 1/2 b × h was really a statement of average width (of the 0 length
6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve 79

Fig. 6.8 Gaining a visual

understanding

\
D E

at the top and the base length, b) and the maximum height, h. Though here too they
realized that the assumption that the average of the “bases” needed more fleshing
out why it “had to be.”
Students who had been working with the circle had a curved region to test the
hypothesis on. They multiplied the maximum width—the diameter’s length of
16 cm—by the average length, 13.69 cm (with seven chord partitions), and 13.18 cm
(with 15 chords), and found increasingly better area approximations of 219.04 and
210.88 cm2 (with decreasing relative errors of 0.09 and 0.05)! They were eager to
share their supporting evidence. Those who were using the trapezoid were also
excited, as their “approximation” was exactly the area of their trapezoid. But the
assumption of how to determine the average width needed more corroboration.
In calculus, students may learn that the average value of a function, y , is equal to
the area under the curve divided by the maximum width (Fig. 6.8). With the subject
of the formula being the area under the curve, it is seen to equal the product of the
average height, y , and the maximum width—what the students had determined.
Sharing this conclusion with the students was well appreciated given their dedicated
efforts to uncovering it!
***
What deserved recognition was that the students did not just dismiss the initial con-
jecture after the first set of calculations, but sought further evidence for a stronger
argument before being willing to accept or reject their conjecture. That is a mark—a
high mark—of thoughtful engagement. That demonstration represents not only facts
and techniques they tried and learned, but the commitment they made—ideas they
tried, and the persistence and flexibility they brought to working with the complex
situation. The solution finally arrived at came from a number of directions including
careful drawing. It was the result of an extended dedicated, thoughtful, and collab-
orative effort that would seem to be what an educational experience is at its best.
Here are the investigations that followed:
1. Coming up with an argument that for any trapezoid (or triangle) the average of
the bases is equal to the average of any number of horizontal segments drawn
parallel to the given bases and at equal distances from each other had many
students’ attention. Drawing a set of parallel segments equidistant from each
other and the bases along with dropping perpendiculars from the end points of
the shorter base to the larger base provides the means to argue there is indeed
an arithmetic sequence. With this argument, the claim that the average of all the
segment lengths is equal to the average of the first and last segment (the bases)
can be made. See Fig. 6.9.
80 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

D E

D E

D E

Q± D N Q± E


6 NN DE N DE N Q±  DE

Q NN Q±  DE

6


6 NN Q±  DE

Q 

Fig. 6.9 Solving the needed argument

2. Some students who enjoyed geography used their approximating rectangle and
the data of maximum dimensions of length and width and total area provided by
Google to determine what the associated average widths and lengths would have
to be.
3. A Google search to find out how areas of irregular closed forms are determined
led some students to reading about a planimeter, though with no firm conclusions
secured.
4. Students who worked on the circle approximations wanted to use the new
“approximating” rectangle of maximum width × average length for any circle
with radius r. The maximum width of a chord was of course the diameter. Since
the area of the unit circle was π, it naturally followed that the average length
π
of a chord was 2 , which was aesthetically pleasing. However, research on the
Internet found the average length of a chord in a unit circle was found to be both
π 4
and ! What is going on here? Is the second response really a typo that was
2 π
to represent the length of a chord in a semicircle? As it turns out, the two answers
are arrived at depending on how the chords are chosen. If the perpendicular
chord is drawn through a point on the diameter, the average value formula yields
π
the familiar value of 2 ; but if the point is chosen on the circumference and the
chord is drawn perpendicular to the diameter, the average value of the chord is
the unfamiliar measure (cf. http://ocw.mit.edu). That there was a distinction was
6.4 Approximating the Area of a Simple Closed Curve 81

truly counter-intuitive to say the least! An understanding would come with their
formal study of calculus.
5. Some students wanted to use a variation of the new formula to determine the
density of the human body by dividing their weight by their volume since they
could use average width × maximum height—until they realized three dimen-
sions were needed! A new question surfaced: Would the approximation be best if
the third dimension was taken as an average or a maximum value, or something
in between?
6. To test the new formula in another context the teacher offered that some students
consider the enclosed region created by the intersection of y = x and y = x2, from
x = 0 to 1. How could they apply what they learned? Careful observation pro-
vided the maximum height—the maximum difference between the curves. This
was corroborated by using calculators and finding the greatest value of y = x − x2
by letting x take on values from 0 to 1 by increments of 0.10. Now the question
of average width needed to be considered. A direct way of finding that would be
to take the end points of the region created by the lines y = 0 to 1, with increments
of 0.10. For example, the left bound at y = 0.3 falls on the line y = x, and so the
left-most point is (0.3, 0.3). The right-most point when y = 0.3 falls on the curve
y = x2 at (0.55, 0.3). This allows the width to be determined as 0.25 when y = 0.3.
With this procedure repeated for y = 0.1 up to 0.9, there are now a set of widths
from which the average width could be determined. Students were interested
in seeing that as the number of widths increased, the closer the rectangle’s area
approached 1/6. They were delighted to be told that was exactly the area between
the curves determined by calculus.
Others realized that the area of the region under the line y = x from 0 to 1 to the
x-axis could be determined as that of a right triangle. Then they could determine
what the area under the curve y = x2 from 0 to 1 would have to be.
***
Multiple-centers investigations surely take more time than textbook presentations.
However, if we believe society would prosper from students’ intellectual, social,
and psychological development, it would seem the experiential gains would be well
worth the cost in time. In looking for potential focus problems, history and art can
be of service especially for younger students. For example, history provides stories
involving the creation of units of measure, the rationales for their invention, and the
opportunity for comparative judgements. Why did the metric system not catch on
in the USA given it is used all over the world? Why there would be such a unit of
measure of a mile takes us to Rome, and their army, where a mile is associated with
a mille, from the Latin, representing 1000. Art and design and architecture also draw
(!) upon measures, such as ratios, with the golden rectangle, the rise to run of a step
or the pitch of a roof, Le Corbusier’s unit of measure, a figure on a screen seeming
to walk into the distance, etc. Their connection to students’ aesthetics, including
the most visually pleasing ratio for a rectangle determined by a random sample of
students, choice of the most functional step ratio requiring building materials and
the question of cost affecting such decisions, etc.
82 6 Collaborative Mathematics Investigations

References

Ball, D. L. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and de-
velopment program in mathematics education. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation monograph.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning
science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension and collaboration: Inquiry circles in collabora-
tion. Portland: Heinemann.
Ratner, J. (Ed.). (1939). Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy. New York:
A Modern Library Giant.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael: The Autodesk
Foundation.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed).
Alexandria: ASCD.
 Part III
Promoting Mathematics Students’
Psychological Development

The students are alive, and the purpose of education

is to promote and guide their self-development.
Alfred North Whitehead

Introduction
Alfred North Whitehead was a mathematician and philosopher who had a deep
interest in education. The quotation that introduces this section is from his Aims of
Education. Students having the chance to share their thinking and ask questions in
valuable interchange that promotes their development as thoughtful capable indi-
viduals Whitehead understood as what is at bottom of a real education.
To see a mathematics classroom where students are expressing their desire to un-
derstand by the questions they ask, offering conjectures, listening to other students’
ideas, testing their arguments, stepping back to rethink the situation when some-
thing important is not clear, and then working alone and in groups and discussing
their thinking…. What an exciting educational experience to see, especially if you
are the mathematics teacher!
What if it is otherwise? What if the students are not comfortable with not know-
ing? What if they do not think carefully? What if they are fearful of offering their
perspective? What if they just blurt out answers without thinking? What if they
have a hard time focusing? What if their feelings are hurt when their ideas do not
hold up? What if they continue to demonstrate counter-productive behaviors? What
then?
Creating a learning environment that supports the cognitive, social, and psy-
chological development of all the students in the class is a challenge indeed. What
makes it especially complex is that they are not distinct domains. While students’
insightful thinking makes breakthroughs, it is their emotional state that either pro-
motes or limits the energy they bring to their learning experience. Their thinking, as
our own, is surely impacted by whether they can be patient when dealing with per-
plexing issues or are inclined to make an impulsive decision to end the stress they
feel. Being confident, they tend to find themselves able to take things on, including
comments that challenge their ideas, and stay with the confusion longer; being in-
secure, they could be overwhelmed by almost anything they are asked to do, even a
question that asks them to explain their thinking.
84 Part III Promoting Mathematics Students’ Psychological Development

That is why the second part of Whitehead’s sentence, “the purpose of educa-
tion is to promote and guide their self-development,” deserves attention. If students
do not have a realistic confidence to draw upon in their mathematics classroom
experience, there is little reason to believe they have the resilience, patience, and
flexibility to focus so as to be effective mathematical thinkers. That is why teaching
“struggling” mathematics students is a challenge. They lack much of any belief in
their own capacities, and so have little energy to give to trying to affect the situation
for the better. But not to make a sustained effort to help them transform that lack of
agency into a positive force means their mathematics education could well be one
they would want not to remember. Not only was it a waste of their time (spelled
l-i-f-e) but the time spent only served to inform them of how incapable they were.
Clearly, no one wants such an “education.”
The authors of both the revised and the “new” taxonomy of educational ob-
jectives (Anderson et al. 2001; Marzano and Kendall 2007) well understand how
intimately emotions are linked to thinking. This is corroborated by research (cf. de
Sousa 1987) which finds that our reasoning is actually constructed to support and
justify our feelings. Indeed, “Knowledge is a small cup of water floating in a sea of
emotions” (Dewey quoted in Fishman and McCarthy 1998, p. 21).
This seems so much the case: it seems so much easier to listen to someone saying
what we believe than what we do not; easier to see what we believe than not; easier
to accept a statement said by a friend than a stranger, etc. Experience, regardless
of whether it is outside of school or in the classroom, makes evident how truly im-
portant it is at times to deal with one’s emotional state. Lack of comfortable control
can well make impossible the opportunity to focus and think productively, and as a
consequence, the outcome tends to be one of making poor decisions. Unfortunately,
for many students in mathematics classes, this is exactly their ongoing experience.
The first chapter in this section takes as its focus how we can provide a psy-
chologically supportive mathematics experience for all students, and shares some
research findings in that regard. The companion chapter considers ways in which
students can develop, with their mathematics teacher’s assistance, their more ca-
pable selves as a consequence of acting on their personal curriculum. Inasmuch as
the decisions mathematics teachers make establish the emotional climate, that is
where we will start.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing—A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
De Sousa, R. (1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fishman, S. M., & McCarthy, L. (1998). John Dewey and the challenge of classroom practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd edn.).
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Chapter 7
Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

If all students are to come to the “belief in the value of diligence and in one’s own
efficacy” (Ball 2003, p. 9), they need a classroom environment that helps them se-
cure positive control over their actions and their emotions. Otherwise, there is little,
if any, reason to think the mathematics classroom would be a satisfying place for
them to be. Students who often have a hard time could well blame their mathematics
teacher or the textbook as the source of the problem, or they may justify their not
knowing by claiming/believing they are “one of those who can’t get math.” Leaving
those students to always return to that disturbing emotional state and self-defeating
belief when faced with the next mathematics problem would seem to ensure they
will continue to have a poor mathematics experience and naturally think poorly of
whatever and whoever was directly involved, perhaps including themselves. How
we can help them negotiate the tension in a constructive manner is essential, for the
confusion is indeed a veritable storm for some students in mathematics, making
their gaining any sure footing impossible.
For those students, it does not seem that an emotional pep talk is going to change
that reality. It is not enough to make their expectations positive in the absence of
any real assistance that literally serves to deal with the difficulties. In the absence of
having a personal sense of agency as gained from having a language for productive
inquiry and a problem-clarifying strategy focus, struggling students are often left
to develop confidence based on “procedure-based understanding rather than deep
conceptual understanding,” which results in advances limited to further low-level
mathematics courses (Buckley 2010, p. 1). Namely, such practice is “a bridge to
nowhere.”
Students who have had to struggle with mathematics tend to lack the capacity to
focus on mathematics as their emotional selves tend to focus on their lacking that
very capacity. Mostly, any new problem can promote their having discomforting
feelings once again as “What to do?” is often met with frozen silence and/or frantic
considerations. Without additional commitment to enable all students to develop
a realistic sense of themselves as being capable, mathematics educators and text-
books will likely continue to present and have students practice procedures to solve
classes of problems in a misguided effort to claim those students learned mathemat-

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 85

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_7
86 7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

ics and had a comfortable experience. As discussed, this approach is of limited

value and application, a short-term solution with a questionable consequence.
Yet, some students may well appreciate that approach. For the teacher, demon-
strating procedures has in effect turned a problematic conceptual problem into a
simple mechanical one, which is naturally seen by some students as good as it elimi-
nates the need for thinking and, most significantly, the accompanying discomforting
emotional experience. However, there does not seem to be any reason to think such
a surface mathematics education will have any long-term positive effects other than
perhaps some warm feelings held by some students toward some teachers. As the
new Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Common Core State Standards (CCSS) re-
port, the coming exams are given to evaluate students’ mathematical understanding,
not the capacity to demonstrate standard procedures.
Without emotional resilience, little is possible. Yet, the disturbance some stu-
dents experience when dealing with mathematics begins much earlier than high
school or when preparing for the SAT or American College Testing (ACT). We need
to appreciate that students’ negative feelings associated with school mathematics
have been found with 5-year-olds and extends to perhaps half the students who
study mathematics (Boaler 2012). Sian Beilock, a University of Chicago researcher,
found as Jo Boaler that anxiety begins as early as first- and second-grade mathemat-
ics—and she found it affecting negatively about half of the high-achieving first and
second graders (“Study: Math anxiety starts young”, September 12, 2012, www.upi.
com/Science_News, italics added).
These are disturbing findings both because of the emotional discomfort those
students experience and because mathematics is an area of study acknowledged to
be essential for functioning effectively in a technological society. What also needs
to be appreciated is that “math anxiety is only weakly related to overall intelligence.
Moreover, the small correlation between math anxiety and intelligence is probably
inflated because IQ tests include quantitative items on which individuals with math
anxiety perform more poorly than those without math anxiety” (Ashcraft 2002,
p. 182; italics added).
Efforts to shed light on students’ mathematics anxiety have been and continue to
be very much the subject of educational research, for it is so pervasive. Indeed, it
is the only school subject associated with a phobic reaction. Recent findings point
to a genetic link, to a general anxiety that goes beyond a particular aversion to
mathematics, that accounts for a portion of it. Yet, that research concludes that envi-
ronmental factors play the greater role (“Math Anxiety is Linked to Genetics, Study
Finds”; Curriculum Matters, blogs.edweek/curriculum/2014/04/study_math_anxi-
ety_linked_to_g.html). In that direction, it has been found “that the more anxious
their female teachers were about math, the more likely girls—but not boys—were to
endorse gender-related stereotypes about math ability. In turn, the girls who echoed
those stereotypical beliefs were performing less well than other students in math by
year’s end” (Sparks 2011).
We can compare that experience of not knowing and promoting tension with
observing a realistically confident student engaging a challenging mathematics
problem. Having a sense of “one’s own efficacy,” it is a positive stress that prompts
7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom 87

further dedicated effort. But when a struggling student engages a mathematics prob-
lem, there is rarely any positive energy to draw upon, and the student soon abandons
the effort having provided themselves some reason(s) why doing so was the right
thing to do. Unfortunately, the felt disturbance of stressed students tends to promote
a self-fulfilling resolution because of the physiological consequences. The growing
body of research regarding how math stress literally affects the participant’s brain
in dealing with the disturbing situation makes evident why the behavior is what it is
(Young et al. 2012; Beilock et al. 2010).
Researchers at the Numerical Cognition Laboratory in Ontario observed that
“it’s very much as though individuals with math anxiety use up the brainpower they
need for the problem” (Sparks 2011). In effect, the working memory that would
have otherwise been given to the problem is short-circuited by worrying about not
being able to be successful with the problem! More completely, “neural circuits
responsible for conscious self-control are highly vulnerable to even mild stress.
When they shut down, primal impulses go unchecked and mental paralysis sets in”
(Arnsten et al. 2012, p. 48).
Communication between people can be a complicated affair. In the mathemat-
ics classroom, it is likely even denser. There, “What a participant says…contains
information about his understanding of the topic, his interpretation of the situation,
his expectations of what the others might know, as well as his present emotional
concerns” (Bauersfeld 1980, p. 34). However, students who are not comfortable
with their own ability are not inclined to share their thinking or lack thereof. More
fundamentally, to help them participate constructively in the classroom conversa-
tion—just to the point of trying to keep their focus—requires enabling them to have
positive conversations with themselves. This is essential. Otherwise, their thoughts
will likely continue to be given to habitual feelings of insecurity, mental escape,
and failure.
We need to make classroom space secure enough and classroom conversations
open enough to promote students’ internal conversations regarding what they can
do to think more effectively. In effect, help them develop different habits, produc-
tive habits with regard to how they deal with mathematics and how they deal with
their emotions. Surely, it makes sense that students’ “academic self-concept” is
clearly established in the research as an essential element with respect to learning
(Felson 1984; Marsh 1991).
In an earlier chapter, productive habits were partitioned into those that are valu-
able with regard to specific behaviors and those that are valuable more generally.
Both are essential to gaining a disciplined freedom to engage problem situations in
the mathematics classroom and in life. Practices such as listening carefully, having
patience when working on challenging issues or problems, having resilience when
an approach fails, being flexible, not wearing ourselves out with negative thinking,
having the capacity to organize our thoughts, etc., are practices that we as math-
ematics educators and adults appreciate as actually essential habits and dispositions
we all would want. So, it seems such considerations should be part of the mathemat-
ics classroom conversation if we are to affect change for the better, for it is exactly
those practices that would be absent from the behaviors of mathematics students
who tend to be stressed.
88 7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

Students who feel insecure when presented with a mathematics problem that
does not fit a mold they have practiced can find themselves immediately stating
they cannot do it after just looking at the problem. That allows them to immediately
exit their disturbing state. Or they could claim the answer is whatever comes into
their frantic minds as a ready means to end the disturbance as soon as possible by
finding momentary security in some haphazard claim. Or they could act out and
express their disturbance so as to disrupt the class. Should we hope they grow out of
such problematic, self-defeating practices? Should we penalize them?
Unfortunately, those students discomforted by their lack of a sense of efficacy
could well feel compelled to various problematic short-term coping strategies that
will alleviate their disturbance. That includes disrupting the class, which is an overt
statement of disturbance that serves for the moment to relieve their personal stress
by providing a way for “getting back” at the system. For another life-diminishing
behavior, students who continually forget to bring pencils or notebooks to math-
ematics class have realized that a problem-solving strategy arrived at consciously or
unconsciously eliminates the stress that using a pencil and book tend to promote. It
also seems to be the case that the most stressed students tend to finish exams quick-
ly, so they can leave as soon as possible. In this way, problematic behaviors become
habituated as these students’ internal conversations focus on the discomfort and
disturbance their mathematics experience promotes. Some students develop phobic
reactions and others may “solve the problem” by quitting school. This emotionally
complicated and disturbing journey needs mathematics educators’ and the school’s
attention. In the absence of their changing the self-defeating conversations they
have with themselves, little good can be expected. Otherwise, there is no reason
things will get better for a good number of students.
This is to say, the line between helping students’ personal development and cog-
nitive development cannot be seen as a border that cannot be crossed. Our emo-
tions inform our thinking, and our thinking informs our emotions, as we know. It
is an intricate engagement, and our assistance as mathematics educators could well
make the difference between a student coming to think of themselves realistically
as a more capable mathematics student and person or not. Having that perspective,
hopefully, the productive habits of mind associated with mathematics and those that
are generic to every learning situation would be discussed as content. Their pres-
ence as their absence plays a fundamental role in shaping the external and internal
learning environments for the better or worse. Most importantly, students need to
understand and appreciate that they cannot help what they think—stuff comes into
their minds. What they can do is think about what they thought, and decide what
they think about it, with the goal of acting to make a situation better. With that being
the case, they and society naturally progress. But, of course, this is really difficult
for students whose mathematics experience usually promotes stress and discomfort.
For little can be expected in the way of effective thinking in the absence of
students having a “productive disposition.” It underlies what is recognized as fun-
damental to “competent learning” as it “depend[s] on the way in which people
approach, think about, and work with mathematical tools and ideas” (Ball 2003,
p. 32). More explicitly, “…this focus…calls attention to aspects of mathematical
7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom 89

proficiency that are often left implicit in instruction, going beyond knowledge and
skills to include the habits, tools, dispositions, and routines that support competent
mathematical activity” (Ball 2003, p. 11). Clearly, these aspects need to become
more explicit, made subject for discussion. For a problem-solving approach (in-
cluding avoidance) is intimately shaped (including distorted) by the individual’s
psychological disposition and their emotional sense of the challenging experience.
It is the disquieting foundation upon which their behavior follows.
***
Surely, experienced mathematics educators do not need research findings to know
that not intervening to help students with their learning difficulties will likely result
in more problematic moments. It is especially clear how powerful our emotions are
in affecting our thought and action and how difficult it is to change any habits, in-
cluding those not in our own best interests. Yet, Sian Beilock’s research has led her
to think that “essentially, overcoming math anxiety appears to be less about what you
know and more about convincing yourself to just buckle down and get to it” (“Ways
to ease math anxiety studied”, October 20, 2011, www.upi.com/Science_News).
What would help them “buckle down”? It would likely require considerable dis-
cipline and positive internal conversations. Perhaps developing “mindful practices”
would help (cf. “Mindful Exercises Improve Kids’ Math Scores”, Mandy Oak-
lander, January 26, 2015, Time.com/3682311/mindfulness-math/). Many anxious
students do try to “buckle down,” but when they sit for an exam, stress often floods
their thinking. What experience has proven helpful in that tension-filled “moment”
is for them to talk to themselves constructively—to remind themselves that they
have been doing the homework and classwork, taking notes, and asking questions
in class. Indeed, they would best have that talk before the exam, and perhaps more
than once. Focusing on what they have done that are the right things to do tends to
lessen their anxiety. Their consciously reflecting on the concrete evidence of their
positive effort in effect provides emotional support that can respond directly to the
voice in their heads telling them “I can’t do it.” So, it is essential they are doing what
they tell themselves as it is exactly the evidence needed to overcome that depressing
thinking they experience when taking exams.
There is also research to support the positive effects of students reflecting at the
end of class on what has been accomplished. Post-lesson reflection has been found
to lead to “a stronger feeling of self-efficacy, which in turn leads to improved per-
formance” (“Post-Lesson Reflection Boosts Learning”, Ellen Wexler, June 6 2014,
Education Week blog). This suggests that with the last few minutes of class given
to such an activity, students who have little confidence in what they have come to
know can actually see how substantial their learning has been. Making that practice
a habit could have an enduring positive effect. It could well be valuable during that
time to have students check off the big ideas in their notes and take a moment to
ask themselves if they really know what those big ideas are about. It is especially
helpful that they have an example or two that represent the big idea in action. Such
reflective practices would likely make for valuable learning habits. And, of course,
there are other environmental effects that can be promoted to help students be more
mathematically able.
90 7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

While there is research that points to girls being less successful in mathemat-
ics, research also suggests that in a “learning environment where students learned
math through collaboration, working together to solve complex, multi-dimension-
al, open-ended problems, boys and girls performed equally well. Both boys and
girls scored at higher levels than the students who had learned math traditionally”
(“Expert: Change math classroom, not girls”, April 9, 2012, www.upi.com/Health_
News). That would suggest in mathematics classrooms where there are primarily
whole-group discussions, it is important to be alert to whether there is a tacit, if not
explicit, competition for who answers first. The emotional strain that puts on some
students, especially females, makes their participation suffer, whereas working in
groups tends to eliminate that heightened problematic competition.
Another classroom practice that has promoted more productive thinking is “wait
time,” a teaching technique associated with Mary Budd Rowe’s 1974 study. She
found that when teachers allowed students 3 s rather than the usual 1 s to answer
a question, their thinking changed profoundly. So, it is easy to appreciate Dewey’s
observation that “The holding metaphorically, of a stop watch over students in a
test or in class, exacting prompt and speedy response from them, is not conducive
to building up a reflective habit of mind” (1916/1944). And there is physiological
evidence to support that view: “research conducted at Stanford (regarding timed
tests) reveal[ed] that math anxiety changes the structure and workings of the brain”
(Boaler, “Timed Tests and the Development of Math Anxiety”, Education Week
blog, July 3, 2012). Given extra time, students are apparently able to relax more
and, with feeling less strain, can naturally think more effectively.
This research in effect asks the mathematics teacher who is planning to give an
exam to decide whether the object of giving the exam is to determine if students can
demonstrate their mathematical understanding or if they can demonstrate it within
some predetermined (institutional) unit of time chosen without regard to the stu-
dents. Of course, how much time is enough time is a good question that seems best
determined by the situation, including what is best for the student. Yet Beilock and
Willingham’s research (2014) led them to conclude that to help reduce mathematics
students’ anxiety, mathematics teachers should stop giving timed tests.
Also, they recommend teachers be careful when “consoling students who are
struggling” so as not to validate “a student’s opinion that he’s not good at math”
(Beilock and Willingham, “Reducing Math Anxiety: What Can Teachers Do?”, Ed-
ucation Week blog, June 10 2014). Such consolation would naturally feed into their
negative thinking—making not doing well an expected outcome. Carol Dweck’s
work on mindsets led her to understand that students who view intelligence as a
fixed trait “do not view it as something that can be improved with effort” (2014).
That is why it is really important for students to see intelligence as malleable so they
understand that they can develop a more educated mathematical intelligence. (Most
likely, they can recognize that their intelligence has grown with respect to their abil-
ity engaging electronic devices!)
One way to help students feel more in charge of their situation is that instead
of presenting mathematics problems to students to solve, they get to choose the
problem(s). This suggestion will be made again with regard to student homework,
7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom 91

but in an effort for students to express their interests and their developing sense of
self, providing a variety of settings for problem selection allows for problem posing
as well. And rather than it just be from the set that accompanies the text or chapter,
it could be more open for decision-making. Steve Brown (1994, p. 178) makes the
following suggestions with regard to student selection:
• Anticipated difficulty of solution
• Relationship to problems already understood or solved
• Potential for the problem to open new territory
• Embeddedness within a particular branch of mathematics
• Potential for the problem to clarify what is not well understood
• Similarity of problem(s) to those already defined in the field
Such a list of problems could be in effect a standing offer as students develop con-
fidence and capacity to feel increasingly comfortable choosing more challenging or
diverse problems. In this way, they become very aware of their own agency, which,
of course, is the most significant dimension of their psychological development.
There is also evidence that we can help students become more capable in math-
ematics by deciding what not to do. Eugene Geist, the author of Children Are Born
Mathematicians (2001) “works with math teachers to create ‘anxiety-free class-
rooms…’ [He] advises teachers to have students focus on learning mathematical
processes, rather than relying on the answer keys in the textbooks, which can un-
dermine both their own and the teacher’s confidence in their math skills” (Sparks
2011). This same understanding was shared with regard to girls working on chal-
lenging mathematics problems. Penelope Peterson reporting on some of her re-
search writes, “focusing on the mathematical strategy rather than the answer was
particularly important following a girl’s high-level mathematics response and for
encouraging girls’ high-level achievement” (Peterson 1988, p. 11).
To be a successful thinker, as we all know, requires a “disciplined mind,” one
that in its best expression “…takes delight in the problematic, and cherishes it until
a way out is found that approves itself upon examination” (Dewey 1929, p. 182).
How we as mathematics educators can help promote that psychological experience
for our students is clearly an aspiration worth our efforts. One path appears with
the mathematics teacher modeling what resilience and flexible thinking look like
by taking the time to demonstrate what can be done when faced with a dead end
working on a mathematics problem. Students observing how one can step back and
bring new energy to the effort by taking the problem apart or otherwise making the
problem simpler so as to gain new direction gives them insight into the constructive
emotional dimension of the problem-solving process. It is such modeling efforts
that help students learn how to persevere—how to find alternative ways of making
inroads and the resilience that are needed to promote productive efforts.
One way students can gain positive energy when they are working on a problem
that has them stuck is to get up and take a walk. This will send more oxygen to their
brains and so provide more energy for thinking. In addition, during the walk, their
subconscious can work on the problem, and by taking their conscious mind off the
problem, they are free to relax while their thinking goes on at a different level of
92 7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

awareness. The great mathematician and philosopher of science, Henri Poincaré,

remaining stumped by a mathematics problem after a considerable period of delib-
eration decided to go off to the beach. He reported that as soon as he put his foot up
on the bus step, he realized how to solve the problem. Of course, he brought a very
positive energy to his holiday. This is to suggest that during exams, some students
may well need to take a break, including a walk.
Before having students hand their exams in—and most especially those students
who tend to want to get done quickly—suggest they take a walk so as to clear their
head. Then, upon returning, they hopefully can look with fresh eyes at their work
and, having gained some emotional distance, can be critically productive of their
earlier effort. A caveat: the walk has to be considerable; experience has made clear
if they return quickly, they just look “over” their work, not actually reading it criti-
cally, but in effect just nodding their way through their reviewing, in effect having a
quick eye exam. What is sought is a “re-view,” a rethinking, not a glossing over of
the details. Having them determine how they know their answers are plausible often
helps construct a rationale for rethinking.
Another way to help students secure some positive energy when stuck with a
mathematics problem can be found in engaging a mental exercise: They can go to
the past or the future to get some positive energy and bring it back to the present.
After they stop laughing and thinking how strange their mathematics teacher is who
shared the idea with them, they are ready to listen. Here is how it works: Have stu-
dents close their eyes and think of some really positive experience they have had or
hope to have. In focusing on that desired past or imagined future, they will literally
feel positive energy. And that positive energy can be used in that very moment to
regain resilience to engage a problem once again. Of course, as with learning any
practice, it requires discipline to be done well. For some students may well want to
stay in the pleasant mental place they just created and, as a consequence, be men-
tally absent from the classroom considerations!
Another action we as their mathematics teachers can take toward setting a pos-
itive psychological climate is to take seriously what day to give a quiz, test, or
exam—for why should we give it when our students are not ready? We want them
to demonstrate to both themselves and to us their mathematics teachers that they
have come to a decent understanding, not that they have not. They can tell us the
latter just by our asking, without our spending valuable time creating a formal albeit
complicated means to have them communicate they have not, which only produces
a poor score and likely poor feelings on both sides of the classroom desk. Hopefully,
students would look at taking an exam as a “Question-and-Answer Opportunity” to
demonstrate they have come to make good sense of what has been being discussed
and worked with in mathematics class. For that to happen, students naturally need to
be involved with the decision-making regarding when that time should be.
***
This is all to suggest that students can well use more than a few comforting words,
though these are naturally appreciated, to have a more productive mathematics ex-
perience. Being open to discussing how to be more emotionally productive as math-
7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom 93

ematics students is not an easy matter. Yet, their concerns shape the conversations
they have together and with themselves and so actually constitute the lived cur-
riculum. So, to promote a more efficient and life-enriching mathematics classroom,
students need to be given time and assistance to develop themselves so that their
emotions do not push them to tell themselves and others the results of ineffectual
thinking. That is, they need the opportunity to develop a positive state of mind asso-
ciated with productive intellectual effort. And that very significant concern deserves
a place in the classroom curriculum.
If, for example, initially discomforted mathematics students can come to see and
appreciate (and even laugh at) the statement that “confusion is the foothills before the
mountain of understanding,” then they may be able to relax a bit more, understand-
ing that the confusion is not their problem but a sign that there are things needing
clarification—that it is not that they are not capable but that situations are confusing.
Promoting that belief, and saying it on a number of occasions, and in a number of
ways, could help them focus more productively. After all, in the best interests of a
pluralistic society, we would want them to be “self-directed” learners so that “when
confronted with complex and sometimes ambiguous and intellectually challenging
tasks, [they would] exhibit the dispositions and habits of mind required to be self-
managing, self-monitoring, and self-modifying” (Costa and Kallick 2004, p. 51).
In support of that developing awareness, students may well appreciate learning the
difference between assimilating and accommodating new knowledge. As the cogni-
tive psychologist Jean Piaget (1952) made clear, there is a categorical distinction that
is worth being made regarding our receptivity to new experiences. Namely, when it
agrees with our basic understanding or does not challenge our thinking, it is relatively
easy to assimilate some information or technique, etc. For example, when students
come to see how matrices can be used to solve a system of two equations in two un-
knowns, they “get” (assimilate) quite readily how the procedure can be extended to n
equations in n unknowns. However, to accommodate something new means we have
to make adjustments to our thinking, which is not an experience as fluid as assimilat-
ing something new. So, for example, after mentally accommodating the logic that
underlies the procedure to bisect a line segment with a compass, students can more
likely assimilate the practice of bisecting an angle with a compass.
This is to say when students report that something they are learning is “hard,”
what they mean is they are having a difficult time accommodating the material. To
give students intellectual and emotional support can require another way of explain-
ing the at present confusing concept/practice as what is apparently abstract needs to
be made more concrete (as whatever is abstract becomes concrete with understand-
ing) . To provide emotional support in their developing the capacity to hang in there
so as to accommodate challenging mathematical ideas, we can share with them that
doing so can be quite a challenge. Some truly great mathematicians (Descartes, Pas-
cal, and Euler) found it really difficult to accommodate negative numbers into their
mathematical thinking. Descartes worked to eliminate them if possible from any
equations; “Pascal regarded the subtraction of 4 from 0 as utter nonsense” (Kline
1972, p. 252); and Euler put negative numbers after positive infinity—so other-
worldly did he find them.
94 7 Providing a Supportive Mathematics Classroom

To secure a new way of understanding is not an easy transition to make when

what is required is that we change the way we have thought about things or are
faced with something quite different from anything we have considered prior. And
students who are being asked in effect to change their own beliefs regarding the dif-
ficult learning experiences in mathematics they have been having is really difficult
for them to accommodate. That is why we need to help them develop their heuristic
and reflective thinking as both are invaluable in becoming more flexible and pro-
ductive in varied settings, where they can actually see some positive development.
As said earlier, for as every mathematics educator knows there are things worth
repeating, we need to make room for conversations regarding the role emotions play
in thinking so all mathematics students can develop practices that help them cope
more productively.
The assimilation and accommodation of productive habits that yield construc-
tive means to deal with perplexity requires work and time but of course is worth
the effort. For securing a valuable “habit means the formation of intellectual and
emotional disposition as well as an increase in ease, economy, and efficiency of
actions” (Dewey 1916/1944, p. 48). That formation process ultimately requires be-
ing resilient in the face of setbacks inasmuch as “the acquiring of habits is due to…
our ability to vary responses till we find an appropriate and efficient way of acting”
(Dewey 1916/1944, p. 49). And this goal lies at the heart of what the National Coun-
cil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) sees as student academic goals: “adaptive
reasoning, strategic competence, and productive disposition.”
***
The philosopher of education Maxine Greene urged those of us who are educators to
have a conception of education “…as a process of releasing persons to become dif-
ferent, of provoking persons to repair lacks and to take action to create themselves”
(1988, p. 22). This seems both eminently reasonable and practically essential for
the collaborative effort that is a productive democratic society. How we go about
doing that is clearly not a minor element of our work as mathematics educators. The
process of inquiry with its emotional dimension must be given its just due; after all,
it shapes our mathematics classroom experience. Enabling students to mentally step
outside their experience to evaluate it, including their own thinking and feeling,
gives students what could be the needed distance to look at themselves in a more
productive light. The next chapter considers how students can focus on developing
their more capable mathematical selves by pursuing a personal/professional goal of
their choosing and having the support and commitment of their mathematics teacher
in their working to secure it.

References

Arnsten, A., Mazure, C. M., & Sinha, R. (2012). This is your brain in meltdown. Scientific Ameri-
can, 306(4).
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5).
References 95

Ball, D. L. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and de-
velopment program in mathematics education. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. (monograph).
Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(1), 23–41.
Beilock, S. L., & Willingham, D. T. (2014). Reducing math anxiety: What can teachers do?” Edu-
cation Week blog, June 10 2014.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Females mathematics
teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy
of the Sciences, USA, 107(5), 1060–1063.
Boaler, J. (3 July 2012). Timed tests and the development of math anxiety. Commentary. Edweek.
org.
Brown, S. I. (1994). The problem of the problem and curriculum fallacies. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Con-
structing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematical education (pp. 175–189).
London: The Falmer Press.
Buckley, L. A. (2010). Unfulfilled hopes in education for equity: Redesigning the mathematics
curriculum in a US high school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 51–78.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2004). Launching self-directed learners. In Educational leadership.
Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Press.
Dewey, J. (1929). In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge
and action. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Later Works 1925–53, Vol. 4).
Felson, R. B. (1984). The effect of self-appraisals on ability of academic performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 944–952.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1991). The failure of high-ability high schools to deliver academic benefits: The
importance of academic self-concept and educational aspirations. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 28, 445–480.
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teaching for higher-order thinking in mathematics: The challenge for the
next decade. In D. Grouws, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effec-
tive mathematics teaching (Vol. 1). Reston: NCTM.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence (trans: M. Cook). New York: International Universi-
ties Press.
Sparks, S. D. (16 May 2011). Researchers probe causes of math anxiety. Education Week.
Young, C., Wu, S., & Menon, V. (2012). The neurological basis of math anxiety. Psychological
Science, 23(5), 492–501.
Chapter 8
Including Students’ Goals

The premise of this book is that the aim of education being the development of
thoughtful, socially responsive human beings who have an appreciative understand-
ing of what is required to do things well should inform and shape students’ math-
ematics experience. Namely, the way mathematics is made available should enable
students to grow as self-reflective, cooperative, and resilient individuals.
How to promote the third dimension further is explored in this chapter. It contin-
ues the conversation with the last where the focus was on how mathematics teachers
can help students develop their more capable selves by providing a psychologically
supportive environment. Now that thinking is expanded to consider students’ per-
sonal/professional goals as part of the curriculum in their mathematics experience.
Enabling students to reflect on how things are going with a constructive perspective
is of course essential. To give that effort direction students need to uncover what
goal(s) they have. With those in mind, there is the opportunity for discussions re-
garding what would be effective means for their becoming more the person/student
they want to be by being more able to deal with challenging situations, and most
especially their own behavior.
***
What is becoming increasingly clear is that “The best predictor of kids’ academic
success is … how willing they are to persist at challenging tasks and how well they
plan ahead, pay attention, remember and follow instructions, and control their im-
pulses and emotions. These so-called executive functions, also known collectively
as self-regulation or self-control, have long been considered a key life skill” (http://
connect.oregonlive.com/staff/awang/index.html). And there is no reason to think
that such a perspective does not extend to students of adolescent age and the math-
ematics students in our classes.
How seriously students take their personal/professional development would
seem a function of how seriously we, their teachers, do. In that direction, they would
need to appreciate that they, as all of us, are malleable material, something that can
be worked with. That it is true can be made clear to them when they consider the
fundamental role habits have played and do play in their lives. Not only did habits

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 97

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_8
98 8 Including Students’ Goals

make possible their being able to read, write, and walk, they shape how we think, do
things, and feel (Dewey 1922, p. 25). With that appreciative realization, there is the
opportunity for students to ask themselves what new habit(s) they want to secure,
or what old habit(s) they want to discard, so as to make their mathematics experi-
ence more productive—toward their becoming more capable individuals. In the
absence of that awareness, and the opportunity to work at securing/omitting specific
practices, it would seem there is little chance for them to become more productive
mathematics students.
It is quite clear to any experienced mathematics educator that helping students
think and act more intelligently when engaging mathematics extends beyond the
practice and application of mathematical techniques. For example, determining
what the problem is actually asking (Polya’s “understanding the problem”) and
sustaining disbelief (i.e., being comfortable playing out ideas) are essential con-
siderations. In addition, being patient analyzing a situation and not letting errors in
judgement or execution trigger problematic behavior, etc. are also quite essential for
being successful mathematics students. Helping students develop these intellectual/
emotional capacities would seem to be part of our work as mathematics educators,
inasmuch we establish the classroom environment. We determine “whether social
conditions obstruct the development of judgment and insight or effectively promote
it” (Dewey in Bernstein 1966, p. 285).
Discussing these practices and other productive actions in class help students get
a practical sense of what they could do toward having more rewarding present and
future experiences. To make that valuable development actually happen, students
need time and opportunity on a regular basis to think about their behavior, including
how they speak to themselves when engaging a mathematics problem. For making
changes in one’s practices including eliminating some problematic mental or emo-
tional practice takes considerable mental and emotional effort to accommodate, of
course. This suggests the initial presentation by mathematics educators regarding
the opportunity for such development needs to acknowledge how challenging such
an endeavor could be in the present along with how very worthwhile it is for the
future of their lives.
In that direction, students also need to appreciate that a goal without an aware-
ness of what would be signposts of progress would likely have as much conse-
quence as making a wish. Closing one’s eyes and having it come true is a rare event
usually associated with special days of the year. Wishing precludes the volition of
the individual, and so it is not generally a good problem-solving strategy. For ex-
ample, telling students to “be patient” may work, but likely not if it is not clear to
them what signs of their being patient explicitly look like.
Signs of progress are most important as they are concrete expressions that thought
and action are coming together. Until those signpost behaviors can be made clear
and integrated into their practice, it is difficult to imagine gains would be made. So,
with regard to the student wanting to become more patient when working on math-
ematics problems, suggesting they read the problem more than once, make clear to
themselves what is given and what is to be determined, and perhaps underline the
critically important information, along with taking time to play out ideas and test
8 Including Students’ Goals 99

their conclusion for plausibility, would help them be more aware of what would be
concrete evidence of their becoming more patient. And those explicit practices can
well serve as a guide and gauge for them and their mathematics teacher as to how
things are developing.
Yet, even if students are open to change, the effort to develop a new habit or
discard an old one is of course quite challenging. Accommodating new behaviors
into one’s life naturally makes life more complicated at the time; so, the effort can
be experienced as discomforting enough to convince them to stop. Students need to
appreciate that it takes time and effort to learn any new habit, such as tying one’s
shoes, driving a car, learning how to successfully make a problem simpler, or decid-
ing exactly how to tinker for best results. Also, it takes time and effort to rid oneself
of a bad habit. So they need to understand the discomfort, and seeming unnatural-
ness will start to fade as new productive actions begin to appear, as mind and body
once again move to unify. As well recognized, with commitment, effort, and time,
the dance and dancer become one.
To help support them in sustaining their effort, they need to be reminded most
likely more than once that once we get a good habit, it is ours forever, and once we
replace a bad habit, we have made ourselves better forever. Indeed, it will likely
take hours of efforts to accommodate a valuable change, but then it is theirs for de-
cades to come. At bottom, such considerations are essential for our students living
more productive lives, being more valued members of society, and their having a
more successful mathematics experience.
It is here we find the opportunity for assessment for the public good. With stu-
dents developing productive behaviors and valuable attitudes and dispositions as
a consequence of their learning mathematics, the public is clearly “getting their
money’s worth.” It represents students’ personal/professional developing awareness
of what they could do to make a situation more productive by their thinking and
acting more constructively. And the mathematics classroom, where imagination,
experimentation, and reflection are hallmarks of a successful effort, is a perfect set-
ting for that development.
***
Relatively younger students learn how to be “change agents” with changing things
outside and around themselves. They have naturally done so many times just grow-
ing up. In mathematics class, it could be with regard to deciding where to stack
graph paper, whether to work in groups or not that day, to go over a homework
question or not, or what to do to test some hypothesis, etc. With those actions, a
consequence of their imagination, experimentation, and reflection, not impulse as
a consequence of their disturbance, they are likely to make valuable decisions and
result in the participants feeling good about themselves, and rightfully so.
Developing productive behaviors, such as being relatively more resilient when
dealing with perplexing situations, or being more open to other’s thinking, are not
minor attributes. These are practices we would associate with capable, responsible
individuals, and the possessor of those behaviors would be in a relatively ideal
position to gain a valuable education and be successful in general. Making those
100 8 Including Students’ Goals

qualities part of the mathematics classroom conversation helps students reflect on

what practices could significantly affect their experience for the better. In that direc-
tion, conversations along with writing activities could help uncover what each stu-
dent thinks their personal/professional concerns (curriculum) are about. Enabling
them to get in touch with what really concerns them, what they really want to be
able to do as mathematics students and developing young people, deserves our at-
tention. Not to incorporate these concerns into their mathematics learning experi-
ence, to not see their personal/professional development as an essential part of their
mathematics experience, would seem to be a major omission in school practice, at
least from the perspective of the student and society.
After all, if we want to have a populace capable of thoughtfully evaluating how
things are going, and being imaginative in an effort to find comprehensive solu-
tions, and supportive enough to make things better, surely school experience ought
to promote that development. Being aware of hasty decision-making or adversarial
thinking or lacking a sense of self enough to come to a thoughtful decision ought
to be considered with regard to each student’s mathematics education. Also, being
open to listening carefully including to contrary points of view and being comfort-
able with changing one’s mind are behaviors worth having and discussing. To help
students develop those personal and social capacities is not an easy matter (as a
fortune cookie attests, “it is more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others”).
Promoting consideration of self-evaluation and self-development seems to be the
best way to ensure that students become more reflective and more in control of their
own thought and behavior, and so more capable of creating desired habits—that is,
the mathematics student and person they want to be.
What mathematics educators can do to promote that happening would seem to
require a supportive environment, of course. Enabling students to focus on their
development by helping them create a self-assessment tool that they could use to
evaluate and reflect upon how things are going could provide instrumental means.
Otherwise, we can likely expect that whatever poor habits students have when they
enter our mathematics class regarding their thinking and acting and emotional re-
sponding will most likely be what we will see when they graduate, and so on as
adults. As such, that developmental absence represents a great loss of opportunity
and productive decision-making for them and for all of us.
Just as an artist steps back and decides what would be needed to make their ef-
fort more satisfying, students can take seriously their developing artistry in shaping
their mathematics experience. To support and codify that effort beyond providing
emotional support, the teacher can have the student write down three behaviors
that would serve as signposts, demonstrations that would be signs they are making
progress toward a new practice they wish to gain or an old practice they want to rid
themselves of. This gives them a personal/professional checklist to keep in mind,
something concrete to hold onto that provides both support and perspective. It is
especially important for those students who are trying to change some counterpro-
ductive behavior they have developed in response to their stressful experiences in
mathematics classrooms. For example, students who bring to their experience old
feelings of discomfort when engaging new mathematics problems can hear them-
selves saying quite quickly “I can’t do it,” as that gives them license to stop making
8 Including Students’ Goals 101

an effort. The reward is ending the stressful experience. But that is surely not what
they or we as their mathematics teachers would hope would actually be the desired
outcome. So having those signpost behaviors close–by, e. g., where they are study-
ing can serve as gentle reminders to keep their eyes on the prize.
Becoming more of who they want to be requires of course both the mathematics
teacher giving airtime to such discussions and students being in the right mindset.
This suggests that part of our work as mathematics educators would be to meet
with each of our students from time to time to hear how their personal/professional
development is going. Doing so tells them that the school values and supports their
effort. In this way, students have a respected authority on their side in their pursuit
of a habit they want to have or change. And the more they can see or be helped to
see signs of their development, the better. Of course, not as a grade on a report, but
as a quality that can be worked with and the effort appreciated.
In the latter direction, it makes good sense that their efforts are included on
evaluations. In this way, those efforts are acknowledged as being important, which
of course they are—essential, actually. That suggests collecting student evaluations
of how they see their development progressing. This provides teachers with addi-
tional information and helps students not lose hold of their own concerns amidst the
obligations of all their school and other responsibilities.
Of course, the longer we wait as part of students’ mathematics education to dis-
cuss how valuable it is for them to look at how things are going and to decide what
they would want to happen, the more difficult naturally it is for valuable change
to occur. The thinking would likely be “Since I made it this far doing what I do,
why do I need to introduce or stop anything now?” (Even we mathematics teachers
could feel that way.) However, with a thoughtful, aware, and sensitive mathematics
teacher, and a supportive environment that extends across years, the educational
journey can be significantly rewarding for everyone involved, including the stu-
dents and their mathematics teachers as well as students’ families, school adminis-
trators, and society. Helping students develop those mental, emotional, and physical
habits would seem to be what Einstein had in mind in reflecting on what education
could provide at its best.
One classroom practice that has proven valuable in this direction is to begin with
a handout (adjusted of course for the developmental age of the students) in the first
days of the school year. Here is one that is shared with high school mathematics
students.

__________

Welcome!
I’d appreciate your letting me know what I can do to make our mathematics
experience valuable to you. Feel free to share in writing what you’ve experienced
in mathematics classes that you appreciated and what you didn’t. All those thoughts
can help shape what you want to happen this year.
102 8 Including Students’ Goals

Also, reflecting on what you want to happen for yourself this year can be really
important. After all, we can think of ourselves as artists of our experience. This al-
lows us to step back and ask ourselves what our experience needs to be more fulfill-
ing, and then work at making it happen. For example, do we want to become more
patient engaging mathematics problems so we have more resilience to keep going?
Do we want to become less stressed on exams so we can think more successfully?
Or do we want to experiment more or become more playful in our thinking when
we don’t know how to progress with a mathematics problem? Each and all of these
developments can make our mathematics experience and life a lot more rewarding.
And we can surely expect our efforts at change to be awkward early on; but like
learning to walk, once we have it, once we develop a new and better practice, it is
ours forever. Making any such positive change makes life, including school, easier,
more productive, and more enjoyable. And mathematics class is a perfect place to
make that happen.
The list that follows contains practices that are valuable to have and others worth
replacing so as to be more successful in mathematics, school in general, and be-
yond. To consider how you might have a more personally valuable educational year,
put a check mark next to any that seem worth your pursuing seriously. After you
take some time to think about the ones you’ve checked, go back and circle the one
you feel most strongly about or most eager to begin with. You’ll know objectively:
Your emotions will tell you which is the most important. Even if you find yourself
checking off more than one (some students check them all!), realistically we can
work with one at a time for best effect.
As the Artist of Your Educational Experience, What Do You Want to Make Hap-
pen?

____ read more effecvely ____ think more producvely

____ relax more during exams ____ get more out of homework

____ make beer reasoned arguments ____deal with confusion beer

____ prepare beer for exams ____ be more open to others’ ideas

____ take beer notes in class ____ parcipate more in class

____ eliminate “careless” errors ____ be more paent

____ develop more persistence ____ observe more carefully

____ be less crical of oneself and/or others ____ ___________________ (other)

Now that you picked one, it needs to be given the attention it deserves. We can all
appreciate it takes real effort to change, as anything worthwhile tends to take work
8 Including Students’ Goals 103

and dedication. Here are three observations that you might find really helpful in
your effort. The first reminds us that “The self is not something ready-made, but
something in continuous formation through choice of action.” So while we may
think that the way we do things is “written in stone,” it’s not; it’s up to us to look at
how we do things and decide if there is something we should do that would help us
make things better. The second, as how best to proceed, you would do well to con-
sider: “The nearest way to glory—a shortcut as it were—is to strive to be what you
wish to be thought to be.” That’s an interesting notion: First decide how you would
want others and yourself to think about you as a person, and then do those things so
that it actually happens. And, even if we’re not musicians, we can appreciate that
“Sometimes you have to play a long time before you sound like yourself.” That’s to
say, we are developing creatures, and that development toward doing things better
takes time and effort, of course.
At our next class, we’ll take this opportunity further, toward making your math-
ematics experience more personally/professionally rewarding. So bring your reflec-
tions on your earlier mathematics experience, and read the list carefully and see
where your interests really lie.
After all, this isn’t just another school year coming up, it’s a year of your life,
and time is not a renewable resource. Hopefully together we can make learning
mathematics really valuable and special this year.

_________

Such considerations of course take dedicated focus, energy, and time, and such
reflections are not easy. Looking at what we do not like is not comforting. But as
the great architect Frank Lloyd Wright noted, doing so we get more in touch with
what we do appreciate. So to help our students take seriously what they are asking
of themselves requires assistance, which includes providing time for reflection, dis-
cussion, and support. Expressing concern and interest individually and collectively
regarding how things are going demonstrates to students that their mathematics
teacher takes their personal/professional development seriously. Without that con-
certed focus, after a while students get caught up being students, namely, doing
what is being asked of them by others. In this taken-for-granted way, they lose sight
of what they were asking of themselves, and how very important it was.
To help students focus on their goal, to have it become an explicit part of their
personal/professional development project, they could write two copies of that goal
with three associated behaviors they believe represent progress (signposts) in that
direction. Using 5 × 8 index cards are durable and provide a sufficient amount of
room. If they give one copy to the mathematics teacher, their effort can continue to
be supported. They can put their copy somewhere at home or in their locker where
they will see it often, so it can serve as a gentle reminder to help sustain their effort.
What is critically important is making sure that the behaviors they view as being
signs of progress are literal enough to be recognized.
104 8 Including Students’ Goals

The Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1995) makes clear
that student assessment of their own mathematical efforts is really helpful to their
development. Hopefully students, especially those who struggle with mathematics,
take it seriously. If they do not make an effort at some concrete change, it is pretty
certain what their experience will be. To continue to be of help, mathematics teach-
ers need to be in touch to ask their students if they wish to discuss any aspects of the
challenging opportunity, or just to share how things are going. Having them write
about their efforts from time to time may help as well as gentle reminders; keeping
a journal would likely promote reflection and evaluation.
During the first few weeks of the school year it is especially valuable to provide
quasi-regular “advertisements” expressing the hope that they are taking their per-
sonal/professional development as mathematics students seriously. Giving it—that
is, themselves—the attention they deserve is a really good idea. Reminding students
that it takes a lot of energy to get a rocket ship off the ground, but once it does, it
really moves and that we as their mathematics teachers are available to discuss ways
in which we can help makes clear that additional energy may be required to get
things going and that it is available.
As we can appreciate, this is not an easy activity to keep alive in the mathemat-
ics classroom as “real” learning usually means focusing all their attention on the
subject matter content. Over the course of the year, it is to be expected that some
students will give up on their development effort, while others will give it sporadic
attention, while some will continue to take their curriculum seriously. Hopefully,
they all appreciate that the ultimate value in such an effort means they can make
their lives, in school and out, more productive and enjoyable. The social and po-
litical ramifications suggest themselves: A more thoughtful populace open to and
capable of dealing with difficult issues would be a more realistic goal. Toward pro-
moting that occurrence, the degree of effort is the essential assessment. And it is
surely no easy matter; it takes continuing attention. Hopefully they will come to
believe “The capability and willingness to assess their own progress and learning is
one of the greatest gifts students can develop” (Stenmark 1989). It needs to be truly
appreciated by them and us, their mathematics teachers.
The student assessment that contains the prior quotation includes a self-assess-
ment questionnaire that is used as a follow-up to a mathematics activity or project.
Here, students have the opportunity to reflect on “how well the group functioned
and how well the student participated.” The student is presented with fill-ins; for ex-
ample, “What could you have done to make your group work better?”, and extends
to promoting questions for journal writing, such as “What I still don’t understand
is ________.” In this way, students naturally become more reflective about their
learning mathematics, their participation in groups, and how things are going with
regard to their personal/professional development as a successful student.
To get feedback from students regarding their experiences, goals, and concerns
associated with learning mathematics seems to make good sense. After all, it is their
education that we are involved in, helping create with them. While their view can be
considered naïve, there is much to learn from such a perspective. As noted earlier,
it is the asking of such questions that often get to the heart of matters, including
References 105

questioning statements, arguments, and decisions (including those mathematical)

that seemed quite certain but upon further reflection lose some of their firmness.
Asking students what they enjoyed learning the prior year and why, and what was
less well received, for example, could well provide valuable insight for the math-
ematics considerations to follow. Not only does asking them about their prior math-
ematics learning experience make clear to them that you are interested in what
they think and have experienced, but also helps them uncover what they believe is
important in their learning experience.
Such opportunity for reflection would help them become more aware of their
growing personal, social, and intellectual development and could give further clar-
ity to specific behaviors associated with their goals. There would be much to talk
and think about. That information, as real or imagined or one-sided as it may be,
informs you and them of their expectations and concerns for the coming school
year, and provides valuable information to help shape the collective opportunity.
After all, it is a year of everyone’s life. And that deserves careful consideration and
spirited dedication to be given its just due.
Yet, of course, more can be looked at to gain a more complete sense of how
students and the mathematics classroom experience could be more successful. Con-
siderations of grading, homework, and classroom observations in the following
chapters will fill out the picture.

References

Bernstein, R. J. (1966). John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards. Reston: NCTM.
Stenmark, J. K. (1989). Assessment alternatives in mathematics. Berkeley: University of California.
 Part IV
Assessing Students’ Mathematics
Experience

Assessment for learning is any assessment for which the first

priority in its design and practice is to serve the purpose
of promoting pupils’ learning.
Paul Black
Introduction
The assessments we make are natural consequences of being alive. They are
expressions of what we value—our concerns and interests. If they are important
enough, they point to where we should put our energies, and what we think of the
consequences of whether we did or did not. What follows is not “the latest” on as-
sessment of classroom practices; that apparently is being written pretty much non-
stop. It is not the first time that assessment for the public good is being promoted.
Surely, it goes back to the earliest of times in the development of our species, where
the education of the young was directed at learning what was needed to enable the
continuance and success of the group. And today, it is not hard to imagine the elders
naturally want the young to be thoughtful and act with the best of intentions and
practices that would promote the further well-being of the community. So, with a
pluralistic society’s center for the general transmission of its culture and values be-
ing the school, it would be expected the formal education experience would reflect
those concerns. After all, making explicit what is valued creates the foundation of
our efforts, and coming to understand how things can be improved makes securing
what we value all the more possible.
***
That mathematics teachers would give their energies to reflecting on pretty much
every aspect of the classroom experience they are overseeing, including their own
practice, and make additions and subtractions, and yes, multiplications and divi-
sions, based on their assessments comes with the territory for every mathematics
educator dedicated to establishing a learning environment that impacts students’
lives for the better.
In addition to the mathematics teacher’s personal/professional reflections of their
effort, there are many student-assessment frameworks, including standards-based,
performance-based, and “authentic” assessment. What will be considered here is
referred to as “socially responsible” assessment. While the latter description may
108 Part IV Assessing Students’ Mathematics Experience

well be thought to contain all those described prior, the more generic assessment in-
cludes the eye tests we give youngsters, so we do not confuse their capacity to read
with their capacity to see. They are the homework given to help students gain fur-
ther capacity and clarity, along with the mathematics exams they take when they say
they are ready. It also includes the write-ups that acknowledge gains students have
made in their personal/professional development as students, and where it would be
good for them to put their energies further. All in all, “socially responsible” assess-
ments as discussed here are judgments regarding what makes sense for schools and
both mathematics students and teachers to do to further the student’s psychological/
emotional, social, and cognitive development.
In that direction, earlier chapters included discussion of an assessment inventory
of teacher classroom questions that promote students coming to think more ably,
including the extent to which mathematical habits of mind are part of the conversa-
tion. Also, a student self-assessment inventory regarding concerns they have with
regard to their own development was given focus in the prior chapter, for doing so,
we acknowledge their concerns and help them take their development into their
own hands. How we could more completely assess the educational experience with
the goal being our mathematics students’ further development as thoughtful, coop-
erative, and confident human beings would seem we consider the role that grading,
homework, and classroom interaction play in that effort.
All in all, if our assessments, in whatever expression, do not support the de-
velopment of mathematics students’ thought and behavior from the perspective of
securing a more capable, cohesive, responsive society toward the betterment of all
its citizens, then regardless of the pep rallies, the words in the school philosophy,
or who speaks at graduation, how we are affecting the future is surely in question.
Chapter 9
Grades and Tests

As noted earlier, we consciously and unconsciously assess what we value—it actu-

ally seems involuntary at times as we get a visceral read of a situation that concerns
us. In school, as mathematics teachers, the “read” is in general more complicated.
Interacting with and observing students over extended periods of time provide a
variety of information regarding a number of significant aspects of their learning
experience. This includes the extent to which they are engaging the material, de-
veloping their thinking, where their interests lie, the difficulties if any that endure,
their wherewithal to stay with a challenging problem, how they engage with others
toward securing a common understanding, and what would be valuable consider-
ations for each toward their further development. It is a complex affair, as math-
ematics educators well know.
Working with young people with the focus on their cognitive, social, and per-
sonal/professional developments as mathematics students is clearly a challenging
endeavor. That we can claim that we capture months and a year of such a rich and
varied engagement with a number or letter grade does not add up. Indeed, to col-
lapse their educational experience into the “efficient” expression of a symbol repre-
senting an obscure measure would seem a travesty of the experience. It would seem
such grading is best left to labeling meat. Though here too the evaluation is suspect
(anyone want to write a short paragraph on meat that is a B-?).
An assessment framework as represented by a letter or number is not only am-
biguous, it provides little or no useful information other than for creating a dumb
stratification system. Does it help students understand how they are progressing or
what they have come to make sense of, have facility with, and where we hope to see
them progress? Does it help next year’s mathematics teacher as the reader of such
information have any sense of how best to work with that student further?
While the critique that follows is not the first time some educator has spoken out
against letter and number grades, it seems a moral commitment that the conversa-
tion continue. For such a form of evaluation is surely not in the best interests of
those being educated or those who are to make judgements based on the absence
of various critical information. This section of the book explores another direction.
The focus will be on constructing evaluations after rethinking exams, homework,

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 109

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_9
110 9 Grades and Tests

and considering a lens dedicated to understanding students in their mathematics

classroom experience. But, first, let us look more closely at why letter and number
grading should become as extinct as so many other unsuccessful means that have
been tried and failed.
***
A number or letter grade, and worse an average, not only distorts the educational
process as a learning experience by providing a surface reading of the experience,
it necessarily misrepresents what has happened for a host of reasons. Quarterly,
semester, or yearly assessments expressed as such do not recognize the nature of
each student’s personal, social, and intellectual experience. Those grading formats,
regardless of how “sensitive” the measures, just make the evaluation process sim-
plistic, remaining at a distance from the experience itself. For example, suppose a
student gets 86 in an exam involving factoring—what does that exact value tell you
about that student’s mathematical abilities in factoring? Was the score the result of
a student oversight—not reading carefully? Was it attributable to a conceptual mis-
understanding or was it due to some minor efforts in calculations? See if you can
write even one meaningful sentence knowing that score. Now imagine that same
student receives 72 in a quiz that focused on the distance = rate × time relation.
Easily we calculate the student’s average from both assessments as 79. What does
that grade represent exactly? Is averaging over disparate sets of data to determine a
value an acceptable exception to the caveat given to students that “you cannot add
apples and oranges”? What is it that we can say about that student’s mathematical
ability knowing that average? Furthermore, as both grades were apparently out of
100 points, does that mean the same amount of time and consideration was given to
those learning experiences? If not, has one of the two scores not been given unde-
served greater or lesser weight than the other? What if the student’s grades had been
67 and 91—still a 79 average; still an “average” student? How would that student’s
next year’s mathematics teacher be informed regarding any difficulties continuing
to get in the student’s way? What about the student’s persistence relative to earlier
in the year—have they been making progress? Are they aware they have? Are we
aware of any particular strength(s) newly demonstrated that deserve(s) noting? Is a
facility with algebra or analyzing data, or with particular problem-clarifying strate-
gies, developing? How would the student know? What was the student’s take on
their experience? Would such an understanding not be of great value in following
the student’s development?
Unfortunately, the number or letter represents an exactness that can actually en-
trance us to believe we have made an objective evaluation, especially when we take
it to the thousandths place! As if our subjectivity, as found in assigning varied points
for different parts of problems depending upon what we think, or in the thinking
that “there is no partial credit—it is either right or wrong in mathematics”, that gain
objectivity when expressed as a number or letter grade. Such evaluation formats
are far from the meaning of the learning experience, of the intellectual, social, or
personal/professional nature of the student’s mathematics experience—all we have
is a surface read to represent a complex situation. And if students see their assess-
ment as whether they are an “A,” “82,” etc. or that they did or did not make the
grade, then it has been a wasted opportunity from the perspective of being a socially
9 Grades and Tests 111

responsible assessment; such practice would seem to deserve an F. Such labeling

clearly says more about the system than it does about the student.
Even rubric-scoring can be problematic. For rubric descriptions provide behav-
ioral qualities meaning there is room for further descriptions in the in-between. So
quantifying and averaging a set of rubric scores to get an overall evaluation can be
expected to create a total mess of the educational experience rather than provide
any insight, except of course if there was no variation in the individual category
scores. The primary benefit of using a rubric is that it gives students a descriptive
framework from which they can decide if they want to act differently in the future
toward securing a more fulfilling description or continue as they have with regard to
a particular situation. That is to say, it is an excellent opportunity for a conversation
between teacher and student regarding the latter’s development.
Of course, good rubrics can help mathematics teachers gain greater understand-
ing regarding their own practice. The Teaching for Robust Understanding of Math-
ematics rubric (Schoenfeld 2014) available at http://ats.berkeley.edu/tools.html and
http://map.mathshell.org/materials/trumath.php includes a framework that provides
valuable perspective for teaching the whole class and small groups.
***
A lot has to be in place to claim that an assessment of student’s capacities has integ-
rity—that it ultimately serves the student, the school, and the public well. The tra-
ditional narrow focus of school assessments is no secret. In the Executive Summary
of “Tough Choices or Tough Times”, the report of the new commission on the skills
of the American workforce by the National Center on Education and the Economy
(2007; boldface in original), the authors write that with regard to standardized ex-
ams: “On balance, designed to measure the acquisition of discipline-based knowl-
edge in the core subjects in the curriculum,…,more often than not, little or nothing
is done to measure many of the other qualities that…spell the difference between
success and failure for the students who will grow up to be the workers of twenty-
first century America: creativity and innovation, facility with the use of ideas and
abstractions, the self-discipline and organization needed to manage one’s work and
drive it through to a successful conclusion, the ability to function well as a member
of a team, and so on” (p. 15).
Those concerns reflect the three-dimensional perspective taken in this book. The
question is how to make those considerations part of an evaluation schema. In this
way students would become aware of how their more complete development is
progressing toward making valuable gains in how they think, relate, and act in the
process of learning mathematics. As well, it would seem that if teacher observa-
tions of student’s personal/professional, social, and cognitive development would
be supplemented by student reflections, our mathematics students could rightfully
be expected to participate in their learning experience more thoughtfully, and in
effect be more cognizant of and more alert to developing the twenty-first century
concerns just considered.
In that direction, as mathematics educators, we have to ask ourselves are there
practices we associate with thoughtful, responsible, concerned students that we be-
lieve ought to be given more attention in the mathematics classroom experience
we are helping to shape. That with additional emphasis on our part we would be
112 9 Grades and Tests

helping to promote and secure the development of human beings who handle their
emotions well, work constructively with others, and think resourcefully. For the
benefit of the students in front of us and ultimately society that would seem to be
our socially responsible assessment work. If we are truly interested in promoting
qualities of human thought and action that support a robust and life-enriching de-
mocracy, then coming to do things well—especially thinking, relating, and being
emotionally resilient in the mathematics classroom, would be an integral part of our
assessments, from both the teacher’s and the student’s perspective. And of course,
it is complicated.
Naturally, embedded in student efforts are expressions of “creativity, curiosity,
persistence, [and] critical thinking”. Should we include such in our evaluations?
That is Trevor Shaw’s thinking regarding his eighth grade physical computing class:
“these skills and habits of mind ARE the real content” (http://www.eschoolnews.
Com/2014/12/10/letter-grades-app-873/; emphasis in original). While he considers
some apps that he sees has potential in capturing such behaviors in action, that
consideration needs attention if it is to have value to the mathematics student and
their education.
Evaluations somehow need to capture the complex hopefully developing en-
gagement of our mathematics students, not just present some obscure statement in
the explicit form of an exam score or grade. What of their social engagement that
impacted class discussions? And their personal efforts at working to take better
notes, etc.? It would seem that development would deserve to be acknowledged in
student reports, as it makes clearer and more comprehensive what is valued. After
all, is there anything more important than pointing out student’s personal, social,
and intellectual growth? That complex of development needs to be acknowledged
for each student’s and society’s further development, not lost in the shadow of the
thin read of some number or letter grade.
***
Inasmuch as student grades are determined to a great if not complete extent by exam
scores, another question we mathematics educators need to ask ourselves and an-
swer is what is worth testing, and how that ought to be assessed with respect to stu-
dents’ developmental efforts. In that direction, we can appreciate Hugh Burkhardt’s
thinking that “good” tests focus on “problem-solving and modeling with mathemat-
ics, reasoning, and critiques of reasoning, alongside the concepts and skills needed
to make these possible” (“Engineering Good Math Tests”, Education Week, October
3, 2012).” He adds “multiple-choice tests cannot handle this.” That is because it is
really difficult to evaluate student thinking on such tests.
Consider the following multiple-choice mathematics problem: “Four of five
dentists interviewed recommended Yukkey Gum. ‘What percentage of the dentists
interviewed did not recommend it?’ A teacher asked one student who correctly an-
swered 20 % to explain their solution. The student responded, ‘Of’ means multiply,
so I multiplied four times five and got 20 %!’” (Thompson and Briars 1989, p. 24).
Indeed, it is our students’ mathematical thinking that matters. And we cannot find
that in assessments of being wrong or right unless we are very clever at composing
multiple-choice questions. Even if we are clever enough, students could well get
9 Grades and Tests 113

“prepped” on how to analyze a multiple-choice question regardless of the content—

a practice that seems to have many practitioners at this time.
It is surely true how necessarily incomplete assessment is that only measures
student knowledge in one format. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) Assessment Standards (1995) point out the need for multiple evaluation
methods to be part of classroom practice, and Webb (1993) makes a convincing case
that any one form does not recognize all the qualities a student could demonstrate
regarding their understanding of mathematics. The variations are considerable, in-
cluding: restricted or unrestricted-time written tests, take-home tasks, group proj-
ects, oral exams via presentations, portfolios, homework assignments, self-assess-
ments in addition to explicit skills test. And the formats naturally make a difference.
As we would expect, different students, if not genders, do differently in dif-
ferent testing situations. For instance, de Lange reports (1987, p. 260) that in the
mathematics program he is involved with “girls perform less well on restricted-time
written tests [but] more or less the same as boys on oral-tasks or take-home tasks”.
He reports “[The mathematics program] is strongly process-oriented; the mathema-
tization process needs time to develop, time to reflect, time to generate creative
and constructive thoughts. These ‘higher’ goals are not easily operationalized with
timed tests” (de Lange 1987, p. 260).
Jan de Lange (1993) presents ideas that seem worth thinking seriously about
with regard to mathematics exams with special reference to students becoming
valuable citizens. He captures the complexity of the situation succinctly: “We pre-
pare our students for a very narrow set of skills; as soon as we cross the border to
real problem solving, more process-oriented skills, and unknown context areas, we
are in deep trouble” (264). With the new mathematics curriculum de Lange and
others have put together, they created assessments that included the following four
principles (copied verbatim):
1. Tests should be an integrated part of the learning process, and therefore tests
should improve learning.
2. Tests should enable students to show what they know, rather than what they do
not know. (We call this positive testing.)
3. Tests should operationalize all goals.
4. The quality of the test ought not to be dictated by its possibilities for objective
scoring (266, 267).
The mathematics problems reflect the commitment to what de Lange and others
refer to as “realistic mathematics education”. That is, the problems have more than
one solution path, and more than one answer, allowing for multiple interpretations
so that students consider different interpretations leading to alternative answers.
As such they are more open, promote “higher order thinking skills”, and allow for
students to respond at their own level (274). Making this perspective the way we
think in creating mathematics exams is of course a real challenge. Especially with
the dual focus of having problems that elicit particular problem-clarifying strategies
that are and have been being worked with in class. It would suggest that rather than
another national committee creating another list of curricular items to be practiced
114 9 Grades and Tests

in mathematics classrooms, there would be a national effort to promote a variety of

questions within which the mathematics content is incorporated but the questions
are of much richer nature, including a focus of the means for engaging those prob-
lems so that all students have access to the “tools of the trade”.
For school evaluations to have integrity the general goals of what it is understood
to mean to be educated—the global intellectual, social, and personal practices asso-
ciated with capable human beings, must be reflected and worked with in the class-
room practice of each of the disciplines students study, and constitute the rationale
that shapes students’ exams. And that critical developmental process of engagement
cannot be made sense of with a set of scores but requires a set of rich descriptions
that focus on the essential elements that school and society value.
If mathematics educators believe that “education is the fundamental method of
social progress and reform” (Dewey 1897, p. 16), then every grade up to and includ-
ing the last year of college ought to be assessing classroom practices and student
thinking and behavior in the best interests of promoting, securing, and sustaining
a vibrant democratic society. And it would seem clear that the evaluation provided
by number or letter grades cannot possibly capture the richness and quality of the
engagement and learning experience. Surely it is a complicated undertaking gaining
a more socially responsible understanding. But in the best interests of everyone, it
would seem evaluation needs to provide an informed perspective of each student’s
efforts and development as a thoughtful, collaborative, and self-reflective person,
along with the goals they hold and how they are proceeding toward securing them.
Hopefully how students would be best evaluated would be a collaborative expres-
sion reflecting a unified commitment to enabling the young to be mathematically
able through the three-dimensional lens that informs how we think and act in the
world.

References

de Lange, J. (1987). Mathematics, insight and meaning—teaching, learning, and testing of math-
ematics for the life and social sciences. Utrecht: I.O.W.O.
de Lange, J. (1993). Real tasks and real assessment. In R. B. Davis & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Schools,
mathematics, and the world of reality (pp. 263–287). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards. Reston: NCTM.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). “What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teach-
ers in creating them?” A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational
Researcher, 43(8), 404–412.
Thompson, A. G., & Briars, D. J. (1989). Assessing students’ learning to inform teaching: The
message in NCTM’s evaluation standards. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(4), 21–25.
Webb, N. L. (1993). Assessment for the mathematics classroom. In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford
(Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom. Reston: NCTM.
Chapter 10
Homework

While it is often the case that students’ grades are the result of summative assess-
ments, formative assessments have essential pedagogical value. For they are “de-
signed to make students’ thinking visible to both teachers and students. They permit
the teacher to grasp the students’ preconceptions, understand where the students
are in the “developmental corridor” from informal to formal thinking, and design
instruction accordingly. In the assessment-centered classroom environment, forma-
tive assessments help both teachers and students monitor progress” (Bransford et al.
2004, p. 24). And that is exactly the opportunity homework offers both the math-
ematics student and teacher.
Some educators question whether there should be homework at all. Yet, home-
work effort can make a real if not profound difference in what students know and
are capable of dealing with and, as importantly, can be appreciated by the students
themselves. Work done outside the confines of the classroom with respect to the
daily considerations gives students the opportunity to experience their own thinking
without the competing voices and arbitrary time constraints the mathematics class-
room experience imposes. As such it provides an ideal opportunity for students to
see, for example, not only if they have secured facility with certain mathematics
techniques, procedures, or skills but whether they have become more facile with
a valued inquiry practice, such as transforming a difficult problem into one that is
easier to deal with.
Additionally, it is a perfect opportunity for students to build their resilience,
flexibility, and appreciation of what it takes to become more thoughtful. For it gives
them personal time to uncover an insightful question or create a well-reasoned
argument that everyone can appreciate, including themselves. What needs oversight
is how much time it could take. To help them make the right decision, it is our re-
sponsibility as mathematics teachers to make it worthwhile from their perspective.
That is, it is the student who should make the decisions regarding the quality
and extent of their homework effort. They will have ample opportunity to learn
from their decisions and be able to better decide if any changes need to be made
in their decisions. This is not to say that it is okay if students who do not do the
homework take class time asking for it to be explained, unless for some reason

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 115

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_10
116 10 Homework

they were unable to get to it prior. But giving students a 0 or − 5 or whatever other
grade punishment if they do not do it (or points or candy or money for doing it) is
antieducational, for it distorts the meaning of the effort. Homework needs to be seen
as something of value in itself, not that of escaping a loss if not done, or getting
something for doing it (like no homework the next night as a reward!). That latter
mindset has homework as a chore or a punishment. It could be. But such a focus
would seem to have questionable educational goals.
Hopefully, mathematics students would see that homework can help them
develop their emotional and reasoning resilience when dealing with complexity,
as working alone they have opportunity to talk to themselves in a constructive
manner, especially if the teacher has made clear how valuable that practice is. To-
ward promoting mathematics students being more conscious of the thinking/inquiry
process, and especially for shy students, they could be asked to bring questions
to class reflecting where they became confused or unable to continue with their
homework. Such focus directly promotes their talking to themselves by writing
something down that they can share in class. And it also helps them appreciate the
opportunities that doing homework provides.
Essentially, homework assignments could be shaped to fit each student’s
particular needs and acknowledge their interests with their making the selection.
Very capable students may well find some homework questions tedious, as they are
actually bored dealing with questions they find uninteresting. And students who are
struggling could well find themselves drained of any positive energy in looking at
a set of questions that they find too challenging. This suggests that students would
need to become more able to prioritize their assessment opportunities—namely,
what would be best to focus on. The naturally more capable or more determined
may well want to spend their time working on a relatively more complicated math-
ematics problem that draws upon new or more sophisticated heuristics they have yet
to become aware of (recall Steve Brown’s framework for providing such questions).
While students who are having a hard time may just want to gain more facility with
applying a particular heuristic or procedure. This is to say that if homework is to
be considered as a socially responsible assessment, then each student should have a
decision-making role in the homework they do to build both their personal respon-
sibility and formative mathematical judgement.
As they become more reflective regarding their own development as a more
capable mathematics student, they become better educated as to where it would be
best to place their energies. This can be made all the more possible by mathematics
teachers having an eye toward what would help the homework experience be done
thoughtfully. Such consideration would include ensuring there would be no need
for rushing because of an excessive demand created by too many problems. Nor
would students be required to do sets of problems night after night that only call
on their demonstrating mechanical routines. For at bottom, students are in charge
of their education regardless of what the teacher says or does; it is the dedicated
energy they bring or not to classwork and homework that makes the real difference.
And every homework assignment could provide a valuable opportunity for students
References 117

seeing where they are, and what would be a valuable direction to continue, if it is
thoughtfully offered and received.
Mathematics homework should be informative and rewarding, whether practic-
ing a needed procedure or exploring some novel question(s), not oppressive time-
wise or emotionally. (Teachers who have students do extra mathematics problems as
punishment for poor behavior make clear that the subject they are teaching should
be found to be offensive—clearly a very questionable educational lesson.) There’s
every reason to believe that an experienced, aware, and thoughtful mathematics
educator can put the assessment activity of doing homework in a good light for
good reason. As a consequence, students would more likely provide the dedicated
effort deserving of the wisdom of such a worthwhile endeavor. After all, they would
be growing, intellectually and personally, from the experience. And of course, such
an effort would be worth making note of so as to share with interested significant
others, including the student.

References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). How people learn—Brain, mind,
experience and school (p. 24). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy Press.
Chapter 11
Classroom Observations

Regardless of the classroom format and activity—whether it is the whole class,

a small group, or individual students working on a typical mathematics textbook
problem or an extended investigation, observation tools (including apps) can surely
be valuable. Classroom observational tools provide opportunities for further con-
versations with students and ourselves as mathematics educators in support of pro-
moting more productive mathematics classroom practices and students becoming
more capable individuals. The checklists presented here were formulated to provide
the mathematics teacher with means to capture significant aspects of the personal,
social, and intellectual dimensions of students’ mathematics classroom engage-
ment that may go unnoticed, as fleeting as many of those moments are. The three
frameworks focus on student dispositions, both productive and otherwise, to sup-
port teacher and student conversations directed toward enabling students to become
appreciated members of society.

11.1 Students’ Psychological Development

Experience confirms that our emotions infuse our attitudes, dispositions, and behav-
iors, including our thinking. This is to say that students’ psychological/emotional
state is critically important in shaping what they do in the mathematics classroom.
While this is clearly not a new realization, the connection is beginning to be rec-
ognized globally with regard to students’ mathematics exam assessments. In “U.S.
Math, Science Achievement Exceeds World Average,” Erick W. Robelen in his
“Curriculum Matters” ( Education Week, December 11, 2012, Vol. 32, Issue 15)
relates some of the recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) findings. The 2011 TIMMS included a number of new measures to better
help put student achievement in context. “‘One thing we’ve worked on is [getting]
better indicators of what goes on in classrooms,’ Mr. Martin of the International
Study Center said. ‘We’ve sharpened our focus on student engagement. [One] mea-
sure is based on asking students how engaged they feel in their classroom. That

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 119

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_11
120 11 Classroom Observations

makes a very nice scale that relates to achievement.’” (In addition to being “very
nice” from the psychometrician’s read, it seems we can add fundamentally impor-
tant from the mathematics teacher’s perspective.)
Another scale they developed helped them uncover that students across nations
seem to lose enthusiasm for mathematics as they get older. Although less than half
(48 %) of fourth graders said they “like learning mathematics,” that slipped to one
quarter (26 %) by the time they reached the eighth grade. And at both levels, that
attitude has a correlation with test scores. That is, the less students like mathemat-
ics, the lower their achievement, on average, which could well be expected. In that
direction, almost three quarters of fourth graders around the world (69 %) reported
having mathematics teachers who made efforts to use instructional practices to in-
terest students and reinforce learning, such as posing questions to elicit reasons
and explanations, and bringing interesting items to class. At the eighth-grade level,
however, only 39 % of students internationally reported that their teachers frequent-
ly related lessons to their daily lives, and just 18 % said they had mathematics teach-
ers who routinely brought interesting materials to class.
These findings strongly corroborate what John Dewey and all of us know: In-
terest promotes effort. So, any assessment of a student’s mathematics knowledge
without an understanding and appreciation of how engaged that student was is ul-
timately incomplete. For, if we like something, we are naturally more interested in
knowing more about it and find it relatively easy to focus our energies there. From
that perspective, poor scores on a mathematics exam raise the question of how emo-
tionally disconnected students were to the material on the exam, as opposed to how
mathematically able they are.
That’s why “interested” is first on the list of qualities on the psychological di-
mension observation checklist included here (Fig. 11.1). Like the rest of us, a stu-
dent’s level of persistence including flexibility of thought might falter in 2 s, 2 min,
or extend to 2 days or weeks or more depending on their level of interest. That tem-
poral spectrum makes the point that judgements about student’s problem-solving
behavior, including their resilience and patience, must first include consideration
of the extent to which the student was engaged with the topic or problem under
discussion, or is otherwise motivated (as in getting a high grade). As noted earlier,

Psychological Disposition Checklist

Students
Interested

Resilient

Focuses well

Loses focus

Impulsive

impulsivity
Manages

Patient

Confident

Confidence
Lacks

Takes initiative

taking a position
Uncomfortable

position
changing
Uncomfortable

Arturo
Bobbie
Carmin
Dwayne

Fig. 11.1 Psychological Disposition Checklist

11.2 Social Development 121

a socially responsible assessment would have to begin there, for making any state-
ments regarding a student’s demonstration or absence of problem-solving capacities
depends on how connected they are to their mathematics experience. Their commit-
ment quite naturally and directly would be the concrete manifestation of their felt
motivation.
Yet, it could be the case that students could well be interested in the topic but find
the classroom experience stressful. Possible explanations for the discomfort could
be a function of the group the student is in, or it could be that they do not feel they
know enough to take an active role or are confident enough to ask a question and
participate in the classroom discussion. It may even be a long-standing issue. In any
case, every student’s psychological energies deserve attention toward their having a
more emotionally productive engagement.
What follows is an observational tool whose categories are representative of stu-
dents’ intellectual energies as a direct expression of their emotional state of mind.
You may well think that there should be others included or excluded, for the emo-
tional spectrum associated with intellectual efforts surely contains a rich set. And of
course that is the object of this offering to provide considerations for mathematics
educators’ decision-making. However, for the selected set to be of value, here or in
any observation tool, a criterion worth considering is that it must satisfy the Goldi-
locks test of not too many (hot) or too few (cold). That qualification may well be a
function of how many students are in the class or what particular concerns are the
focus at a particular time, etc. Also, it can well be expected, as with anything else
taken on that is complex, that it would take time and practice to make it an efficient
observation tool.
In operation, the “psychological disposition checklist” wording that headlines
the emotional dispositions would be replaced with the date and the nature of the
mathematics engagement, along with whether it is a whole-class, small-group, or
individual effort. In this way, a number of observations over time would help gener-
ate a read of each student’s psychological development or lack thereof in the con-
text of their working on a variety of mathematics problems in a variety of settings.
Data would become available to help promote teacher–student discussions, student
reports, and teacher reflections.

11.2 Social Development

Students’ social development would also seem integral to their learning, for that
includes behaviors that promote or prevent productive collaborative efforts. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics (2000) and the Professional Standards for Teaching Math-
ematics (1991) discuss the importance of students listening and establishing a learn-
ing environment in which they can work together. With opportunity and practice,
they can see how respect is expressed by listening carefully and taking care of
how they respond. Hopefully all students will have the opportunity to develop their
122 11 Classroom Observations

communicative competence, have positive interactions, and appreciate the gains

of working together, which includes clarifying and changing one’s thinking as a
consequence of others’.
Behaviors such as students sharing their thinking with the class and in groups,
and listening carefully to one another, are not part of the written mathematics cur-
riculum and so often are outside the teacher’s evaluation focus, except in cases of
student’s problematic behavior. However, such practices are of fundamental peda-
gogical importance as they are essential to the individual’s learning mathematics
and social growth, along with classroom cohesion. Also, such considerations could
well have consequences for the future society at large.
Inasmuch as many students, like many of us, do not know what they are thinking
until they hear themselves speak, their social development requires a mathematics
curriculum that would promote conversations and collaborations on a regular basis.
They would need to be frequent or intensive enough so that students have consid-
erable opportunity to develop those social practices that gain the appreciation of
others as well themselves when working together. And, as noted earlier, were the
conversations enriched as the result of student questioning and their drawing on
problem-clarifying strategies, in contrast with being teacher directed, those conver-
sations could be all the more valuable and valued.
An additional reason for including collaborative experiences is found in former-
student responses to what they remember most about school: It is often the projects
they were involved in. That makes good sense of course as those activities represent
the extended classroom efforts they made that required relatively greater emotional,
social, and intellectual commitment. Project investigations usually contain a num-
ber of considerations and as such ensure conjectures will be offered and rejected
along with arguments for and against as students learn to distinguish assumptions
from evidence, and evidence from proof, and work together to make good deci-
sions. Such collaborative mathematics experiences need to include time for reflect-
ing on one’s role in the engagement, of course; and such opportunities could well
yield long-lasting positive personal and social outcomes.
In that direction, there needs to be space for those students who wish to play out
ideas themselves, who appreciate the chance to continue trying to make sense of
things alone, and listening rather than speaking. Given that opportunity, hopefully
they will feel comfortable at some point to join a group to share their thinking as
well.
Yet, recall the criticism of group work by one of the readers who wrote about
the third-grade mathematics class in Ontario that students can just sit back and do
nothing. Surely that can happen. But what could be the cause for a student’s lack of
social involvement is not always easy to discern. It may be all the more likely if the
student is in general shy, or the particular material under investigation does not have
much appeal, or the group conversation is for some reason uninviting—all legiti-
mate reasons for some student(s) to refrain from participating. Also, some students
could be so invested in their own thinking that they do not listen well and instead
are or appear to be dismissive, and may often be argumentative. So, there can surely
be mathematics students reluctant to participate but for different reasons. This sug-
11.2 Social Development 123

gests that while the extent of student involvement can be categorically expressed in
the form of a number or letter grade, it could well be a surface reading that requires
further investigation and conversations for social growth to be possible.
Observing that some students or group members are having a hard time commu-
nicating productively suggests of course the need for intervention. Discussion may
uncover the need for the participants to come to appreciate that disagreement should
not only be expected but even welcomed. For, gains are made when hypotheses are
ruled out, and thinking is clarified in the dialectical process provided by challeng-
ing conversations. But of course, their tone matters. This is an important lesson to
be learned for students who tend to be rather immediately convinced of their own
thinking.
Additionally, students’ learning to separate criticism of their thinking from criti-
cism of themselves as persons is essential for working productively with others.
This may be promoted through class discussions of the expectations of group work
and how group members might support each other in developing those character-
istics of effective group participation. Their future interactions at work, as parents,
and in other settings will provide in essence an ongoing assessment of how success-
ful classroom conversations and activities actually were in developing their social
intelligence.
This focus on the nature of group engagement is not to dismiss whole-class dis-
cussions. Whole-class discussions can surely provide opportunity for students to
learn from each other and question/challenge what is said in a constructive manner.
Yet, the richer the collaborative opportunities, the more opportunities students will
have in shaping the conversation and the decisions made. So, it seems a good idea
to have group work as a common classroom activity along with there being indi-
vidual time to consider a problem that the whole class is working on. Also, project
engagement requiring an extended learning experience could be very valuable for
every mathematics student. Such complexity demands considerable integration and
organization, including the capacities to deal with various threads of varying de-
grees of information, and being able to bounce back when one’s “wonderful” idea
is found wanting, and developing the capacity to reflect on the situation amidst all
the distractions.
Students working collaboratively does take time away from including additional
mathematics content that the teacher could present more efficiently. But given a
broader, deeper, and more realistic commitment to students’ personal and social
development and intellectual experience, and an observational schema that helps
locate significant social elements of the learning experience worth discussing, that
time could be well spent educationally, despite the complexity it introduces to as-
sessment and the omission of some mathematics content.
Hopefully, such opportunities will benefit students who initially have a hard
time dealing with multiple inputs, or who have been uncomfortable sharing their
thinking for fear of being wrong, and be so constructed that all students can add to
the mathematics experience and none continue to be dispirited when finding their
thinking goes unappreciated. These concerns suggest that grouping need not be ran-
dom, or rigid as in being determined by role playing, or too concerned with being
124 11 Classroom Observations

Social Disposition Checklist

Students
Constructively
Participates
Listens Actively
Listening
Difficulty

Well/Poorly
Takes Critique

Carefully/Poorly
Critiques

Inclined to Lead

Dissuaded
Easily

Suggestions
Offers
Others Ideas
Builds on
Work Alone
Inclined To
Arturo
Bobbie

Carmin
Dwayne
Fig. 11.2 Social Disposition Checklist

politically correct (as balanced by gender), but actually organized to help every
student progress in their social development. As noted earlier, being grouped by
interest helps establish a shared positive energy with which to begin. Also, grouping
where some students’ heightened interest could inspire others might be the essential
spark needed to create a dedicated collaborative effort.
Of course, there could well be students who wish to work alone, as noted earlier,
and it is the insightful mathematics teacher who can determine whether those stu-
dents are making such a choice for good benefit or to escape being part of a group
and so provide good reason for a private conversation. Helping them come to ap-
preciate that working to negotiate a unifying understanding could well be valuable
throughout their lives is an extremely important lesson, both for society’s future and
one’s personal and professional future. Overall, it would seem that youngsters who
are in mathematics classrooms where collaborative interactions are “the way things
are” would become more comfortable and capable in the ways they act toward each
other and themselves, given all the trial-and-error opportunities and especially with
the assistance of an observant mathematics teacher. That would seem a worthy insti-
tutional goal across mathematics classrooms in grades 6–12 (and of course earlier).
In that direction, here is a social disposition framework checklist (Fig. 11.2—that
is also open to being worked with). The object would be here as well to have ongo-
ing conversations with those students who find interactions hard going, for what-
ever reasons. Here too the “social disposition checklist” label would be replaced
with the date and the focus of the students’ mathematics engagement and the class
format.

11.3 Cognitive Development

Whatever we choose as educators and a society that the young learn in mathematics
is what we believe they ought to know. For when we decide to know something—
how to drive a car, how to make an omelet, etc.—it is because we have decided that
11.3 Cognitive Development 125

“it is good to know that.” So we direct our mental, emotional, and physical energies
to that learning, for in essence there is a moral imperative underlying that commit-
ment. With this perspective, we can question the often-made claim in mathematics
classrooms that the content should be taught/learned because “students will need
to know it later.” That students ought to learn it now seems questionable given that
their need to knowing it later is in essence an argument that students do not need
to know it now. It seems the material ought to be left for the future where it appar-
ently fits. Surely we can appreciate that “We always live at the time we live and not
at some other time, and only by extracting at each present time the full meaning
of each present experience are we prepared for doing the same thing in the future.
This is the only preparation which in the long run amounts to anything” (Dewey
1938/1969, p. 49).
That is, as mentioned on more than one occasion, especially with regard to a
student’s psychological state, the mathematics content must somehow connect to
the student. If it does not, it could be experienced as a chore or an obligation—in
essence, it is offered as a gift but experienced as an imposition. Is the thinking that
inasmuch as the young are obligated to listen to their elders that is sufficient reason
for them to do what they are told in mathematics class? As students have obligations
around the house, ought they not do the same in school? But those activities around
the house are in the interests of the family. Are we thinking that a mathematics cur-
riculum is formed by being in the best interests of the public good—even if there is
little, if any, student interest shown or real connection made? This is not to say that
sharing “interesting” mathematics, as pleasant as that can be, should be the focus of
our work—that is not what makes for an education. An education naturally requires
productive energies, discipline, and special practices. In that essential direction, it
seems mathematics curriculum writers and mathematics educators ought to make
it a moral imperative to create mathematically engaging experiences all the more
available.
Otherwise, if students do not recognize a real connection or cannot be shown a
way to see why mathematics is of value to them, then we can expect that the kind
and degree of focus would likely not be as we would hope. As a consequence, any
quantitative or letter grade of students’ mathematical ability could well be thought
to represent their intellectual distance from that experience. In essence, the cogni-
tive assessment measure in this instance is not so much about what mathematics stu-
dents came to know as that they did not care (as would be reflected in the classroom
assessments mentioned in the psychological and social sections). It is the dedicated
focus brought to the engagement and the educational quality of the interaction that
makes the mathematics experience intellectually and morally valid. It is there that
we find the real measure of school and society’s civic promise.
In the absence of that connection, those who are less dutiful will likely find the
content assessment to be a punitive activity. Namely, the student will be given a
poor grade for the lack of knowledge, when in fact it is a lack of commitment. In
Dewey’s time “If the pupil…engaged in physical truancy, or in the mental truancy
of mind-wandering and finally built up an emotional revulsion against the subject,
he was held to be at fault. No question was raised whether the trouble might not lie
126 11 Classroom Observations

in the subject-matter or in the way in which it was offered” (1963, p. 46) and, as
Dewey also recognized, how open the student was to connecting to the material.
The two checklists that follow provide descriptors mathematics educators can
use to gain a more complete sense of students’ cognitive strengths and weaknesses
(Fig. 11.3) and their intellectual capacities drawing upon valuable problem-clari-
fying strategies (Fig. 11.4). Over time, these lists should make evident what intel-
lectual development is or is not taking place. However, observations always contain
assumptions, and determining causality is not an easy matter. For example, imagine
after a number of days the check-off list of problem-clarifying strategies is rather
blank. Would we say that the teacher is not modeling the practices and so that is
the cause for its absence in students’ behavior? Or, could it be that the mathematics
problems the text provides do not require anything more than a direct technique for
solution? Only the practitioner knows. In either case, the absence of mathemati-

Intellectual Disposition Checklist

Students
Persistent

Resilient
Questions
Raises Good
Applications
Interested in
Abstraction
Interested in
Hastily
Generalizes

Seeks Accuracy

Explanation
Seeks

Reflective

Explains Well

Connection
Makes If-Then
Thinking
Flexible

Arturo
Bobbie

Carmin
Dwayne

Fig. 11.3 Intellectual Disposition Checklist

Intellectual Practices Checklist

Students
Looks for patterns

Visualizes

Tinkers

Describes

Symbolically
Represents
Proves
Plausibility
Checks for
Takes Things Apart
Conjectures
Problem
Simplifies the
Works Backwards
Problem
Re-examines the
Representations
Changes

Creates

Arturo

Bobbie

Carmin

Dwayne

Fig. 11.4 Intellectual Practices Checklist

References 127

cal heuristics, problem-clarifying strategies, from the conversation would hopefully

suggest an adjustment in the environment was needed.
Partitioning the intellectual scale into two sets seemed to make sense. They are
offered here too as suggestions and reasons for future conversations and may well
need to be reconstituted to best fit each mathematics classroom. Again, the heading
provided would best be replaced by the date and focus of student engagement and
the class format.

References

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S.
eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in in-
ternational contexts. Washington, DC: NCES.
 Part V
In Conclusion

Education is a fostering, a nurturing, a cultivating process.

John Dewey
Chapter 12
Summing Up

The school’s commitment to the development of students’ mathematical, social, and

emotional intelligence acknowledges that each has a significance that informs the
others, and that a vibrant citizenry depends on all three. Most directly, the mathe-
matics curricula for grades 6–12 should recognize that “A responsible and informed
citizenship in a modern economic democracy depends on quantitative understand-
ing and the ability to reason mathematically” (Ball 2003, p. 2). Quantitative under-
standing and reasoning mathematically makes clear that heuristics and mathematics
problems that promote discussions need to be included along with whatever tech-
niques and skills are considered necessary.
Of course, whatever mathematics is chosen for each grade, the problem-solving
experiences would have the greatest chance of success if students were open-mind-
ed, capable of listening carefully, and responding constructively to each other. That
suggests such development ought to be an integral concern of our work as teachers
of mathematics as well. By providing opportunity for big and small investigations,
time for reflecting, and discussions with students regarding how things are going,
we would be helping our mathematics students as well as funding society with the
prospect of productive conversations and collaborative decision-making.
To ensure the intellectual and social development, we naturally need to give
attention to the psychological/professional dimension of each student’s mathemat-
ics experience. Providing grades 6–12 mathematics curriculum that promotes the
development of patient, resilient, and flexible-minded students when engaging
problems makes good sense. Those concerns make clear such consideration are
also an essential element of classroom discussions and evaluations. In that way,
students would have many opportunities to learn how they can count on themselves
to make constructive advances. With their having learned to work productively,
including with their emotions, those students would surely be valuable members in
their future work and participation in society. For while freedom is fundamental to a
democratic society, “genuine freedom … is intellectual; it rests in the trained power
of thought” (Dewey 1933/1936, p. 90; italics in original).
All in all, the personal, social, and intellectual qualities that a democratic so-
ciety would want to be in evidence in future decision-makers would need to be

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 131

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7_12
132 12 Summing Up

made explicit and supported when making decisions with regard to constructing the
mathematics classroom experience, including exams. Toward that end, our work as
mathematics educators is “to shape the experiences of the young so that instead of
reproducing current habits, better habits shall be formed, and thus the future adult
society be an improvement to their own” (Dewey 1916/1944, p. 79). How the math-
ematics was offered and the learning dimension assessed so as to ensure students’
participation and developing agency would be the means by which the goals of a
democratic society would be secured. Realizing this perspective may well require
change in the professional practices of some mathematics teachers, as well the pro-
grams offered to prospective and practicing teachers of mathematics in universities
and the customs of some educational institutions. But of course we would expect
that our understanding is developing, especially of such a complex endeavor as the
collective classroom experience, and change is the natural and essential way we
acknowledge that development.
***
Any mathematics curriculum is at best a guide, as it is to be experienced by specific
students in each classroom. While following a script may well help novice math-
ematics teachers to deal with the complexity of organizing a learning environment,
doing so is quite unresponsive to the personal, social, and intellectual energies pres-
ent. It risks promoting a “failure to take into account the instinctive or native powers
of the young; secondly, failure to develop initiative in coping with novel situations;
[and] thirdly, an undue emphasis upon drill and other devices which secure auto-
matic skill at the expense of personal perception” (Dewey 1916/1944, p. 50).
Being a responsive mathematics teacher naturally includes giving space to the
evolving development of students’ mathematical thinking. That would suggest de-
ciding how time ought to be spent in class, and especially the time given to stu-
dent’s thinking and the environments that best support their developing thoughtful
behavior, need our careful consideration. If society is to prosper for the investment
made in schools, it needs to be appreciated the investment is not only the funds
that were brought to support the school, the faculty, textbooks, materials, comput-
ers, buildings, etc., but also the thought and energy of the student participants in
the mathematics classroom. For, ultimately “…the principal agent in education, the
primary dynamic factor or propelling force, is the internal vital principle in the one
to be educated” (Maritain 1960, p. 31).
So, in the criticism of a mathematics curriculum that is a “mile wide, inch deep,”
there is the potential for a promising future in mathematics classrooms. Especially
with students participating wholeheartedly in their own mathematics education, we
can count on their effort. And if we help them come to see that they can realistically
count on themselves and each other in their educational experience, their mathemat-
ics learning could truly transform their lives and shape our shared future for the
better.
That there is a educational movement toward covering less mathematics top-
ics but digging deeper, with more group involvement engendering “21st century
skills,” suggests there is real opportunity for students more fulfilling development
References 133

as thoughtful, socially aware, and emotionally resilient human beings. After all, as
John Ewing, who was executive director of the American Mathematical Society for
15 years, remarked, “The end goal of education isn’t to get students to answer the
right number of questions. The goal is to have curious and creative students who can
function in life” ( The New Yorker, July 21, 2014, p. 63).
What would the mathematics classroom look like to engender such develop-
ment? With students more familiar and comfortable with the content of thinking
mathematically along with what is involved in reflecting productively on their
thinking, it would be fair to say all students would find their mathematics experi-
ence more rewarding. Over time they would be more able to make decisions based
on an increasingly developed intuition informed by reason and experience, not as a
consequence of rigid thinking, indifference, or impulsive guessing. They would be
more emotionally able—more resilient, persistent, flexible—in engaging perplex-
ing mathematics situations, rather than coming to ill-conceived conclusions based
on stressful feelings. The evidence would be clear in their ability to work critically
and imaginatively with their ideas and others’, and their capacity to suspend judg-
ment rather than accepting whatever comes to mind. In this way, they would be
more open to considering alternatives, including another’s thinking even if it chal-
lenges their own. In this way, the democratic community prospers.
After all, how to help ensure the mathematics classroom experience is in the
best interests of a society committed to the personal, social, and intellectual de-
velopments of all of its citizens ought to give shape and purpose to our efforts as
mathematics educators.
Best of luck with yours.

References

Ball, D. L. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and de-
velopment program in mathematics education. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation monograph.
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933/1936). How we think. New York: Henry Holt Company.
Maritain, J. (1960). Education at the crossroads. New Haven: Yale University Press.
What Is Your Thinking?

Hopefully questions have come to mind that you found worth thinking about as you
read this book. The following are offered in that spirit.
• Does your mathematics text begin pretty much every chapter with a short intro-
duction, followed by a few demonstrations of a technique or a procedure, and
then a set of problems for students that advance from easier to more complex?
Have you considered introducing the topic or chapter by presenting one of the
more challenging problems or letting students choose problems from the question
set to see what they would choose and what they could do “from scratch”? Any
experienced teacher of mathematics has seen how students can really surprise us.
And if they have had background working with problem-clarifying strategies, it
may well be more frequent. At the least, working on problems without having
seen a set procedure would provide insight into student’s thinking and create the
opportunity for interest groups of those who selected the same problem.
• Do you agree with the thinking that if you want to develop students’ resilience
working with a mathematics problem, then having them work in groups is better
than having a whole-class discussion because as soon as one student “gets it,”
they will likely share the answer and so end the time others would remain think-
ing? Are there times when whole-class discussion is more effective than groups
and vice versa?
• Do you think the discussion of how to introduce arithmetic series by other than a
demonstration of Gauss’s approach would be worth doing with all students? Or
would you be inclined to skip doing so with weaker mathematics students? If so,
are you certain they could not look at the counting series from 1 to 10, say, and
not be able to discover adding up opposite pairs in a reasonable amount of time?
How much time would you consider giving them to try is surely the question.
• Do you think telling students the Pythagorean Theorem when presenting a right
triangle along with showing them some triples that satisfy the relationship is a
good idea? In the absence of sharing a proof as well, do you think it will inspire
students to look for patterns beneath the surface of things? If so, do you follow
up that presentation with other such opportunities for students to uncover other

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 135

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7
136 What Is Your Thinking?

patterns? You might consider, if you do not already, sharing with students Bhas-
kara’s “Behold!” proof—it will surely promote thinking as a consequence of
their visualizing.
• Making time so problem-clarifying strategies can be introduced and worked with
means of course less time to include other mathematics content, so a value judge-
ment needs to be made. It has been argued in this book that providing students
with the “tools of the trade” can develop mathematical habits of mind that would
make them more capable mathematics students. If you found the argument com-
pelling, do you have any ideas as how you might incorporate that perspective
into your curriculum? Will you make it a conversation with your department
members?
• If you have not already done so, do you think giving students’ choice in their
homework selection is something worth trying?
• Some mathematics teachers collect homework on a regular or random basis to
get an idea of how and what students are doing. Did you think it is a good idea to
ask students from time to time to write how their personal/professional develop-
ment is going or if they have noticed their becoming more aware of using some
problem-clarifying strategy(ies)?
• Is it part of your teaching practice to stop after having solved a challenging
problem with students to have them make note of the crucial decision(s)/step(s)?
Including the question(s) that helped make inroads to the solution? It might well
be not that easy to do as students often want to celebrate the victory of the con-
ceptual hunt and could feel energized to want to move on and engage another
problem, rather than stop and reflect. It would seem it would have to become a
learned practice, an acquired appreciation of their burgeoning connoisseurship.
• Informal assessment seems both a good idea and yet not an easy practice to
include as part of class time. Are you giving any thought to using any of the dis-
position lists discussed? Surely it would take time to become more comfortable
using them, but it would seem valuable toward securing a “thick description” of
what each of your students is about.
• Is it a practice of yours to bring history into your mathematics lessons? If not,
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has some really good
books where mathematical concepts are considered from their origins and devel-
opment.
• Are you giving any thought to including multiple-center investigations into your
curriculum? If so, with regard to assessing such an activity, it is valuable to have
students in each group write up their recollections of the experience, including
what each of the participants did. This way you can have a fairly good idea of
who was responsible for what aspect of the engagement, and over time students
tend to become more observant, which is a good thing in itself. Project-based
learning sites offer focus problems that perhaps could be developed further so as
to establish follow-up interest-group investigations. Do you think other members
of your department would be interested in working together to create such inves-
tigations?
What Is Your Thinking? 137

• Students most likely have heard about Albert Einstein and how brilliant he was.
But as he noted, what was critical to his making major findings was his patience.
He spent 11 years thinking about one problem! Do you discuss with students the
valuable qualities of persistence, patience, and resilience when you take time
to talk about what is needed to be successful doing mathematics? How do you
think those valuable qualities can be developed further as part of your students’
mathematics experience? Or are you thinking that it will just happen as a natural
consequence of students engaging mathematics problems? Are there mathemat-
ics problems in class where students get 11 min to think and investigate? In their
homework?
• Does discussing signpost behaviors with students with regard to their emotional,
social, and intellectual development seem a good idea? Would it seem worth a
conversation with department colleagues?
• Has it been your practice to have new students in your class write about their
past mathematics experience, and what they hope would happen in their present
mathematic class? If not, has what you read in this book giving you any reason
to change your mind?
• Did you find the discussion regarding students thinking of themselves as artists
of their own lives and choosing behaviors to work with so as to become more
capable a good idea? If so, there is the possibility here for student-interest groups
so students can discuss among themselves how their development is going and
what they have learned that has helped them in their efforts so that others could
gain from that perspective.
• Does your grading scheme have room for comments about each student? Some
mathematics teachers have so many students that it would take an extraordinary
amount of time for them to write about each student’s development each mark-
ing period. A checklist could make that possible. It would seem that discussions
regarding what the most important qualities are and what attitudes and behaviors
are valuable to include would seem worth a conversation in class and depart-
ment.
• Did you think the disposition spectrums work as they are? What changes, if any,
would you make? If you plan to use them is it your thinking to have whole-class
discussions from time to time just to help remind them of the value such consid-
erations provide?
• There were many allusions to a “vibrant,” “pluralistic,” “democratic,” “robust”
society as being the impetus for including the three dimensions of the educa-
tional experience, the cognitive, social, and psychological, as the essential focus
of mathematics educators. Do you think that if that perspective was shared with
students throughout their K-12 or K-16 school mathematics experience there
would be more capable, cooperative, and confident citizens to support the work-
ings of society?
Bibliography

Adams, C. J. (8 May 2012). ACT finds most students still not ready for college. Education Week.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing—A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Aristotle. (1971). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
Arnsten, A., Mazure, C. M., & Sinha, R. (2012). This is your brain in meltdown. Scientific Ameri-
can, 306(4), 48–53.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: Personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–205.
Ball, D. L. (1997). From the general to the particular: Knowing our own students as Learners of
mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(9), 732–737, (Reston: NCTM).
Ball, D. L. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and de-
velopment program in mathematics education. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation monograph.
Bauersfeld, H. (1980). Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics classroom.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(1), 23–41.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Females mathematics
teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy
of the Sciences, USA, 107(5), 1060–1063.
Bernstein, R. J. (1966). John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press.
Black, P. (2004). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning. Draft. King’s College
London.
Boaler, J. (2008). What’s math got to do with it? New York: Penguin Books.
Boaler, J. (3 July 2012). Timed tests and the development of math anxiety. Commentary. Edweek.
org.
Bolles, E. B. (1997). A second way of knowing. In E. B. Bolles (Ed.), Galileo’s commandment—An
anthology of great science writing. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Hand-
book of educational psychology (pp. 673-709). New York: Macmillan.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). How people learn—Brain, mind,
experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. National Academy
Press.
Brodie, K. (2009). Pressing dilemmas: Meaning making and justification in mathematics Teach-
ing. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 27–50.
Brown, S. I. (1994). The problem of the problem and curriculum fallacies. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Con-
structing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematical education (pp. 175–189).
London: Falmer Press.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd edn.). Hillsboro: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Bruner, J. (1971). The relevance of education. New York: W. W Norton.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 139

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7
140 Bibliography

Buckley, L. A. (2010). Unfulfilled hopes in education for equity: Redesigning the mathematics
curriculum in a US high school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 51–78.
Budd, K., Carson, E., et al. (2005). Ten myths about math education and why you shouldn’t believe
them. www.nychold.com/myths-050504.
Carlip, S. (2012). Quantum gravity in flatland. Scientific American, 306(4), 40–47.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning
science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (Spring 2012). Putting students on the path to learning:
The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6–11
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Mathematics: Standard for mathematical prac-
tice. www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). Issues in mathematics education II—The
mathematical education of teachers. Washington, D.C.: AMS/MAA.
Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Mayer, & N.
Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 107–
22). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2004). Launching self-directed learners. Educational Leadership,
62(1), 51–57 (Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Coxford, A. F., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., et al. (1999). Contemporary mathematics in context—A
unified approach. Scope and sequence. Chicago: Everyday Learning Co.
Cuoco, A. (May 1998). What I wish I had known about mathematics when I started teaching: sug-
getions for teacher-preparation programs. Mathematics Teacher, 91( 5), 372–374..
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching—Evaluation instrument. Princeton: Danielson
Group.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Birkhauser.
de Lange, J. (1987.) Mathematics, insight and meaning—Teaching, learning, and testing of math-
ematics for the life and social sciences. Holland: I.O.W.O. Utrecht.
de Lange, J. (1993). Real tasks and real assessment. In R. B. Davis & C. A. Maher (Eds.), Schools,
mathematics, and the world of reality (pp. 263-287). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
de Lange, J. (2007). Aspects of the art of assessment design. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing
mathematical proficiency (pp. 99-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.
De Sousa, R. (1987). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Devlin, K. (June 2010). In math you have to remember, in other subjects you can think about it,
Devlin’s Angle. Mathematical Association of America. www.maa.org/devlin_06_10.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York: E. L. Kellogg & Co.
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt.
Dewey, J. (1929). Quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. In J. A.
Boydston (Ed.), The later works (Vol. 4, pp. 1925–53) Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer-
sity Press.
Dewey, J. (1933/1936). How we think. New York: Henry Holt Company.
Dewey, J. (1937). The challenge of democracy to education in John Dewey. The Later Works, 11.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. New York: Ohio University Swallow Press.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dworkin, M. (Ed.). (1959). Dewey on education: Selections. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at
China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1),
61–75.
Faris, C. (20 January 2015). College students think they’re ready for the work force. Employ-
ers aren’t so sure. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://m.chronicle.com/article/College-
Students-Think/151239.
Felson, R. B. (1984). The effect of self-appraisals on ability of academic performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 944–952.
Bibliography 141

Fishman, S. M., & McCarthy, L. (1998). John Dewey and the challenge of classroom practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Freudenthal, H. (1981). Major problems of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Math-
ematics, 12(2), 133–150.
Friesen, S. (September 2006). The Galileo educational network: Developing a mathematical habit-
of-mind. Mathematics Teacher.
Gill, M. G., & Boote, D. (2012). Classroom culture, mathematics culture, and the failures of re-
form: The need for a collective view of culture. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1–45.
Goldenberg, E. P. (1996). Habits of mind’ as an organizer for the curriculum. Journal of Educa-
tion, 178, 13–34.
Goldin, G. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In Lyn D. Eng-
lish (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education. New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Gordon, M. (2011). Mathematical habits of mind: Promoting students’ thoughtful considerations.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43, 457–469.
Gordon, M. (2013). The mathematics of fountain design: A multiple-centres activity. Teaching
Mathematics and its Applications, 32(1), 19–27.
Gould, S. J. (1995). The celestial mechanic and the earthly naturalist. Dinosaur in a haystack—
Reflections in natural history. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks.
Green, E. (23 July 2014). Why do Americans stink at math? New York Times magazine section.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Haines, C., & Izard, J. (1994). Assessing mathematical communications about projects and inves-
tigations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 373–386.
Halmos, P. (1980). The heart of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 87, 519–524.
Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension and collaboration: Inquiry circles in collabora-
tion. Portland: Heinemann.
James, W. (2008). Talks to teachers on psychology. Rockville: Arc Manor Publishers. (originally
published 1899).
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathemat-
ics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kosta, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind: Dispositions for success. (www.habitsofmin-
dinstitute.org).
Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lester, F. Jr. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching mathematics through problem solving—Grades prekindergar-
ten-6. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2013). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how
to guard against it. In M. Pitici (Ed.), Best writing on mathematics (pp. 142–147). Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Maritain, J. (1960). Education at the crossroads. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Marsh, H. W. (1991). The failure of high-ability high schools to deliver academic benefits: The
importance of academic self-concept and educational aspirations. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 28, 445–480.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd edn.).
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., & Hughes, C. S., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A frame-
work for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of
knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Reston: NCTM.
142 Bibliography

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of math-
ematics education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Newmann, F. N., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (January 2001). Authentic intellectual work and
standardized tests: Conflict or co-existence? Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teaching for higher-order thinking in mathematics: The challenge for the
next decade. In D. Grouws, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effec-
tive mathematics teaching (Vol. 1). Reston: NCTM.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence (trans: M. Cook). New York: International Universi-
ties Press.
Polya, G. (1945/1957). How to solve it (2nd edn.). New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Polya, G. (1965). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning, and teaching problem
solving (Vol. II). New York: Wiley.
Raths, L. E., Wassermann, S., et al. (1986). Teaching for thinking: Theory, strategies, and activities
for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ratner, J. (Ed.). (1939). Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy. New York:
A Modern Library Giant.
Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system. New York: Basic
Books.
Ritter, J. (1989). Prime numbers. In A mathematical mystery tour. Paris: Unesco Courier.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Relations of wait-time and rewards to the development of language, logic,
and fate control. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 291–308.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Schoen, H. L. (Ed.). (2003). Teaching mathematics through problem solving—Grades 6–12. Res-
ton: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem-solving performance.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 173–187.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teach-
ers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational
Researcher, 43(8), 404–412.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Re-
searcher,15(2), 4–14. (AERA Presidential Address).
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Sparks, S. D. (16 May 2011). Researchers probe causes of math anxiety. Education Week.
Stenmark, J. K. (1989). Assessment alternatives in mathematics. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia.
Stenmark, J. K. (Ed.). (1991). Mathematics assessment: Myths, models, good questions, and prac-
tical suggestions. Reston: NCTM.
Su, F. E. (2010). Teaching research: Encouraging discoveries. American Mathematical Monthly,
117, 159–169.
Third International Mathematics and Science Study. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S.
eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in in-
ternational contexts. Washington, D.C.: NCES.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael: The Autodesk
Foundation.
Bibliography 143

Thompson, A. G., & Briars, D. J. (December 1989). Assessing students’ learning to inform teach-
ing: The message in NCTM’s evaluation standards. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(4), 22–26.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd edn.).
Alexandria: ASCD.
Watson, A. (2008). School mathematics as a special kind of mathematics. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 28, 3.
Webb, N. L. (1993). Assessment for the mathematics classroom. In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford
(Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom. Reston: NCTM.
Whitehead, A. N. (1967). The aim of education. In The aim of education and other essays. New
York: Free Press.
Wiggins, G. (9/92). Designing effective & authentic assessment tasks: guidelines, principles, and
tools. Handout.
Yackel, E., Cobb, P., et al. (1990). The importance of social interaction in children’s construction
of mathematical knowledge. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch. (Eds.), Teaching and learning
mathematics in the 1990s. Reston: NCTM.
Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Designing representations: Reasoning about functions of two variables.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4)431–466.
Young, C., Wu, S., & Menon, V. (2012). The neurological basis of math anxiety. Psychological
Science, 23(5), 492–501.
Index

A Curriculum, 31–37, 43, 54, 55, 86, 93, 104,

American College Testing (ACT), 27, 86 111, 113, 119, 122, 125, 132
Aesthetics, 63, 69, 70, 81
Algebra, 21, 23, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 56, 63–66, D
110 Davis, Miles, 36
Algorithms, x, xi, 10, 13, 14, 33, 36 de Laplace, Simon, 6, 63, 66
American Mathematical Society, 133 Democratic society, xii, 15, 20, 35, 51, 60,
Angle, 6, 8, 9, 25, 40, 63, 66–69, 71, 72–75, 114, 131, 132
93 Descartes, 5, 21, 22, 32, 93
Approximating, 63, 75–78, 80 Desmos, 41
Archimedes, 8, 30, 75 Dewey, John, x, 8, 13, 27, 44, 47
Area, 7, 8, 32, 61, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 84 Distributive, 33, 34, 39
Arithmetic, 14, 15, 22, 24, 63, 64, 79, 135 Divisors, 10, 67, 68, 70
Arithmetic series, 22, 23, 24 Dyson, James, 54
Artist, 100, 102, 137
Assessment, 49, 51, 55, 99, 104, 107–117, E
119–121, 123 Earl of Sandwich, 6
formal, 42, 43 Educative growth, 51
formative, 115, 116 Egypt, 8, 9
informal, 43 Einstein, Albert, xi
socially responsible, 107, 108, 112, 114, Eliot, T.S., ix
116, 121 Euler, 93
Average, 15, 75, 76–81, 110, 119, 120 Ewing, John, 133

B F
Babylon, 9, 69 Factoring, 25, 26, 110
Feynman, Richard, 5
C Focus problem, 61, 62, 64, 66–68, 71, 73, 75,
Calculus, 8, 63, 74, 79, 81 81
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), xii, 86 Fractions, 17, 18, 25
Centimeter, 35, 50 adding, 17
Character, 44 dividing, 18
Circle, 7, 8, 63, 66–69, 75–80 Fully-guided instruction, 53
Coding sheet, 56, 74
Complete graph, 34 G
Counter-example, 29, 35, 40 Gauss, Carl, 22, 24
Counting numbers, 5, 24, 40, 64 Generalization, 23, 32, 64, 65, 70

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 145

M. Gordon, Enabling Students in Mathematics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25406-7
146 Index

Geometry, 7, 63 Poincare’, 27, 32, 40, 92

Gradian, 67, 69 Pollak, Henry, 25
Graph theory, 34 Practical infinity, 93
Greeks, 40, 41 Prime factorization, 67, 70
Problem-clarifying strategies, 28, 31, 34, 43,
H 113, 122, 126, 127
Halmos, P., 31 analyzing, 110
Hardy, G.H., ix be flexible, 6, 35, 51, 60, 94
Hasty generalization, 70 change of representation/changing
Heisenberg, Werner, 20 representation, 17, 25, 65
change your point of view, 32
I conducting thought experiments, 33
Intellectual disposition checklist, 126 conjecture/conjecturing, 34, 56
Intuition, 6, 9, 16, 19, 20, 24, 27, 33–35, 39 create/creating, 31, 38
generalize/generalizing, 32
guessing, 31
J inferring, 32
James, William, 13 listen carefully, xii, 50, 62
look for patterns/looking for patterns, 31,
L 39, 40, 65
Laminar nozzles, 73 make a diagram, 56, 72
Leibniz, 8, 32, 40 make a table, 42, 70
Lemma, 78 make the problem simpler/making the
problem simpler, 7, 18, 19, 25, 55,
M 56
Mathematics Association of America, 25 prove/proving, 64, 69, 70
Mathematics teacher’s dilemma, x provide an example, 56, 72
Mesopotamia, 9, 69 reasoning, 32
Meter, 35, 50, 67, 70 re-examine the problem/re-examinig the
Mile, 9, 14, 15, 67, 71, 74, 81, 132 problem, 38
Mindset, 90, 101, 116 representing, 21, 34
Modeling, 54, 91, 112, 126 represent symbolically/representing
Multiple-centers, xii, 61–64, 66, 74, 81 symbolically, 37, 126
take things apart/taking things apart, 34,
N 35, 54, 71
Naïve, 6, 10, 16, 18, 21, 22, 62, 104 test for plausibility/testing for plausibility,
National Assessment of Educational Progress, 35, 56
14 tinker/tinkering, 31, 37, 39, 41, 64
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics use an equation, 32
(NCTM), 8, 9, 14, 26, 32, 49, 94, visualize/visualizing, 21, 37
113, 121 work backwards/working backwards, 38,
Newton, 8 42
Note-taking, 42 Problem-Solving Strategy Inventory, 42
Psychological disposition checklist, 120, 121
O Pythagorean, 7, 8, 75
Oppenheimer, J.R., 62 Pythagorean Theorem, 7

P Q
Parabolas, degenerate, 73 Quadratic equation, 25, 26, 27, 63, 71
Parametric equations, 73 general, 41
Pascal, 93 variety of, 73
Piaget, Jean, 93 Question-and-Answer Opportunity, 92
Plausibility, 19, 35, 37, 55, 56, 99, 126
Index 147

R Three-stage model, 39
Right angle, 6, 8, 9, 68, 75 Trends in International Mathematics and
Rubric, 111 Science Study (TIMMS), 119
Rule of thumb, 51 Trapezoid, 75, 77, 78, 79
Russell, Bertrand, 5, 9 Triangle, 8, 41, 42, 69, 76, 78, 81
Triangular number, 40, 41
S
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 86 U
Sirius, 10 Understanding, 14, 37–41, 50, 91–94, 131
Slope, 5, 6, 21, 22 deep, 6, 14, 26, 37, 67, 85
Social disposition checklist, 124 procedure-based, 85
Socially responsible, ix, 51, 112, 114, 121
Square numbers, 41 W
Square root, 68 Wait time, 55, 57, 90
Squaring, 39 Wright, F.L., 103
STEM, 71
Stress, 36, 53, 86–88, 100–102, 121

T
Teaching, 26, 36, 54, 59, 90
Thinking process, 32, 42, 44