<<

Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International for the Psychology of Education Volume 2 Editors JeongHoWoo,HeeChanLew KyoSikPark,DongYeopSeo TheKoreaSocietyofEducationalStudiesinMathematics TheRepublicofKorea TheProceedingsarealsoavailableonCDROM Copyright©2007lefttotheauthors Allrightsreserved ISSN0771100X CoverDesign:HyunYoungKang

2ii PME31―2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2

Research Reports Alcock,Lara 21 How Do Your Students Think about Proof? A DVD Resource for Mathematicians

Applebaum,Mark&Leikin,Roza 29 Teachers’ Conceptions of Mathematical Challenge in School Mathematics

Arzarello,Ferdinando&Paola,Domingo 217 Semiotic Games: The Role of the Teacher

Asghari,Amir.H. 225 Examples, a Missing Link

Askew,Mike 233 Scaffolding Revisited: From Tool for Result to Tool-and-Result

Barmby,Patrick&Harries,Tony&Higgins,Steve&Suggate,Jennifer 241 How Can We Assess Mathematical Understanding?

Barwell,Richard 249 The Discursive Construction of Mathematical Thinking: The Role of Researchers’ Descriptions

Baturo,AnnetteR.&Cooper,TomJ.&Doyle,Katherine 257 Authority and Esteem Effects of Enhancing Remote Indigenous Teacher-Assistants’ Mathematics-Education Knowledge and Skills

Bogomolny,Marianna 265 Raising Students’ Understanding: Linear

Canada,DanielL. 273 Informal Conceptions of Distribution Held by Elementary Preservice Teachers

PME31―2007 2iii Cayton,GabrielleA.&Brizuela,BárbaraM. 281 First Graders’ Strategies for Numerical Notation, Reading and the Number Concept

Chang,Y.L.&Wu,S.C. 289 An Exploratory Study of Elementary Beginning Mathematics Teacher Efficacy

Chapman,Olive 297 Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge and Inquiry Teaching Approaches

Charalambous,CharalambosY. 2105 Developing and Testing a Scale for Measuring Students’ Understanding of Fractions

Cheng,YingHao&Lin,FouLai 2113 The Effectiveness and Limitation of Reading and Coloring Strategy in Learning Proof

Chick,HelenL.&Harris,Kiri 2121 Grade 5/6 Teachers’ Perceptions of Algebra in the Primary School Curriculum Chin,ErhTsung&Lin,YungChi&Chuang,ChihWei&Tuan,HsiaoLin 2129 The Influence of Inquiry-Based Mathematics Teaching on 11 th Grade High Achievers: Focusing on Metacognition

Chino,Kimiho&Morozumi,Tatsuo&Arai,Hitoshi&Ogihara,Fumihiro &Oguchi,Yuichi&Miyazaki,Mikio 2137 The Effects of “Spatial Geometry Curriculm with 3D DGS” in Lower Secondary School Mathematics

Chiu,MeiShiu 2145 Mathematics as Mother/Basis of Science in Affect: Analysis of TIMSS 2003 Data

Cho,HanHyuk&Song,MinHo&Kim,HwaKyung 2153 Mediating Model between Logo and DGS for Planar Curves

Chung,Insook&Lew,HeeChan 2161 Comparing Korean and U.S. Third Grade Elementary Student Conceptual Understanding of Basic Multiplication Facts

2iv PME31―2007 Collet,Christina&Bruder,Regina&Komorek,Evelyn 2169 Self-monitoring by Lesson Reports from Teachers in Problem-Solving Maths Lessons

Cooper,TomJ.&Baturo,AnnetteR.&Ewing,Bronwyn &Duus,Elizabeth&Moore,Kaitlin 2177 Mathematics Education and Torres Strait Islander Blocklaying Students: The Power of Vocational Context and Structural Understanding

Dawn,NgKitEe&Stillman,Gloria&Stacey,Kaye 2185 Interdisciplinary Learning and Perceptions of Interconnectedness of Mathematics

Delaney,Seán&Charalambous,CharalambosY.&Hsu,HuiYu &Mesa,Vilma 2193 The Treatment of Addition and Subtraction of Fractions in Cypriot, Irish, and Taiwanese Textbooks

Diezmann,Carmel&Lowrie,Tom 2201 The Development of Primary Students’ Knowledge of the Structured Number Line

DoganDunlap,Hamide 2209 Reasoning with Metaphors and Constructing an Understanding of the Mathematical Function Concept

Essien,Anthony&Setati,Mamokgethi 2217 Exploring the English Proficiency-Mathematical Proficiency Relationship in Learners: An Investigation Using Instructional English Computer Software

Ewing,Bronwyn&Baturo,Annette&Cooper,Tom&Duus,Elizabeth &Moore,Kaitlin 2225 Vet in the Middle: Catering for Motivational Differences in Vocational Access Courses in Numeracy

Forgasz,HelenJ.&Mittelberg,David 2233 The Gendering of Mathematics in Israel and Australia

Fox,JillianL. 2241 21 st Century Children, Numeracy and Technology: An Analysis of Peer-reviewed Literature

PME31―2007 2v Fuglestad,AnneBerit 2249 Teaching and Teacher’s Competence with ICT in Mathematics in a Community of Inquiry

GarcíaAlonso,Israel&GarcíaCruz,JuanAntonio 2257 Statistical Inference in Textbooks: Mathematical and Everyday Contexts

Gholamazad,Soheila 2265 Pre-service Elementary School Teachers’ Experences with the Process of Creating Proofs

Greenes,Carole&Chang,KyungYoon&BenChaim,David 2273 International Survey of High School Students’ Understanding of Key Concepts of Linearity

Halverscheid,Stefan&Rolka,Katrin 2281 Mathematical Beliefs in Pictures and Words Seen through “Multiple Eyes”

2vi PME31―2007 HOW DO YOUR STUDENTS THINK ABOUT PROOF? A DVD RESOURCE FOR MATHEMATICIANS LaraAlcock UniversityofEssex,UK This paper is about the construction and initial testing of a DVD resource designed to help mathematicians learn more about their students’ reasoning and engage with issues from mathematics education. The DVD uses specially annotated video data, together with screens of prompts for reflection, to encourage discussion among mathematicians about students’ difficulties and successes. In the paper I describe part of the content in detail, showing how a short episode can raise many major issues in the learning of proof. I also report on design issues in the structure of the DVD, and on mathematicians’ responses to an early version of the content.

INTRODUCTION: DVD PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE Fewmathematicianshavetimetoreadeducationresearchpapers,soifwewantthem tobeabletobenefitfromtheideasandresultsofmathematicseducation,weneedto findwaystomakethesemoreaccessible.Thispaperreportsonaprojectthataimsto dothisbyprovidingaDVDresourceinwhichmathematicianscanwatchindividual studentsengagewithproofbasedmathematicsproblems 1.Videoepisodeshavebeen editedsothathalfofthescreenshowsthestudentworkingandtheotherhalfshows subtitlesatthebottominblue,andthestudent’swrittenworkinlargeprintinblackat thetop(ascreenshotisprovidedinFigure1).Boththesubtitlesandwrittenwork changeinrealtime,enablingtheviewertofollowthestudent’sthinkingaseasilyas possible.Thecontentofeachepisodeisdividedinto23minutesegments,aftereach ofwhichtheviewerseesascreenofquestionsdesignedtopromptreflectiononwhat has been seen. In this way, mathematicians are invited to analyse this data for themselves, attempting to accurately characterise what they see and debating the learningandteachingissuesthatarise.Theyarethusabletoengagewiththeprocessof mathematicseducation,ratherthantopassivelyconsumeitsproducts.Foranother projectwithasimilarethos,seeNardi&Iannone(2004). InthispaperIdescribeonevideoepisode,whichhasnowbeenshowninpresentations tofourgroupsof mathematiciansintheUKandthe USA. In this episode, Nick attemptsaproblemaboutupperbounds.InthispaperIdemonstratehowasingleshort episodecanraisenumerousissuesinmathematicseducationatthetransitiontoproof level,including:

1ThisprojectisaHigherEducationAcademyMaths,Stats&ORNetworkfundedactivity.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.18.Seoul:PME . 21 Alcock

• Students’understandingofabstractmathematicalconceptsandthewayinwhich thesemustrelatetodefinitions( cf. Vinner,1991;Moore,1994). • Students’useofexamplesintheirmathematicalreasoning( cf .Billset.al.,2006; Dahlberg&Housman,1997). • Students’strategiesforprovingandtheextenttowhichtheyapplytheseeffectively (cf .Alcock&Weber,inpress;Weber,2001). • Students’understandingofwhatconstitutesaproof,andtherelationshipbetween counterexamplesandproof( cf .Recio&Godino,2001;Iannone&Nardi,2004).

Figure1:ScreenshotfromtheDVD.

DATA: DVD CONTENT ThedatausedfortheDVDwasgatheredatalargestateuniversityintheUSA.The participantswereallenrolledinatransitiontoproofcoursecalled“Introductionto mathematicalreasoning,”inwhichtheystudiedmethodsofproofinthecontextof abstract topics such as sets, functions and number theory. Each participant was interviewedindividually,andduringtheinterviewwasaskedtoattemptthreetasks.

22 PME31―2007 Alcock

Eachtaskwasgivenonapieceofpaper;thestudentwastoldtheycouldwriteonthe paperandwasaskedtodescribetheirthinkingoutloud.Theinterviewerremained silentexcepttoremindtheparticipantofthisrequestandtoclarifythenatureofthe task.InthispaperweseeNickworkingonthethirdofthethreetasks: Let A ⊆ R beanonemptyset. Uisan upper bound for Aifandonlyif ∀a ∈ A, a ≤ u . Task:Supposethat A, B ⊆ R arenonemptysets, uisanupperboundfor Aand visan upperboundfor B.Proveordisprove: 1. u + v isanupperboundfor A ∪ B . 2. uv isanupperboundfor A ∪ B . 3. u − v isanupperboundfor A ∩ B . Thereaderwillnotethatallthreestatementsarefalse,sothatineachcasea“disproof” isrequiredandhenceacounterexampleisneeded.Thismakesthetaskdifferentfrom thosethatmoststudentswillencounterinsuchcourses.Thiswasadeliberateresearch design choice, since I wanted to avoid questions that could be answered using a standardprocedure. Thedatawasoriginallyintendedforresearchpurposesonly,sothecontentthatcould beusedforcreatingtheDVDwasconstrainedbythelimitednumberofstudentswho agreedtoallowtheirinterviewstobeusedforthispurpose.Fortunately,twoofthese inparticular(Nickincluded)werearticulateinexpressingtheir thinking and made goodprogressontheinterviewtasks,withoutproducingperfectsolutionsandwithout beingmaximallyefficient.Inmyviewthistypeofdataisparticularlysuitedtothis purpose, because it can provide valuable insight into what might reasonably be expectedfromacompetentstudentandwhatwemightthereforerealisticallyhopeto teachourstudentstodoatthislevel.

RESULTS: NICK’S ATTEMPT AND MATHEMATICIANS’ RESPONSES HereIdescribethefoursegmentsofvideocontentinwhichNickworksontheupper boundstask,andgiveashortoverviewoftheissueseachraisedforthemathematicians whohaveseenpresentationsofthismaterial. Segment 1: An incorrect general argument Nickbeganbyreadingthetaskandwritingthefollowingsymbolicsummaryofthe given information. He then paused for several seconds and then announced his thoughtsasfollows: InmyheadI’mthinking,alright,if uistheupperboundfor A,and vistheupperboundfor B…whichever…set has the higher number…pretty much, that’s going to be the upper bound.Sotheupperboundfor Aunion Biseithergoingtobe uor v,sothesumofthem willbetheupperbound.

PME31―2007 23 Alcock

Nicknextstatedthathenowneededto“figureoutawaytoprovethis”,andaftera considerablepausewentontoconsidertwocases: uisgreaterthan vandviceversa. Hethenexplainedthat …forthecasewhere uislessthan v,theupperboundwouldjustbe v.Andintheothercase theupperboundwouldjustbe u.Nowitsaysforlikebothcases–theupperboundjust meansthatit’sgreaterthananynumberinthatset.So,ifit’s uplus vthatalsomeansit couldbe…say…3 uplus3 v.[…]So,ifeitheroneoftheseisanupperbound,Iwouldsay thesumofthemisanupperbound.Because vplus uisgreaterthan v.Because ucannotbe zerobecauseit’snota…nonemptyset.Oritcanbezerosowe’llsaygreaterthanorequal to. Hethenmadethesimilarargumentfortheothercase,andfinishedthisfirstattemptby saying,“So,Iwouldguessthatwouldprovethat vplus uisanupperbound.” OnecommonobservationaboutthissegmentwasthatNickrepeatedlyusedthephrase “the upperbound”;mathematiciansnotedthatheappearedtobeconfusingtheideaof upperboundwiththatofeithersupremumormaximumelement,whichraisedissues aboutconceptualunderstandingandtheroleofdefinitionsinmathematics( cf. Moore, 1994;Vinner,1991).Anotherobservationwasthathisargumentdoesnotworkfor negativeupperbounds.Thisraisedissuesaboutstudents’understandingoftherange ofexamplestowhichastatementmightapply( cf .Billset.al.,2006;Watson&Mason, 2002). Segment 2: Consideration of negative Nickmovedontoquestion2inthetaskand,afterreadingthequestionandpausing,he said, Thosecouldbenegativestoo….Whatif[…]whatif Bhasamaximumofanegative number? Hethenreconsideredhisfirstanswer,observingthatsince Aand Baresubsetsofthe reals,either uor vcouldbenegative.Hethenmadethefollowingcommentaboutthe overalltaskstructure: Itsays“proveordisprove”.Ididn’tactually–Ithoughtitsaid“prove”.Myteachernever actuallygivesusa“disprove”. Havingestablishedthis,hewentontoreasonasfollows. If the set B is all negative numbers…that means its upper bound could be a negative number.So uplus vwouldbelessthan u.Soitwouldnotnecessarilybegreater.[…]And, prettymuch,this[ indicating his earlier statement that u + v ≥ u ]isnottrue…if uor vare negative. Hethenofferedthefollowingcommentonhisownreasoning: Idon’tknowhowgoodaproofthatis.Butwe’llcontinueandgobacktoitifIthinkof anythingelse.

24 PME31―2007 Alcock

OnecommonobservationaboutthissegmentwasthatNickhadnowresolvedtheissue ofnegativeupperbounds,thoughtherestillseemedtobesomeconfusionaboutthe precise meaning of the term. Another was that he had not provided a specific counterexample,thoughheappearedtounderstandwhatpropertiesthiswouldneedto have.Thisraisedissuesaboutstudents’understandingofwhatisrequiredforaproof (cf .Recio&Godino,2001)andthenatureanduseofcounterexamples( cf .Iannone& Nardi,2004).AthirdwasthatNick’sexpectationsofthetaskitselfseemedtohave hadquiteanimpactonhisfirstattemptatquestion1.Thisraisedissuesaboutpotential alternativestothestandard form of mathematical tasks, an in particular tasks that requiredsomeformofexamplegeneration( cf. Watson&Mason,2002). Segment 3: Using specific examples Nicknextrereadpart2ofthetaskandthensaid, Wellforthesamereason,that’sfalse.If uisnegativeand vispositive…then…theupper boundcouldbeanegativenumber,andthat’snotgoingtobeandupperboundfor…the onewithpositivevalues. Hethenhesitatedbeforewritingthefollowing,notingthat uv beinganupperboundof A ∪ B wouldmeanthat uv wasanupperboundofboth Aand B. uv isanUBof A ∪ B uv UB Aand uv UB B

? ? uv ≥u uv ≥v Havingwrittenthisdown,hebegantorestatehissuggestionthat vcouldbenegativeif the set B contained all negative values. He then interrupted himself to give the followingcommentonthestructureofhisargument: Prettymuch,toprovesomething–todisprovesomethingyou’dfindanexample,orlet somethingexist.So,if Bisanegativeset–orasetofall,ofonlynegativenumbers,that ? meansitsupperboundcouldbeanegativenumber.Meaningthatthis[ indicating uv ≥u ]is nottrueif visnegative. Hethencommented, So,there’smanyothercases,butif–allyouneedtodoisfindoneexample,sothatwould bemyoneexample. Observations about this segment again focused on the fact that although Nick had givenacorrectconditionunderwhichupperboundsofthesetswouldnotberelatedas inthequestion,andalthoughhehadmentionedthestrategyofgivinganexample,he stillhadnotdoneso.Thisraisedissuesabouttheextenttowhichstudentsareinclined tointroduceexamplesandareabletousetheseeffectively to assist them in their reasoning( cf. Alcock&Weber,inpress;Dahlberg&Housman,1997;Weber,Alcock &Radu,2005).

PME31―2007 25 Alcock

Episode 4: Considering the role of counterexamples Nickthenmovedontothefinalpartofthequestion,andthistimehedidintroducea specificexample.Hesaid, If Aisaset…thiscouldbeanyset.I’llgo2…7.2through7.And Bisthesetof…negative 5to2.Thenwe’resayingthat u…inthiscaseitwouldbe7and2.Sayingthat5isthe upper bound of A and B. Of the intersection. That works in this case...mainly because…butwhatifitwas…?Let’smakethemclosertogether.If Ais2through7again, and Bis…2through6.Thatwouldmeanthat, uminus vis7minus6.Itdoesn’thavetobe –thosearejustexamplesofit.Tryingtofindanexamplewhereitdoesn’twork.And you’dget1,whichisnotanupperbound.OfAnB.BecauseAnBequals2through6.A nBisjustB.Sothis…I’vefoundanexamplewhereitdoesn’twork.Sothatwould,pretty much…I have my way of proving that. I have to pretty much write the proof itself because….Actually… Hethenaskedtheinterviewer, DoIhavetowritetheproof,ifIcanfindanexample?Todisproveit? Theinterviewersaidthatshewouldnotanswerquestionsofthatnatureatthispointin theinterview.Afteragoodnaturedgroan,Nickthenwentontolookbackathisfirst page.Hehesitatedandthensaid, Iwasalwaystoldthattodisprovesomething,allyouneedisanexamplewhereitdoesn’t work.SoI’mjustgoingtohavethisexample…where uequals7, vequals6, uminus v equals1.Whichisnotanupperboundof Aintersect B,whichis2through6. Havingwrittenthisdown,Nickthenturnedbacktothepreviousquestionsagainand said, Actually now thinking that…all you need is an example…I really did not need to go throughanyofthis.AllIhadtodowaswriteanexampleforeveryone. Atthispointhesmiledandgaveagoodnaturedcurse,andthenwentontoprovide examplesforthepreviouspartsofthequestion.ForbothpartshewroteA={(2,7)}, B={(10,3)}(notehismisuseofsetnotation;onceagainhesaid“through,”indicating thathemeantthesetofnumbersbetween2and7etc.).Afterwritingdownthese examplesandcalculating u + v and uv respectively,hesaid, Soallyouneedtodoisfindone.Andthere’smyone,sonowI’mdonewiththisone. By this point, Nick did sound confident that this “give a single counterexample” strategy achieved what was required. So it was interesting that this part of the interviewthenconcludedwiththefollowingexchange: N: Nowcanyouanswerthequestionforme? I: Whatwasthequestionagain? N: Canyouuseanexampletodisprovesomething? I: Yes. N: Alright.

26 PME31―2007 Alcock

It is worth noting, however, that by this stage he did not seem surprised by the interviewer’sresponse. ObservationsaboutthispartoftheinterviewtendedtofocusonNick’suseofexamples tosupporthismathematicalreasoning( cf . Alcock & Weber, in press; Dahlberg & Housman,1997;Weber,Alcock&Radu,2005)andontheapparentdevelopmentsin hisunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweencounterexamplesandproof( cf. Recio& Godino,2001;Iannone&Nardi,2004).

DISCUSSION Design of the DVD Thefirstthingtonoteisthatthedividedscreenformatwasextremelysuccessfulin allowingviewerstofollowthestudents’reasoning.Nooneinanyofthepresentations feltanyneedtoremarkuponit,andthosewhowerespecificallyaskedallsaidthatthey couldfollowitperfectly.AsecondpointisthatIrealisedwhilepresentingthematerial that by splitting it into the obvious segments, I had unintentionally created “cliffhangers”:eachsegmentendswithsomekindoferrororambiguityinNick’s thinking,whichhethenresolvestosomeextentinthenextsegment.Thisisobviously notanecessaryfeatureforsuchapresentation,butwithhindsightitprovedeffectivein twoways.First,havingunresolvederrorsorambiguitiesatbreaksinthevideoseemed toprovidetheimpetusforseriousdebatesamongthemathematiciansabouttheprecise natureoftheerrors,thepossiblesourcesoftheseandthewayinwhichsucherrors mightberesolvedoravoided.Second,itgavethepresentationsasenseofdrama–for mostviewersthereseemedtobestrongsenseofresolutionandreliefatvariouspoints, inparticularwhenNickfirstdidbegintoconsidernegativenumbers.Givenmygoalof makingaresourcethatwouldbeengagingandenjoyable,thisisobviouslyaplus. What the mathematicians learned I was pleased to find that the videobased presentation generated much discussion about the issues noted above. Many of the mathematicians present were keen to continuethediscussionswithmeandwitheachother,andtohearmoreabouttheways inwhichtheseissuesareconceptualisedwithinthemathematicseducationcommunity. There were also three overarching themes that regularly occurred in summary discussionsessions,whichIoutlinebrieflyhere. First,therewasdiscussionofthegeneraldifficultyofdiscerningastudent’sthinking fromtheirwrittenwork.ManyofthosewhosawthepresentationnotedthatwhatNick saidoftenindicatedagreaterunderstandingthanwhathewrotedown.Second,there was reflection upon the mathematicians’ own role in both task design and direct teachingsituations.ManypeoplenotedthatNick’scapacityforselfcorrectionseemed tobehigherthantheymightordinarilyallowfor–thattheywouldhaveinterrupted himashemadehiserrors,butthathavingseenthisvideotheywouldthinktwiceabout doingsoinsimilarsituationsinfuture.Finally,acommonremarkattheendofthe videowasthatNickwasquiteastrongstudent,andthathisthoughtprocesseswere

PME31―2007 27 Alcock obviously not perfect but were, in fact, almost exactly like those used by mathematiciansintheirownwork.Theynotedthathiserrors,struggles,explorations, momentsofinsightandmomentsofuncertaintywereverymuchliketheirown,and theyaccordedhimconsiderablerespectforhisreasoning.Inthis,atleastsomehad movedonconsiderablyfrominitialamusementorhorrorathiserrorsandimpatience withhisslownesstoinvokesuitablestrategies.Suchrespectforastudent’sthinkingis surelyagoodbasisforfurtherseriousengagementinissuesinmathematicseducation. References Alcock,L.J.& Weber,K.(inpress).Referentialandsyntacticapproachestoproof:Case studies from a transitiontoproof course. To appear in Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education . Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A. & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). ExemplificationinMathematicsEducation.InJ.Novotna(Ed.), Proceedings of the 30 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.1,pp.125154).Prague,CzechRepublic:PME. Dahlberg, R.P. & Housman, D.L. (1997). Facilitating learning events through example generation.Educational Studies in Mathematics ,33,283299. Iannone,P.&Nardi,E.(2004).Counterexamples:Isoneasgoodasmany?In Proceedings of the 4 th Mediterranean Conference on Mathematics Education .pp.379388. Moore, R.C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,27,249266. Nardi, E. & Iannone, P. (2004). On the fragile, yet crucial, relationship between mathematiciansandresearchersinmathematicseducation.InM.JohnsenHøines,&A.B. Fuglestad(Eds.) Proceedings of the 28 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.3,pp.401408).Bergen,Norway:PME. Recio,A.M.&Godino,J.D.(2001).Institutionalandpersonalmeaningsofmathematical proof.Educational Studies in Mathematics ,48,8399. Vinner,S.(1991).Theroleofdefinitionsinteachingandlearningmathematics.InD.O.Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking .Dordrecht:Kluwer.pp.6581. Watson,A.&Mason,J.(2002).Extendingexamplespacesasalearning/teachingstrategyin mathematics.InA.Cockburn&E.Nardi(Eds.), Proceedings of the 26 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4,pp.377385). Norwich,UK:PME. Weber,K.,(2001).Studentdifficultyinconstructingproofs:theneedforstrategicknowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,48(1),101119. Weber, K., Alcock, L., & Radu, I. (2005). Undergraduates’ use of examples in a transitiontoproofcourse.InS.Wilson(Ed.) Proceedings of the 26th Conference for the North American Chapter of the Psychology of Mathematics Education .ElectronicCD. Roanoke,VA.

28 PME31―2007 TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGE IN SCHOOL MATHEMATICS MarkApplebaum *andRozaLeikin** *KayeAcademicCollegeofEducation,BeerSheva,Israel/ **UniversityofHaifa,Haifa,Israel This study arose from our belief that mathematics should be challenging in any mathematics classroom. We analyse conceptions of mathematical challenge of two groups of experienced mathematics teachers. The first group was asked to define the notion of mathematical challenge and give examples of challenging mathematical tasks (N 1=9). The second group of teachers was presented with a questionnaire based on the replies of the teachers from the first group (N 2=41). We found that the teachers have a broad conception of mathematical challenge, appreciate relativity of mathematical challenge, but are not always convinced of the possibility of incorporating challenging mathematics in everyday classroom. BACKGROUND The role of challenge in mathematics education This study is inspired by our participation in ICMI16 study group "Challenging mathematicsinandbeyondtheclassroom".PeterTaylor(2006)inhispresentationof theagendaoftheconferencewrote:"Challengeisnotonlyanimportantcomponent of the learning process but also a vital skill for life. People are confronted with challengingsituationseachdayandneedtodealwiththem.Fortunatelytheprocesses in solving mathematics challenges (abstract or otherwise) involve certain types of reasoningwhichgeneralisetosolvingchallengesencounteredineverydaylife". InCambridgeAdvancedLearner'sDictionary 'challenge'isdefinedas'difficultjob', somethingneedinggreatmental(orphysical)effortinordertobedonesuccessfully. Incorporationofamathematicalchallengeinlearning/teachingprocessinvolvesboth psychologicalanddidacticalconsiderations. Principles of 'developing education’ (Davydov, 1996), which integrate Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) claim that to develop studentsmathematicalreasoningthetasksshouldnotbetooeasyortoodifficultand the learners have to approach any task through meaningful activity. Another perspective on mathematical challenge may be seen in differentiation between ‘exercises’ and ‘problems’. According to Polya (1973), Schoenfeld (1985), and Charles & Lester (1982) mathematical task is a problem when it incorporates a challengeforlearners.Itshould(a)bemotivating;(b)notincludereadilyavailable procedures; (c) require an attempt; and (d) have several approaches to solution. “Obviously, these criteria are relative and subjective with respect to a person’s problemsolving expertise in a particular , i.e. a task that is cognitively

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.916.Seoul:PME . 29 Applebaum & Leikin demandingforonepersonmaybetrivial(orviceversa)foranother”(Leikin,2004,p. 209). Teachers' role in devolution of challenging mathematical tasks Jaworski (1994) claimed that mathematical challenge together with sensitivity to students, and management of learning are core elements of teaching. In order to develop pupil's mathematical understanding a teacher must create situations that demandfromthestudents'mentaleffort.Teachers'choicesofmathematicaltasksfor theirclassesandthewaysinwhichthesetasksareintroducedtostudentsdetermine thequalityofmathematicsintheclassroom(e.g., Simon, 1997; Steinbring, 1998). However, many teachers choose conventional tasks for their lessons and guide studentstowards'standard'solutions(Leikin&LevavWaynberg,accepted).Simply providing teachers with readytouse challenging mathematical activities is not sufficientfortheirimplementation.Theteachersshouldbeawareandconvincedof theimportanceofmathematicalchallengeinteachingandlearningmathematics,they should‘feelsafe’whendealingwithsuchkindofmathematics(mathematicallyand pedagogically) and have autonomy (Krainer, 2001) in employing this kind of mathematicsintheirclasses. Teachers' knowledge and beliefs Teachers' knowledge and beliefs are interrelated and both have very complex structurethatdeterminesteachers'decisionmakingwhenplanning,performing,and reflecting.Inthisstudyweconsidermathematicalchallengesasanintegralpartof teachers' content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). From this point of view teachers’ subject-matter knowledge comprises their own understanding of the essence of mathematicalchallenge,theirknowledgeofchallengingmathematics,theirabilityto approach challenging tasks. In this study teachers' conceptions of mathematical challengeareanintegralpartofteacher'ssubjectmatterknowledgeattributedtotheir metaanalysisofmathematicalcontenttobetaught. Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge includesknowledgeofhowstudentscopewithchallengingmathematics, aswellasknowledgeofappropriatelearningsetting. Teachers’ curricular content knowledge includes knowledge of different types of curricula and understanding differentapproachestoteachingchallengingmathematics. THE STUDY The purpose and the questions Thisisthefirststageofanongoingstudythatanalyses development of teachers’ conceptionsofmathematicalchallenge.Atthisstageweexploredteachers’viewsof mathematical challenges through the content analysis of their definitions and examples.Themainresearchquestionhereis:Whatkindsofmathematicalchallenge teachersmentionintheirdefinitions?Whattypesofmathematicalproblemsteacher provide as examples of challenging tasks? How teachers rank different criteria of

210 PME31―2007 Applebaum & Leikin mathematicalchallenge?Howteachersrankmathematicaltaskswithrespecttothe challengetheyembrace? Procedure and tools Two groups of inservice secondary school mathematics teachers with at least 10 yearsofexperiencetookpartinourstudy.GroupAincluded9teachers,GroupB included41teachers.Thereweretwostagesinthisresearch: Stage 1: TheteachersfromGroupAwereaskedtocompleteanopenQuestionnaire 1thatincluded2assignments:(1)todefinemathematicalchallenge;(2)togivetwo examples of mathematically challenging tasks and explain how they illustrate mathematical challenge (for the effectiveness of examples as a research tool see Zazkis&Leikin,accepted).AftercompletingQuestionnaire1theteachersdiscussed theirdefinitionsandexamples.Theywereaskedtosolvethetasksgivenasexamples byotherteachersandevaluatechallengeincorporatedinthetasks.Lastlytheteachers wereaskedtochoose(athome)3typesofmathematical challenge and present an exampleofeachone.Alltheteachers'workwascollectedandthediscussionwas recorded in handwritten protocol. Teachers' written responses and their discourse duringthediscussionwereanalysedbytworesearchersindependently.Basedonthis analysisweidentified12categoriesofchallengingmathematicaltasksasviewedby teachers(seeTable1).BasedonthiscategorizationQuestionnaire2wasconstructed. We also included in Questionnaire2 three problems that were suggested by the teachers from Group A as “challenging at different levels” and “corresponding to differentcharacteristicsofmathematicalchallenge”. Stage 2: FortyoneteachersfromGroupBwerepresentedwithQuestionnaire2and asked(1)toranktypesofthetaskswithrespecttotheleveloftheirchallengefrom1 (themostchallenging)to12(theleastchallenging);(2)tosolveandrankthethree chosentasksfrom1(themostchallenging)to3(theleastchallenging)withrespectto teaching9 th gradestudents. RESULTS Characteristics of challenging mathematical tasks Teachers’ definitions included various criteria for mathematical challenge. For example, Roni and Sohila addressed solving problems in different ways, Soha considered nonconventional problems, Tami clearly indicated that using combinationofdifferenttopicsinonesolutionischallenging.Sohilaalsoaddressed findingmistakesinsolutionsoftheproblemsasamathematicalchallenge. Roni: Mathematical challenge for me is a problem that has several stages in solution or problem that has different solutions. The solution is not obvious. Soha: Mathematicalchallengerequiresthinkingatthelevelhigherthanregular. A challenging problem is a problem whose solution or topic is non standard.Ithinkthatmathematicalchallengeisrelative.Itisdifficultto characterize a problem as challenging or not challenging without

PME31―2007 211 Applebaum & Leikin

consideringpopulation.Theproblemcanbechallengingforthe1stgrade students and not challenging for the 3rd graders. The problem may be challengingfor'regular'peoplebutnotchallengingformathematicians. Tami: Mathematical challenge is a combination of a number of different methodsandtopicstogether.ItmeansthatsolvingchallengingproblemI use different mathematical principles and topics (e.g. algebra and geometryoranalyticalgeometry) Sohila: Formemathematicalchallengeis(a)lookingfordifferentsolutionsofa problemor(b)lookingforthemistakesinsolutions. Asmentionedearlierweidentified12categoriesbasedontheanalysisofteachers’ definitionsofchallengingmathematicaltasks(seeTable1). Table1:FrequencyofdifferentcharacteristicsinGroupAandrankingthe characteristicsbyGroupB. Group A Group B 1

Characteristicsofmathematical challenge choice inquest2 HW1 st Criteria definition Lesson1 Lesson 1 Noofthecriteria Averagerank Problemsofa Problemsofa particulartype particulartype Appearedasthe mentionedinthe 6. Aproblemthatrequirescombination 2 3 4 differentmathematicaltopics 6 2. Aproblemthatrequireslogical 1 2 1 11 reasoning 6.15 1. Aproblemthathastobesolvedin 7 2 4 5 differentways 6.44 12. Aninquirybasedproblem 1 4 6 7 6.59 7. Anonconventionalproblem 1 6 2 9 7.66 10. Aproblemthatrequiresgeneralizationof 1 1 3 problemresults 8.20 3. Provinganewmathematicsstatement 3 8.29 9. Aproblemthatrequiresauxiliary 1 2 2 constructions 9.90 11. Findingmistakesinsolutions 1 10.15 8. Aparadox 1 2 2 10.29 5. Aproblemthatrequiresknowledgeof 1 extracurriculatopics 10.56 4. Aproblemwithparameters 2 10.78 Table 1 presents frequency of the appearance of different characteristics in the definitionsandproblemsgivenbyteachersingroupAandrankingthecriteriaby GroupB.Table1alsopresentsdistributionoftheexamplesofchallengingproblems given by teachers in group A with respect to different characteristics. This characterizationoftheproblemswasperformedbytheteachersthemselvesandby the two researches independently and then was discussed and refined in group

212 PME31―2007 Applebaum & Leikin discussion.Withinthespacelimitofthispaperwecannotconsiderthedifferences betweenthekindsofproblemstheteacherspresentedonthespotandathome.Note thatwhereasonlyoneteachermentionedinquiryas a characteristic of challenging problem, ten of fortyfive problems suggested by the teachers were open inquiry problems(e.g.,Task3). Ranking the characteristics TheteachersingroupBwereaskedtoscorethecriteriathatarosefromtheanalysis of the responses of teachers from group A. We found that teachers' views on mathematicalchallengeasfollowedfromtheteachersrankingwereconsistentwith the views of teachers from group A. The minimal average rank was given to combinationofdifferenttopicsandtoolsinoneparticularsolution.Logicalreasoning wasrankedasmostsuitablecriteriaformathematicalchallengeby11of41teachers. The three other criteria that were highly ranked by teachers from group B were problemsolvingindifferentways,mathematicalinquiryandnonconventionaltasks. We were surprised by the fact that nonconventional task were scored lower than otherabovementioned criteria. However,from teachers' discussion it became clear thatnonconventionaltaskswerelesspopularsinceteachersoftendidnotfeel'safe' enoughtousethistypeoftasksintheirclasses. Examples of challenging problems Task 1: A 1 6 In a regular octagon all the diagonals from vertex A are 2 5 constructed. Bythisconstruction sixdisjointanglesareobtained 3 4 A near the vertex A. What can you say about these angles: ∠ ∠ ∠ ∠ ∠ ∠ 1 6 A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 , A5 , A6 2 5 3 4 Task 2: Findtheproductofthetwonumbers: 407 ⋅393 Task 3: The distance between school and Tom’s home is 9 km and the distance between the schoolandJerry'shomeis7km.WhatisthedistancebetweenTom’sandJerry'shomes?

Figure1 AlltheproblemsgivenbytheteachersingroupA(includingTasks1,2and3)were discussedby them in the wholegroupdiscussion. Beforethediscussionthey were askedtosolvetheproblemsgivenbyotherteachersandevaluatetheleveloftheir challenge.Often,whensolving,theteachersdidnotfindproblemsofotherteachers challenging at all. They claimed the problems were too easy. However, after the 'authors'oftheproblemsexplainedwhytheyconsideredtheproblemschallengingthe teachersacceptedallofthemasexamplesofchallengingtasks.

PME31―2007 213 Applebaum & Leikin

Asaresultofthewholegroupdiscussion(ingroupA)theteachersdevelopedtheir comprehension of the relativity of mathematical challenge. Similarly to considerations presented by Soha in her definition of mathematical challenge, teachers agreed that in order to evaluate mathematical challenge of a problem it shouldbeconsideredwithrespecttostudents'age,knowledge,ability,expertiseand creativity. Tami: Youcannotsaywhetherthetaskischallengingifyoudonotknowwho thestudentsare,whattheyknow,wheretheyleanandmoreoverwhois theteacherthatteachesthem.Forsomestudentsthiswillbeachallenge, forotherstudentsnotatall. Figure1presentsthreeproblemsthatwereprovidedbytheteachersingroupAand chosenforQuestionnaire2.Thereasonsforthischoicewerethefollowing:Thethree tasks represented different types of challenges as shown above, they belong to different fields ofschoolmathematicalcurriculum,andwerefoundchallengingfor the same grade level :9 th grade. Task1hasdifferentsolutions,requiresuseofdifferenttopicsinone solution (i.e. circleandinscribedregularpolygonsorcalculationofanglesandequilateraltriangles andtrapezoid,propertiesofananglesbisector).Thisproblemalsorequiresauxiliary constructions. Task 2 is not standard task since its 'elegant' solution is based on use of reduced multiplicationformulas. Task3isanexampleofanopenproblemthathasinfinite numberofsolutionsthatshouldbepresentedintheformof 7 inequation ("something that you do not see in the 9 textbook"). This is an inquiry problem whose formal 2≤≤≤S ≤≤≤ 16 solution is not trivial even for the teachers (see Figure 2).Teachers agreed that this problem required logical Figure2 considerationintheprocessofsolution. The teachers in group B ranked the challenge of the tasks (from 1– the most challengingto3–theleastchallenging).Table2showsteachers’performanceinthe threetasksandtheirranking.Accordingtotheteachers’rankingTask3appearedto bethemostchallengingone(1.65).TheleastchallengingwasTask2(2.19). Wefoundclearrelationshipbetweenthedifficultyofthetasksfortheteachersand theirperceptionoftheleveloftheirchallenge.Only3of41teachersgavecompletely correctanswertoTask3whereas38of41teacherssolvedTask2correctlyincluding 34teacherswhousedthe'elegant'solution. Evaluation of the challenge of the tasks by teachers in group A correlated with teachers'viewsingroupB:themorechallengingcharacteristicsataskcomprisedin theeyesoftheteachers’fromgroupAthemorechallengingitwasrankedbythe teachersfromgroupB.Additionally,themostchallenging task (task 3) fitted five

214 PME31―2007 Applebaum & Leikin most 'popular' characteristics of challenge as ranked by teachers from group B whereasTask2fittedonlytwoofthesecharacteristics. Table2:Teacher'ssolutionsandchallengingrankof3tasks(GroupB) Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Answer Noof Answer Noof Answer Noof teachers teachers teachers 407 ⋅393= 34 Correct ο =(400+7)(4007)= 22 5. 20 2 ≤ x ≤ 16 solution =16000049=159951 3 159951bylong multiplication 4 ο Partly 22 5. no 7 2 < x < 16 justification 11 correct ∠ ∠ 0 solution 1= 6, 8 Thereareinfinite ∠2= ∠5, ∠3= ∠4 numberofsituation 12 2,16, 130 or 7 Incorrect Therearenumberof Noanswer 6 Noanswer cases solution 3 2or16 2 Noanswer 6 Challenge rank (from 1 the highest to 3 the lowest): 2.06 2.19 1.65

Concluding remarks Theexperimentpresentedinthispaperisonlythefirststageinthestudyonteachers’ conceptionsofchallengingmathematics.Ourstudydemonstratesthatteachers(asa group) held a broad conception of mathematical challenge. During the group discussiontheyrefineandverifytheirconceptionsand attainasharedmeaning. Wewerehappytoseethatmanyofthecriteriateacherssuggestedformathematical challengehadbeenusedbyKrutetskiiinhisstudyonstudents'mathematicalabilities (Krutetskii,1976). We found that teachers connect pedagogy and mathematics (Jaworski, 1992; Shulman, 1986) incorporated in the mathematical tasks: when reasoning about mathematicalchallengetheteachersweresensitivetoindividualdifferencesamong theirstudents.Thisconnectionwasalsoevidentintheirreasoningabouttherelativity of the challenge. During the discussions the teachers clearly stated that they value mathematical challenge and agreed that challenging mathematics is important for ‘deepeningandbroadeningofstudents’mathematicalthinking’. AtthetimeofthisstudytheteachersfromGroupAparticipatedinMAprogramfor mathematicsteachers.Weweregladtoseethattheyusedthecontentofthecourses intheirreasoningaboutchallenges,sincemostofthecoursesintheprogramwere challenging to them. For example, the frequency of the requirement for different solutions(mentionedby7of9teachers)maybeexplainedbythefactthatteachersin

PME31―2007 215 Applebaum & Leikin groupAwereawareofthespecialinterestoftheresearchers in different ways of problemsolving(e.g.,Leikin&LevavWaynberg,accepted).Additionally,oneofthe taskspresentedbytheteachersasachallengingtaskwassimilartotheoneusedin the studies by Verschaffel & De Corte (e.g., Verschaffel & De Corte, 1997). This implementation of knowledge obtained in a different context indicates for us the importanceofthesystematicteacherseducation. Bibliography Charles,R.&Lester,F.(1982). Teaching problem solving: What, why and how .PaloAlto.: DaleSeymour. DavydovV.V.(1996). Theory of Developing Education .Moscow:Intor. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating Mathematics Teaching: A Constructivist Inquiry. London:Falmer. Krainer,K.(2001).Teachers’growthismorethanthegrowthofindividualteachers:The caseofGisela.InF.L.Lin&T.J.Cooney(Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp.271−293).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren . TranslatedfromRussianbyTeller,J.;EditedbyKilpatrickJ.&Wirszup,Chicago:The UniversityofChicagoPress Leikin, R., LevavVineberg, A. (accepted). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explainthegapbetweentheorybasedrecommendationsandschoolpracticeintheuseof connectingtasks. Educational Studies in mathematics. Leikin, R. (2004). Towards High Quality Geometrical Tasks: Reformulation of a Proof Problem.InM.J.Hoines&A.B.Fuglestad(Eds.) Proceedings of the 28 th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 3, 209-216 Polya,G.(1973). How To Solve It. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method .Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Schoenfeld,A.H.(1985). Mathematical Problem Solving .USA,AcademicPress,Inc. Simon,A.M.(1997)Developingnewmodelsofmathematicsteaching:Animperativefor researchonmathematicsteacherdevelopment.InE.Fennema&B.ScottNelson(Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp.5586).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Steinbring, H. (1998). Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1 (2),157189. Taylor,P.(2006)Challengingmathematicsanditsroleinthelearningprocess, ICMI Study 16: Challenging Mathematics in and Beyond the Classroom, Trondheim, Norway. http://www.amt.edu.au/icmis16dd.html Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp.8591).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Verschaffel,L.,&DeCorte,E.(1997).Teachingrealistic mathematicalmodellinginthe elementary school. A teaching experiment with fifth graders. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ,28,577601.

216 PME31―2007 SEMIOTIC GAMES: THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER FerdinandoArzarello andDomingoPaola Dipt.diMatematica,Univ.Torino,Italy/Liceo“Issel”,FinaleLigure,Italy The paper uses a semiotic lens to interpret the interactions between teacher and students, who work in small collaborative groups. This approach allows focussing some important strategies, called semiotic games, used by the teacher to support students mathematics learning. The semiotic games are discussed within a Vygotskyan frame. INTRODUCTION The role of the teacher in promoting learning processes is crucial and has been analysed according to different frameworks. For example the Theory of Didactic Situations, originated by G. Brousseau (1997), definesthe teacher as a didactical engineer .(S)hedesignsthesituationsandorganisesthe milieu accordingtothepiece of mathematicstobe taught andtothefeatures of the students ( mesogenesis : see Sensevyetal.,2005);(s)hedividestheactivitybetweentheteacherandthestudents, according to their potentialities ( topogenesis ); moreover the classroom interactions are pictured according to the didactic contract , that is the system of reciprocal explicit and implicit expectations between the teacher and the students as regards mathematical knowledge. Brown and McIntyre (1993) underline that the teacher workswithstudentsinclassroomsanddesignsactivityforclassroomsusingher/his craft knowledge , namely a knowledge largely rooted in the practice of teaching. Siemon&al.(2004,p.193)pointout“theneedforadeeperunderstandingofthe ways in which teachers contribute to the shaping of classroom cultures”. Other researchers,whoworkaccordingtoVygotsky’sconceptualizationofZPD(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 84), underline that teaching consists in a process of enabling students’ potential achievements.Theteachermustprovidethesuitablepedagogicalmediation forstudents’appropriationof scientific concepts (Schmittau,2003).Withinsuchan approach,someresearchers(e.g.Bartolini&Mariotti,toappear)picturetheteacher asa semiotic mediator ,whopromotestheevolutionof signs intheclassroomfrom thepersonalsensesthatthestudentsgivetothemtowardsthescientificsharedsense. In this case teaching is generally conceived as a system of actions that promote suitableprocessesof internalisation . OurapproachisintheVygotskianstream:theteacherisseenasasemioticmediator, who promotes students’ internalisation processes through signs. But some changes areproposedwithrespecttotheclassicalVygotskyanapproach.First,weextendthe notionofsigntoall semiotic resources usedintheteachingactivities:words(inoral or in written form); extralinguistic modes of expression (gestures, glances, …); differenttypesofinscriptions(drawings,sketches,graphs,...);differentinstruments (from the pencil to the most sophisticated ICT devices). Second, we consider the embodied and multimodal waysinwhichsuchresourcesareproduced,developedand

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.1724.Seoul:PME . 217 Arzarello & Paola used.Withinsuchaframework,weutiliseawidersemioticlens(the semiotic bundle , sketchedbelow)tofocustheinteractionsbetweenteacherandstudents.Oursemiotic lens allows framingand describing animportant semiotic phenomenon, which we callsemiotic games.Thesemioticgamespractiseisrootedinthecraftknowledgeof theteacher,andmostoftimesispursuedunconsciouslybyher/him.Onceexplicit,it canbeusedtoproperlydesigntheteacher’sinterventionstrategiesintheclassroom forsupportingstudents’internalisationprocesses. In the following three sections we discuss: (i) the multimodal paradigm and the semiotic tools suitable for describing mathematics learning processes; (ii) an emblematicexample,throughwhichthenotionofsemioticgamesisintroduced(the mainresultofthepaper);(iii)somedidacticalconsequences. FROM THE MULTIMODALITY OF LEARNING PROCESSES TO THE SEMIOTIC BUNDLE Thenotionof multimodality hasevolvedwithintheparadigmof embodiment ,which hasbeendevelopedintheselastyears(Wilson,2002).Embodimentisamovement afootincognitivesciencethatgrantsthebodyacentralroleinshapingthemind.It concernsdifferentdisciplines,e.g.cognitivescienceandneuroscience,interestedin how the body is involved in thinking and learning. The new stance emphasizes sensoryandmotorfunctions,aswellastheirimportance forsuccessfulinteraction withtheenvironment.Amajorconsequenceisthattheboundariesamongperception, actionandcognitionbecomeporous (Seitz,2000).Conceptsaresoanalysednoton thebasisof“formalabstractmodels,totallyunrelatedtothelifeofthebody,andof thebrainregionsgoverningthebody’sfunctioningintheworld”(Gallese&Lakoff, 2005, p. 455), but considering the multimodality of our cognitive performances. Verbal itself (e.g. metaphorical productions) is part of these cognitive multimodalactivities( ibid. ). Semiotics is a powerful tool for observing the didactical processes. However, the classicalsemioticapproachesputstronglimitationsuponthestructureofthesemiotic systems they consider. These result too narrow for interpreting the didactical phenomenaintheclassroom.Thishappensfortworeasons: (i)Studentsandteachersuseavarietyofsemioticresourcesintheclassroom:speech, gestures,glances,inscriptionsandextralinguisticmodesofexpression.Butsomeof themdonotsatisfytherequirementsoftheclassicaldefinitionsfor semioticsystems asdiscussedintheliterature(e.g.inDuval,2006orinArzarello,2006). (ii) The way in which such different resources are activated is multimodal. It is necessary to carefully study the relationships within and among those, which are activeatthesamemoment,andtheirdynamicdevelopingintime. Henceweneedabroadertheoreticaltoolforanalysingthesemioticresourcesinthe classroom. This tool is the Semiotic Bundle, introduced in Arzarello (2006). It encompasses all the classical semiotic systems as particular cases. Hence, it is coherentwiththeclassicalsemioticanalysis,butbroadenitandallowsgettingnew

218 PME31―2007 Arzarello & Paola results and framing the old ones within a unitary wider picture. Roughly speaking (for a full description see Arzarello, 2006), while the classical semiotic systems concernverystructuredsystems,whoserulesofsignproductionandmanipulationare very precise algorithms (from the oral and written language to the algebraic or Cartesian register) the semiotic bundle includes all signs produced by actions that haveanintentionalcharacter(e.g.speaking,writing,drawing,gesticulating,handling an artefact, etc.) and whose modes of production and transformation (e.g. for gesturingordrawing) mayencompassalsoapproacheslessdeterministicandmore idiosyncraticthanalgorithms.Asemioticbundleisadynamicstructure,wheresuch differentresourcescoexistanddevelopwiththeirmutualrelationships,accordingto themultimodalparadigm.Henceitallowsconsideringavarietyofresources,which span from the compositional systems, usually studied in traditional semiotics (e.g. formal)totheopensetsofsigns(e.g.sketches, drawings, gestures). An exampleofsemioticbundleisrepresentedbytheunityspeechgesture.Ithasbeen writtenthat“gestureandlanguageareonesystem”(McNeill,1992,p.2):fromour pointofview,gestureandlanguagearetwocomponentsofthesamesemioticbundle. Researchongestureshasalreadyshownimportantrelationshipsbetweenthem(e.g. match Vs. mismatch ,seeGoldinMeadow,2003). Wehaveusedthesemioticbundletoanalysedifferentclassroomstories(Arzarelloet al., 2006; Arzarello, 2006). It has revealed particularly useful for studying several didactic phenomena that happen in the classroom, especially some interactions betweenteacherandstudents,whoworkinsmallgroups.Wehavecalledthemthe semiotic games.Theyconsistinstrategiesofinterventionintheclassroomthatmany times the teacher activates unconsciously; once (s)he becomes aware of such strategies,s(he)canusetheminamorescientificwayforimprovingher/hisstudents achievements. We shall introduce the semiotic games through an emblematic exampleinthefollowingsection;furtherdiscussionisfoundinSabena(2007)and Arzarello&Robutti(toappear).Wehaveobservedsuchgamesindifferentclasses andwithstudentsofdifferentages(fromelementarytosecondaryschool). THE SEMIOTIC GAMES THROUGH AN EMBLEMATIC EXAMPLE The activity we shall comment concerns students attending the third year of secondaryschool(11 th grade;1617yearsold).Theyattendascientificcoursewith5 classesofmathematicsperweek,includingtheuseofcomputerswithmathematical software. These students are early introduced to the fundamental concepts of Calculus sincethebeginningofhighschool(9thgrade);theyhavethehabitofusing differenttypesofsoftware(Excel,Derive,Cabri_Géomètre,TIInteractive,Graphic Calculus:seeArzarelloetal.2006)torepresentfunctions,bothusingtheirCartesian graphsandtheiralgebraicrepresentations.Studentsarefamiliarwithproblemsolving activities, as well as with interactions in small groups. The methodology of mathematical discussion is aimed at favouring the social interaction and the constructionofasharedknowledge.

PME31―2007 219 Arzarello & Paola

Wewillcommentsomeexcerptsfromtheactivityofagroupofthreestudents:C,G, S. They are clever pupils, whoparticipate toclassroom activities with interest and activeinvolvement.Intheepisodeswepresent,thereisalsotheteacher(T),whose roleiscrucialandwillbecarefullyanalysed:heisnotalwayswiththesestudents,but passesfromonegrouptotheother(theclasshasbeendividedinto6smallgroupsof 34studentseach).Theexcerptsillustratewhatishappeningafterthegrouphasdone someexploringactivitiesononePC,whereGraphicCalculusproducesthegraphsof Figure1.Theirtaskistoexplainthereasonswhytheslopeofthe‘quasitangent’(see the box with Fig. 1) is changing in that way. The students know the concepts of increasing/decreasing functions but they do not yet know the formal notion of derivatives. Moreover they are able in using Graphic Calculus and know that the ‘quasitangent’isnottherealtangent,becauseofdiscreteapproximations. Thetwographsrepresent:thefunction f :x →0.5 x35x2+3;the slope of the ‘quasitangent’ to the function f [i.e. the secant throughamovingpoint( x, f(x))andthepoint(( x+δ, f(x+δ )),for verysmall δ].GraphicCalculusallowstoseethegenesisofthe twographsthroughapointP,whichmovesandtracesthegraph of the function f. In the same time one can see the corresponding moving ‘quasitangent’ and the graph of its Figure1 slope,whichistracedinrealtimewhilePismoving. Typically their first explanations are confuse (see Episode A) and expressed in a semiotic bundle, where the speech is not the fundamental part. In fact, the main component of the semiotic bundle consists in the multimodal use of different resources,especiallygestures,tofigureoutwhathappens on thescreen. Figures 2 showhowCcapturesandembodiestheinscriptionsinthescreenthroughhisgestures. More precisely, the evolution of the gesture from Fig. 2a to Fig. 2e illustrates a sproutingconceptnotcompletelyformulatedinwords.Itcouldbephrasedso:“the quasi-tangent is joining pairs of points whose x-coordinates are equidistant, but it is not the same for the corresponding y-coordinates: the farther they are the steepest is the quasi-tangent ”.Theseideasarejointlyexpressedthroughgesturesandwords.In fact,C’swordsreferonlytothe‘quasitangent’lineandexpressthefactthatthe interval x is always the same; the remaining part is expressed through gestures. Onlylatertheconceptwillbeexpressedverbally.WecallthegestureinFig.2bthe basic sign (the thumb and the index getting near each other): in fact it triggers a semioticgenesisofsignswithinthesemioticbundlethatisbeingsharedamongthe students(andtheteacher,asweshallsee). In Episode A the student C is interacting with the teacher, whose role will be analysedlater.Atthemomentwelimitourselvestofocusonthespecificcontentof hisinterventionsinthisepisode.In#1heisechoingC’swords(#0)usingamore

220 PME31―2007 Arzarello & Paola technical word ( delta-x), namely he gives the scientific name to the concept expressedbyCandCshowsthatheunderstandswhattheteacherissaying(#2).C’s attentionisconcentratedontherelationshipsbetweenthe xandthecorresponding yvariations.Gestureandspeechbothcontributetoexpressthecovariationbetween x and y, underlining the case when the variations of y become bigger correspondingtofixedvaluesof x. Figures2andthecorrespondingspeechillustrate the multimodality of C’s actions: the student is speaking and simultaneously gesturing. C grasps the relationship of covariance with some difficulty, as the misunderstanding in sentences from #5 to #9 shows. Here the intervention of the Teacher (#6) supports C in the stream of his reasoning, which can continue and culminatesinsentence#11,wherethegesture(see theoverturnedarminFig.2e) givesevidencethatCrealisedthatthecovarianceconcernsalsonegativeslopes(but hedoesnotusesuchwords).

Fig.2a(sentence#2) Fig.2b(sent.#2)Fig2c(sent.#3)

Fig.2d(sent.#5) Fig.2e(sent.#11)Fig.2f(sent.#21) Episode A. (duration:9seconds;aboutonehourafterthebeginningoftheactivity). 0 C: TheXintervalisthesame… 1 T: TheXintervalisthesame;deltax[ x]isfixed. 2 C: Delta…eh,indeed,however…howevertherearesomepointswhere…to explainit…onecansaythatthisstraightlinemustjointwopointsonthe Yaxis,whicharefarthereachother.(Figs.2a,2b) 3 C: Henceitissteepertowards...(Fig.2c) 4 G: Yes! 5 C: Letussaytowardsthisside.When,here,…when…howeveritmustjoin twopoints,whicharefarther,thatisthereisless...lessdistance.(Fig.2d) 6 T: Moreorlessfar? 7 C: Less...lessfar[hecorrectswhathesaidin#5]. 8 T: Ehh?

PME31―2007 221 Arzarello & Paola

9 C: OntheYaxisIamsaying! 10 T: Yes! 11 C: Itslantssoftlyfromthisside(Fig.2e). After a few seconds there is an important interaction among the teacher and the students(EpisodeB),whichisemblematicofthestrategyusedbytheteachertowork withstudentsforpromotingandfacilitatingtheirmathematicslearning. Episode B. (duration:34seconds;afewsecondsafterEpisodeA). 18 T: Hence let us say, in this moment if I understood properly, with a fixed deltax,whichisaconstant,…(Fig.2f). 19 C: Yes! 20 S: Yes! 21 T: It…isjoiningsomepointswithdeltay,whicharenear(Fig.2f). 22 C: Infact,nowthey[thepointsonthegraph]aremoreandmore… 23 T: Itisdecreasing,isitso?[withreferenceto y] 24 S: Yes! 25 C: …they[theirordinates]arelessandlessfar.Infact,theslope...Idonot knowhowtosayit,…...theslopeisgoingtowardszerodegrees. 26 T: Uh,uh. 27 C: Letussayso… 28 S: Ok,atacertainpointheredeltayoverdeltaxreacheshere… 29 C: …thepointsarelessandlessfar. 30 T: Sure! 31 S: …apoint,whichiszero. [sentencesofC(#27,#29),ofS(#28,#31)andofT(#30)areintertwinedeachother] Thisepisodeshowsanimportantaspectoftheteacher’s role: his interventions are crucialtofosterthepositivedevelopmentofthesituation.Thisappearsbothinhis gestures and in his speech. In fact he summarises the fundamental facts that the studentshavealreadypointedout:thecovariancebetween x and yandthetrendof this relationship nearby the stationary point (we skipped this part). To do so, he exploitstheexpressivepowerofthesemioticbundleusedbyCandS.Infactheuses twice the basic sign: in #18 to underline the fixed x and in #21 to refer to the corresponding yandtoitssmallnessnearbythelocalmaximumx (nonredundant gestures:seeKita,2000).Inthesecondpartoftheepisode(from#22on)weseethe immediate consequence of the strategy usedby the teacher. C has understood the relationshipbetweenthecovarianceandthephenomenaseenonthescreennearbythe stationary point. But once more he is (#25) unable to express the concept through speech.Onthecontrary,Susesthewordspreviouslyintroducedbytheteacher(#18, #21)andconvertswhatCwasexpressinginamultimodalwaythroughgesturesand (metaphoric)speechintoafreshsemioticregister.Hiswordsinfactareanoralform of the symbolic language of mathematics: the semiotic bundle now contains the official language of Calculus. His sentences #28, #31 represent this formula. The episodeillustrateswhatwecallsemioticgamesoftheteacher.Typically,theteacher usesthemultimodalityofthesemioticbundleproducedbythestudentstodevelophis

222 PME31―2007 Arzarello & Paola semioticmediation.Letusconsider#18and#21andFig.2f.Theteachermimicsone of the signs produced in that moment by the students (the basic sign) but simultaneouslyheusesdifferentwords:precisely,whilethestudentsuseanimprecise verbal explanation of the mathematical situation, he introduces precise words to describeit(#18,#21,#23)ortoconfirmthewordsofS(#30).Namely,theteacher usesoneofthesharedresources(gestures)toenter in a consonant communicative attitude with his students and another one (speech) to push them towards the scientificmeaningofwhattheyareconsidering.Thisstrategyisdevelopedwhenthe non verbal resources utilised by the students revealtotheteacherthattheyarein ZPD. Typically, the students explain a new mathematical situation producing simultaneouslygesturesandspeech(orothersigns)withinasemioticbundle:their explanationthroughgesturesseemspromisingbuttheirwordsareveryimpreciseor wrongandtheteachermimicstheformerbutpushesthelattertowardstherightform. CONCLUSIONS Semioticgamesaretypicalcommunicationstrategiesamongsubjects,whosharethe samesemioticresourcesinaspecificsituation.Theteacherusesthesemioticbundle bothasatooltodiagnosetheZPDofhisstudentsandasasharedstoreofsemiotic resources.Throughthemhecandevelophis semiotic mediation ,whichpushestheir knowledgetowardsthescientificone.Roughlyspeaking,semioticgamesseemgood forfocussingfurtherhow“thesignsactasaninstrumentofpsychologicalactivityin amanneranalogoustotheroleofatoolinlabour”(Vygotsky,1978,p.52)andhow the teacher can promote their production and internalisation. The space does not allowtogivemoredetails(theyareinArzarello&Robutti,toappear)andwelimit ourselves to sketchily draw some didactical consequences. A first point is that studentsareexposedinclassroomstoculturalandinstitutionalsignsthattheydonot control so much. A second point is that learning consists in students’ personal appropriationofthesignsmeaning,fosteredbystrongsocialinteractions,underthe coachingoftheteacher.Asaconsequence,theirgestureswithinthesemioticbundle (included their relationships with the other signs alive in the bundle) become a powerfulmediatingtoolbetweensignsandthought.Fromafunctionalpointofview, gesturescanactas“personalsigns”;whilethesemioticgameoftheteacherstarts from them to support the transition to their scientific meaning. Semiotic games constituteanimportantstepintheprocessofappropriationoftheculturallyshared meaning of signs, that is they are an important step in learning. They give the studentstheopportunityofenteringinresonancewithteacher’slanguageandthrough itwiththeinstitutionalknowledge.However,inorderthatsuchopportunitiescanbe concretelyaccomplished,theteachermustbeaware of the role that multimodality and semiotic games can play in communicating and in productive thinking. Awarenessisnecessaryforreproducingtheconditions that foster positive didactic experiences and for adapting the intervention techniques to the specific didactic activity. E.g. in this report we have considered teacher’s interventions in small collaborativegroups.Inawholeclassdiscussion,thetypologyofsemioticgamesto

PME31―2007 223 Arzarello & Paola develop is likely to change, depending on the relationships within and among the differentcomponentsofthesemioticbundlesproducedandsharedintheclassroom. Thisissuesuggestsnewresearchesontheroleoftheteacherintheclassroom,where thesemioticlenscanoncemoreconstituteacrucialinvestigatingtool. Acknowledgments. ResearchprogramsupportedbyMIURandbytheUniversitàdiTorino andtheUniversitàdiModenaeReggioEmilia(PRINContractn.2005019721). References Arzarello,F.(2006).Semiosisasamultimodalprocess, Relime, NumeroEspecial,267299. Arzarello, F., Paola, D. & Robutti, O. (2006). Curricolar innovation: an example of a learning environmentintegratedwithtechnology, Proceedings of 17th ICMI Study Conference . Arzarello,F.&Robutti,O.(toappear).Framingtheembodiedmindapproachwithinamultimodal paradigm,in:LynEnglish,M.BartoliniBussi,G.Jones,R.LesheD.Tirosh(eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (LEA,USA),2 nd revisededition. Bartolini,M.G.&Mariotti,M.A.(toappear).Semioticmediationinthemathematicsclassroom, in: Lyn English, M. Bartolini Bussi, G. Jones, R. Lesh e D. Tirosh (eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (LEA,USA),2 nd revisededition. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics . Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers. Brown,S.&McIntyre,D.(1993).Making Sense of Teaching .Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress. Duval,R.(2006).Acognitiveanalysisofproblemsofcomprehensioninalearningofmathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics ,(61),103131. Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G. (2005).The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensorymotor system in conceptualknowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology ,21,125. GoldinMeadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think . Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Kita,S.(2000).HowRepresentationalGesturesHelpSpeaking.InMcNeill,D.(ed.), Language and Gesture ,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,162185. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought . Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress. Sabena,C.(2007). Body and Signs: a multimodal semiotic approach to teaching-learning processes in early Calculus ,PhDDissertation,TurinUniversity. Schmittau,J.(2003).‘CulturalHistoricalTheoryandMathematicsEducation’,inA.Kozulin,B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev and S. M. Miller, (eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,225245. Seitz, J.A. (2000). The Bodily Basis of Thought, New Ideas in Psychology: An International Journal of Innovative Theory in Psychology ,18(1),2340. Sensevy,G.,SchubauerLeoni,M.L.,Mercier,A.,Ligozat,F.andPerrot,G.(2005).Anattemptto modeltheteacher’sactioninthemathematicsclass. Educational Studies in Mathematics 59(1 3),153181. Siemon,D.,Virgonna,J.Lasso,M.,Parsons,V.andCathcart,J.(2004).Elaboratingtheteacher’s role–Towardsaprofessionallanguage, Proceedings of the 28 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Bergen–Norway,vol.4,193–200. Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in society ,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Wilson,M.(2002).Sixviewsofembodiedcognition, Psychonomic Bull. & Review ,9(4),625636.

224 PME31―2007 EXAMPLES, A MISSING LINK AMIR.H.ASGHARI

SHAHIDBEHESHTIUNIVERSITY,Iran

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to a missing link regarding the problems involved in ‘generating’ an example of a defined concept. Through examining students’ conceptions while generating (an example), it is argued that these conceptions might be separately linked to a hidden activity: checking (the status of something for being an example). Finally, the missing link between students’ conceptions while generating and students’ conceptions while checking will be discussed. INTRODUCTION Usingexamplesissoblendedwithourstandardpracticeofteachingmathematicsthat whatiswrittenabouttheimportanceofusingexamplesseemstobeanexpressionof triviality.However,totheverysameextentthatmakinguseofexamplesseemstrivial andmundane,choosingasuitablecollectionofexamplesisproblematic . Itseemsthat anychoiceofexamplesbearsaninherent asymmetric aspect,i.e.whilefortheteacher theyareexamples of certainrelevantgeneralisationstransferabletootherexamplesto be met, for the students they could remain irrelevant to the target generalization (Mason and Pimm, 1984). When the intended generalization is a concept, usually accompaniedbyadefinition,thisdivorceofexamplesfromwhattheyexemplifyis mainlyshownintheliteraturebyexamininghowstudentstackle checking problems, i.e.checkingthestatusofsomethingforbeinganexample(TallandVinner,1981). Contrary to the widespread standard teaching practice in which new concepts are introduced by and through teacherprepared examples accompanied by his or her commentariesonwhatisworthconsideringinthepreparedexamples,thereareafew andstillexperimentalnonstandardsettingsinwhichstudentsareencouragedfromthe outsetto generate theirownexamples.Theseworksmainlyarisefromtheperspective that “ mathematics is a constructive activity and is most richly learnt when learners are activelyconstructingobjects,relations,questions,problemsandmeanings ” (Watsonand Mason,2005,p.ix). The previous two distinct paragraphs, one concerning checking and the other concerning generating ,metaphoricallystandforthecurrentviewoftheliteratureon these two processes, mainly as two distinct processes (for the examples of this separationseeDahlbergandHousman,1997,or,HazzanandZazkis,1997).Calling intoquestionthiswidespreadseparationbetweencheckingandgeneratingisthemain themeofthepresentpaper.Itwillbearguedthatasfarasgeneratingisconcerned,its separationfromcheckingliesinthelearner’s conception (oftheunderlyingconcepts) andthelearner’sgeneratingapproachratherthanthedesigner’s(researcherorteacher) will.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.2532.Seoul:PME . 225 Asghari

BACKGROUND Thispaperisbasedonawiderstudyaimedatinvestigatingstudents’understandingof equivalencerelations(AsghariandTall,2005).Thefollowingtask(TheMadDictator Task) was originally designed while having the standard definition of equivalence relationsinmind.Thetaskwastriedoutontwentystudentswithvariedbackground experience,noneofthemhadanyformal previousexperienceofequivalencerelations andrelatedconcepts.Inaonetooneinterviewsituationeachstudentwasintroduced tothedefinitionofa‘visitinglaw’(seebelow).Theneachstudentwasaskedtogivean exampleofavisitinglawonthepreparedgrids(seebelow). TheMadDictatorTask A country has ten cities. A mad dictator of the country has decided that he wants to introduceastrictlawaboutvisitingotherpeople.Hecallsthis'thevisitinglaw'. Avisitingcityofthecity,whichyouarein,is:Acitywhereyouareallowedtovisitother people. Avisitinglawmustobeytwoconditionstosatisfythemaddictator: 1.Whenyouareinaparticularcity,youareallowedtovisitotherpeopleinthatcity. 2.Foreachpairofcities,eithertheirvisitingcitiesareidenticalortheymustn’thaveany visitingcitiesincommon. Thedictatorasksdifferentofficialstocomeupwithvalidvisitinglaws,whichobeybothof theserules.Inordertoallowthedictatortocomparethedifferentlaws,theofficialsare askedtorepresenttheirlawsonagridsuchastheonebelow.

You may visit otherhere people Youarehere Inthepreviouspaper mentionedabove,mostofthe data came from the students’ involvementingeneratinganexample.However,inthatpaperallthetasksinvolved, including generating, were in the background while students’ conceptions of the conceptsofinterestwereinthefore.Now,inthispaper,Iturnmyattentionaroundand startscrutinizingthetasks. Asfarasgeneratingandcheckingareconcernedthereareafewmethodologicalpoints worthyofconsideration: First,inourearlierpapermentionedabove,accordingtoamethodologicalchoice,the focusofthestudywasontheoutcomesoflearning(learned)ratherthanonthelearners. Inthepresentpaper,Igivemoreweighttotheindividuals’voices.However,againitis nottheindividualspersethatmatter;thefocuswillbeonwhattheyrevealaboutthe possibleinterconnectionsbetweengenerating,checkingandthestudents’conceptions.

226 PME31―2007 Asghari

Second,inthisstudygeneratinganexamplebasicallymeanscomingupwithcertain points on the grid where there are incredible blind choices (two to the power of hundreddifferentwaysofputtingthepointsonthegrid),andwhereonlyatinyportion ofallthepossiblechoicesconstitutesthepotentialexamplespace(somethingabout oneovertwotothepowerofeighty).However,thenumberofobjects(examples)in thistinyportionisstillbigenough(itisexactly115975)tosurprisetheparticipantsby thepotentialpossibilityofhavinganexamplethatisopentothem. Third, in the course of the interview, after generating the first examples each intervieweewasaskedtogenerateanotherone.However,thenumberofgenerated examples was mainly determined by the interviewee’s will rather than any predeterminedplan.Asaresult,theinterviewees’worksrangefromgeneratingonly twoexamplestosuggestingawaytogenerateanexample,thoughtheywerenever askedtoexplainageneralwaytogenerateanexample. Fourth,oneofthemostsubtlepointsofeachinterviewwastomakeadecisionabout checking point, i.e. whether the interviewer should ask the interviewee to check whether his or her selfgenerated figure is an example or not. This decision was entirelycontingentontheinterviewee’swayofgeneratinghisorherexample.Asa matteroffact,tothesameextentthattheinterviewercouldnotbeawareofallpossible conceptionsinadvance,hecouldnotexamineallpossiblecontingenciesbeforehand. Asageneralrule,iftheinterviewersensedthatthewayofgeneratinganexample reflectsanewconception(atleastnewfromtheinterviewer’spointofview)heasked forchecking,otherwisethatdecisionwaslefttotheinterviewee. Indeed,thefourthpointunderlinesthemissinglinkstressinginthispaper.Foralong time,Iwasnotawareofthehiddenexistenceofcheckingwhilegenerating.Asaresult, generatinganexamplecametoahaltassoonasstudent'sgeneratedfigureseemedto be an example. However, students' spontaneous attempts to justify their generated figurebroughttotheforesomecomplexinterrelationshipsbetweengeneratingand checking.Thenextsectionexemplifiessomeofthesecomplexities. Exemplification and Conception Asmentionedbefore,twentystudentswithvariedbackgroundexperiencesparticipated inthisstudy.However,inthepresentpaperweonlyfollowtwostudents(Dickand Hess)acrosstwodifferenttasks,namelygeneratingandchecking.Thisisnotbecause thesetwostudentsand/ortheirworkaretypical.Theyjustexemplifyhowacertain conceptionmaycarrydifferentweightsindifferenttasks. IshallstartwithDick(atthetime,afirstyearundergraduatelawstudent)whenhewas generating hisfirstexample. Dick:thisquestion'sbeenspeciallydesignedtoconfuse. Afterafewminutespuzzlingoverthetaskandputtingsomepointsonthegrid,he realizedhowtorepresentthefirstcondition:

PME31―2007 227 Asghari

Dick:thatline(diagonal),thatlineisthefirstcondition,becauseyouallowtovisitpeople inthatcity,yousee. Now,hisgridlookslikethefigureontheright: Dick:solet’scheck thisworks…um,Ithinkyoucan’t doverycomplicated system ,becauseotherwisea pair ofcitiescertainlycontradictwitheachother, Iamnotsureitworksornot,IthinkIputthatwrong,um. Whilegeneratingandchecking,Dick'sfocusisonapairofcities.Inotherwords,his workmanifestsa matching conception inwhichthefocusisonapairofelements. Havingfailedinhisfirstattempt,heturnedhisattentiontoapartofthegrid,generated the following figure on the left, checked it matchingwise and extended it to the followingfigureontheright: Dick:so if you do a sort of cross , Ithinkthatsatisfythesecondcondition, um,Ialsothinkthatwouldhappen,because yougetlinewhereyou’vealreadyfilledthe centrediagonalwhichIdidbefore,which meansitsatisfiesthefirstcondition. Obviously,hisfiguresatisfiesthefirstcondition,but,whataboutthesecondcondition? Considerthattheprocessesthathemadeuseofwasnot predictive,i.e.makinguseofit didnotguaranteethattheproductwouldbeanexample.Asaresult, checking thestatus oftheproductisinevitable.Foraninformedperson,Dick'sfirstexampleisindeedan examplebecauseitconsistsoftwodisjointgroupsofmutuallyrelatedelements(here, cities).However,itisnotsomethingthatDick sees inhisfigure.Yet,confinedhimself tomatching,Hecheckeditbytakinga random pair : Dick:yah,sothat’swhatIdid,soeveryoneofthesedotsmeansyoucanvisitthatcity,… andifyoutakeany random pair ,Igotwoandseven,noneofthemcanvisitsamecities, um,…,twocanvisitone,butsevencan’tvisitoneortwo,sothat’sdifferent,Ithinkthat satisfiesallconditions. But, his matching conception hindered him to generate another example (at the interviewer'srequest). Dick:um,well,youhavetohavea regular pattern toobeythesecondcondition;because otherwise,um,thisisregular,ifyou,ifIwanttosuppose,Ican’thithowitworkedout, um,…foreverypair, there’s so many pairs ,um,Ican’tworkout,there’ssomanypairs thatweawareiftoworkoutanothersystem,andIcan’tthinkanotherwaytodoit,um,I sticktothisassumption,ithastobearegularsystem,becauseotherwiseatleastoneofthe pairsconflict,um…Ican’tthinkanotherway…it is the only example I can think of . Ontheinterviewer'sinsistence,hetriesagain.Yet,withinamatchingconception,his focusismainlyonthemedium(here,thegrid)inwhichheisabouttopresentanother example.

228 PME31―2007 Asghari

Dick:Ijusttrya pair ,fourandsevenhavingnon similar,um;now,Idofiveandsix… theyhavetocrossoverwiththelineinthemiddle, soIdoseven,andthatshould…goupwardswithsix… I think this might also work as a system . Again,Dickneedsto check ifhissystemworks.Thistime,foramomentheexhibitsa differentconception,i.e. grouping .

Dick:um,Ijusttrieda random example anditworks(ha,ha),um…Ijustdoanexample ofhavingthefirstfivecitiesallbeabletovisiteachother,thenthesecondfivecitiesall beabletovisiteachother…onceagainit’saregularsystem. However,Dick'sgroupingexperienceisnotreflectedinhisnextgeneratingattempt. Dick: um, once again I am stuck for other way to do it, when I did that one (first example);Ithoughttherewon’tbeotherwaystodoit,nowIthinkofanotheronewhich works…forthisone(thepreviousexample),Iworkedfromthetoptothebottom…,now Iamconsideringfillingfromlefttorighttothemiddlespots… Soonafterwardsherealisedthat“thatwouldberesultedinthesamesortasthesecond example”!But,stillfocusingonthefiguralfeatures,hecontinuedasfollows: Dick:ifyoudoasystemwhereyoufillinblocksofdashes… somethingpossiblydiagonallines,but I am not sure that system work , I must fill in to see it works …sothateachcircle,eachvisitingcityis notnexttoanothervisitingcity,um,sothat,likethat(laughing),… take a random pair ,saythreeandsix,notsame,notsame,notsame… Ithinkthisdoesworkactually(laughing),Ijusttookitanditworked! Againitisavaguesenseof“aregularsystem”thatleadsDicktohisthirdexample.As aresult, checking is inevitable .Whenchecking,itisonlyamatchingprocedurethat connects his three examples together. When generating, not only his conception (matching)ishardlynoticeablewhilegeneratinghislastexample,butalsoitsomehow hinderedhimtomakeit! Dick:itseemsthatIshouldn’tthoughtaboutit(thethirdexample)originallybecausethe secondruleisthattheymusthaveidenticalortheymustn’thaveanyincommon. Considerthedualroleofthematchingconceptioningeneratingandchecking.Itisalso worthstressingthatitisDick’sapproach,rather than matching conception per se, whichmakescheckinginevitable.Hess’experienceshowsthispoint. Hess(atthetime,amiddleschoolstudent)manifestedmultiplewaysofexperiencing thesituation.Aftergeneratingthediagonalashisfirstexample,hethoughtthat“ itis impossibletohaveanotherexample” becauseif“ weaddanotherpoint,theywouldhavea differentpoint,sotheyneverwouldbeidentical”.Soonafterwards,thesameconception (matching)–once hindered him to generate an example–helped him to generate a collectionofexamples:

PME31―2007 229 Asghari

Hess:Now,ifforevery,forexample,thispoint,one,ifIputeverywhere,forexample,I puteight,Imustputforeight,one;eightandonearecompletelythesameandothersare completelydifferent…sowehaveinfinitecases;no,itisnotinfinite,butitisalot… for3,Iput5andfor5Iput3. Interviewer:andstillhaveyougotthe previouspoints? Hess:itmakesnodifference… 10,Iput9,also9,Iput10. Now,heislookingforsomethingmore general ,certain“ propertythatallofthemhave”: Hess: In general, any two symmetric points that we choose we have one (example) about this (the diagonal). UnlikeDick,Hessenvisageswhatanexamplemightlooklike.However,likeDick,he only matches together two elements (here, two points), ignoring the possible connectionsthateachoneofthesetwoelementsmighthavewiththeotherelements. Asaresult,somenonexamplesarecountedasexamples.However, in action ,hechose hisnewpairssomehowkeepingthemdistinctfromtheoldones.Inactionorenvisaged, inHess’generatingapproach, checking is embedded in from the outset ,yetwithina matchingconception. Lateron,Hessgeneratedanonexamplesymmetricfigure.Todoso,heneededtogive weighttoanelement,andthen,itslikelyrelationswithmorethanoneelement. Hess:if10hassomething,thatonehas10too;If10has4,4has10too,thenImustprove that4and10areequal…if10has5,no,itwasrejected...10and4nolongerareequal. Hisattempttoprovideanonexamplesymmetricfigureplantstheseedsofagroup conceptionreflectedinhisnextgeneratingattempt.Letusenterhisworkfromthe middlewhereheexpressedwhathehasgot“ asclearaspossibleandverynicely ”. Hehasalreadygeneratedthefollowingexampleontheleft: Hess:Myhypothesisisthatthisonehastheconditionsoftheproblem, well,ithastheconditions,IsupposeIwanttomakeanewcondition(anew example) from the previous condition; suppose I choose another point somewhere,Iadd4and7.(Hecontinues)now, seven is a member of four. Then I am working on the seventh column, because seven had itself I determinealltheotherpointsbutseven;(thoseare)nine,sixandfour.(He continues)thenineachoftheothers,Idetermineseven,becauseithasjust beenadded.

230 PME31―2007 Asghari

Hessseesnopointtocheckhisnewlygeneratedfigure. He even does not see his exampleseparatedfromtheprocessleadingtoit. Interviewer:Howyouknowthatthisfigureisanexample? Hess:Idon’twanttoshowitisanexample,wesupposeitisanexample,thenIadd,and Iprovewhenitisadded(theconditions)aresatisfiedagain. Interviewer:thequestionishere,youwanttogiveittothedictator,andsayitistheway thatpeoplecanvisiteachother;thedictatorlookatitandsaywhetheryouhavesatisfied thelaws.Hedoesn’twanttochangeit;hesavesyourpaper.Youareadictator;doyou acceptthisonewithoutanychange? Hess’generatingattemptmanifestedagroupofpairwiserelatedelements.Tocheck hisfigure(ontheinterviewer’sinsistence),heturnsbacktomatchingforamoment beforeexperiencingagroupwitha focal elementrelatedtoalltheotherelementsofthe group: Hess:eachtwoweconsider,eithertheyarealikeortheyaredifferent…Yes.Iproveit likethis…weinvestigateforeachcolumn,thosethatareequaltoit,thosethatmustbe equaltoit,aretheyequaltoit,ornot? Asitcanbeseen,oneconceptionisreflectedwhengeneratingandanotherconception when checking. Reconciling these conceptions means reconciling generating and checking. Conclusion Thefragmentedexperiencesdescribedinthispapersuggestsomethinginlinewith whatMartonandBoothcall the path of learning :“ thatlearningproceedsfromavague undifferentiatedwholetoadifferentiatedandintegratedstructureoforderedparts...themore that this principle applies in the individual case, the more successful is the learning that occurs”(MartonandBooth,1997,p.138). However,itdoesnotmeanthattheaspectsthathavebeendifferentiatedandintegrated when handling a certain task are also being carried to another task. They are usage-specific .Inthecaseofourinterest,thismeanstherearecertaininterconnections between what astudentconceptualizesand how heorshegeneratesanexample.Inthe samevein,therearecertaininterconnectionsbetween what heorsheconceptualizes and how heorshechecksthestatusofsomethingforbeinganexample.Thissuggests thefollowingschematicfigure: Generating Checking

How What What How Whatisexperienceontheleftfigureisnotnecessarilythesameaswhatisexperienced ontherightfigure.Theyvaryincertainaspects;altogethermanifestthevariationinthe students’experiencesoftheconceptinvolved.Reconcilingdifferentaspectsofthis diversitymayresultinreconcilinggeneratingandchecking,andconsequentlythere wouldbenoneedforcheckingaftergenerating.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthere

PME31―2007 231 Asghari wouldbenoneedforcheckingactivities.Indeed,weneedthemalongsidegenerating activities,sinceitisonlyinthecourseoftacklingdifferenttasksthatdifferentaspects ofaconceptmaybedifferentiatedandintegrated.Itisthewaythatstudentsmayfind themissinglinksbetweengeneratingandchecking. References Asghari, A., & Tall, D. (2005). Students’ experience of equivalence relations: a phenomenographicapproach.inH.L.ChickandJ.L.Vincent(eds.),Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education , UniversityofMelbourne,Melbourne,vol.2,pp.8188. Dahlberg, R. & and Housman, D. (1997). Facilitating Learning Events through Example Generation. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,33:283299. Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (1997). Constructing knowledge by constructing examples for mathematicalconcepts.InE.Pehkonen(Ed.),Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4,pp.299306). Lahti,Finland:UniversityofHelsinki. Marton,F.,&andBooth,S.(1997).Learning and Awareness ,LEA,Mahwah. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,15,227289. Watson,A.,&Mason,J.(2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah,NJ,USA:Erlbaum. Tall,D.,&Vinner,S.(1981).ConceptImageandConceptDefinitioninmathematicswith particularreferencetolimitsandcontinuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12 (2), 151169.

232 PME31―2007 SCAFFOLDING REVISITED: FROM TOOL FOR RESULT TO TOOL-AND-RESULT MikeAskew King'sCollegeLondon&CityCollege,NewYork The metaphor of ‘scaffolding’ is popular in mathematics education, particularly in accounts purporting to examine the mediated nature of learning. Drawing on Holtzman and Newman’s interpretation of Vygotsky I argue that scaffolding rests on a dualistic view that separates the knower from the known. In line with their work, I being to explore what an alternative metaphor – development through performance (in the theatrical sense) might mean for mathematics education . INTRODUCTION Yearsago,mycolleagues,JoanBlissandSheilaMacrae,andIconductedastudyinto thenotionof‘scaffolding’(Bruner1985)inprimary(elementary)schoolmathematics and science. At the time we had difficulty finding any evidence of scaffolding in practice! What we observed in lessons could just as easily be categorized as ‘explaining’or‘showing’.Scaffolding,inthesenseofprovidingasupportforthe learner,asupportthatcouldberemovedtoleavethestructureoflearningtostandonits own,waselusive(Bliss,Askew&Macrae,1996). Atthetimethiselusivenessseemedtobearesultoftwothings.Firstlythenatureof whatwastobelearnt.Manyoftheexamplesinrelevantliterature(forexample,Rogoff (1990),LaveandWenger(1991))attendtolearningthathasclear,concreteoutcomes. Becomingtailorsorweaversmeansthattheobjectsofthepractice–ajacketora basket–areapparenttothelearner:theapprentice‘knows’inadvanceofbeingableto doit,whatitisthatisbeingproduced.Incontrast,most(ifnotall)ofmathematicsis not‘known’untilthelearningisdone.Youngchildrenhavenounderstandingof,say, multiplication,inadvanceofcomingtolearnaboutmultiplication:the‘object’ofthe practiceonlybecomeapparentafterthelearninghastakenplace.(Thisisnottosuggest that learners do not have informal knowledge that might form the basis of an understandingofmultiplication,onlythatsuchinformalknowledgeisdifferentand distinctfromformalknowledgeofmultiplication.) Secondly,examples ofscaffoldingthatdidseem convincing focused on schooling situationsthatareclosetoapprenticeshipmodels(LaveandWenger,ibid.)inthatthe teacherlearnerinteractionismainlyoneto–one.Forexample,Clay(1990)providesa strongVygotskianaccountof“ReadingRecovery”:aprogrammebasedonindividual instruction. ThisledmetoturnawayfromtheVygotskianperspectives–allveryniceintheory, butdidtheyhavemuchtooffertheharriedteacherof30ormorestudents?Recently I’vereturnedtoconsideraspectsoftheworkofVygotsky,particularlyasinterpreted

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.3340.Seoul:PME . 233 Askew bytheworkofLoisHolzmanandFredNewman.Theyargue,amongstotherthings,to attendmoretoVygotsky’sideasoftoolandresult,andtheargumentthatthisleadstoa ‘performatory’(inthetheatricalsense)approachtodevelopment. TOOL FOR RESULT OR TOOL-AND-RESULT? CentraltotheargumentisVygotsky’sobservationoftheparadoxattheheartofthe psychology,inthatpsychologycreatestheveryobjectsthatitinvestigates. The search for method becomes one of the most important paradoxes of the entire enterpriseofunderstandingtheuniquelyhumanformsofpsychologicalactivity.Inthis case,themethodissimultaneouslyprerequisiteandproduct,thetoolandtheresultofthe study(Vygotsky,1978,p.65) Vygotskythuschallengestheviewthatthemethodofinquiryinpsychologyisseparate fromtheresultsofthatinquiry,thetraditional‘toolandresult’position(Newmanand Holzman,1993).Instead As“simultaneouslytoolandresult”,methodispracticed,notapplied.Knowledgeisnot separate from the activity of practicing method ; it is not “out there” waiting to be discovered through the use of an already made tool. … Practicing method creates the objectofknowledgesimultaneouslywithcreatingthetoolbywhichthatknowledgemight be known. Toolandresult come into existence together; their relationship is one of dialectical unity , rather than instrumental duality. (Holtzman, 1997, p. 52, original emphasis) WhileHoltzmanandNewman,followingonfromVygotsky,challengetheviewof psychologyasascienceakintophysicalscience,thesamechallengecanbeappliedto mathematicseducation.Modelsofteachingandlearningbasedon‘mediatingmeans’ (Cole1996)orscaffoldingarelargelypredicatedona‘toolforresult’perspective ratherthana‘toolandresult’one. Letmeillustratethiswithanexample.InworkshopsIoftenpresentteacherswith Figure1andaskthemwhatfractionitrepresents.Mostsay2/5,afew3/5andfewer stillsuggestthatitcanbeeither.Ithenaskthemtodiscussinsmallgroupshow12/3,1 ½,2/3,or2½canallbeacceptableanswerstothequestion‘whatfraction’. Figure1 Initially there are puzzled looks and silence. Talk starts and gradually there are murmurs(orevencries!)of‘oh,Igetit’,or‘nowIseeit’.Backasawholegroup, various‘seeings’areoffered,metaphorsprovided(‘Supposetheshadedistheamount ofchocolateIhave,andtheunshadedtheamountthatyouhave,howmanytimes biggerisyourpiece’),diagramsjotteddown,andcollectivelywearriveatthepoint wheremostparticipantsagreethattheycan‘see’thedifferentfractions.

234 PME31―2007 Askew

Looked at through the analytical lens of mediated (scaffolded) learning, and the mediationtriangle(Figure2,afterCole,ibid.)the‘subject’istheindividualteacher andthe‘object’thevarious‘readings’ofthediagram.Themediatedmeansarethetalk, themetaphors,the‘jottings’thattheteachersmake in representing the image for themselves.Implicitinsuchanaccountisaseparationofthemeansandend,ofthetool andresult.Thetalk,metaphors,diagramsareseparatefromtheobject,the‘it’ofthe endresultbeingthedifferent‘readings’,justasthescaffoldthatsupportsabuildingas itisputupcanberemovedtoleavethebuilding‘freestanding’. mediatingmeans subject object Figure2 Iwanttoquestionthisseparationoftoolandresult,byexaminingthenatureofthe outcome of this ‘lesson’ – what is the ‘basket’ that these teachers have ‘woven’? Where,exactly,dothe‘readings’thatemergeexist?The2/5s,2/3sandsoforth,cannot be‘there’inthediagramitself(otherwisetheywouldbeimmediatelyapparent).They cannotbesolely‘in’thesubjects’headswaitingtobebroughtout.Theycannotbe‘in’ thetalk,metaphorsanddiagrams–thesehelptobringthereadingsintoexistence,but theyarenotthereadingsperse.Sothereisnotanobject–a‘reading’ofthediagram– thatexists‘outthere’waitingtobebroughtinto‘being’throughmediatingmeans.The readingsemergeanddevelopthroughtheunityofthesubjectmediatingmeansobject. Theyareanexampleoftoolandresult. Toolandresultmeansthatnopartofthepracticecanberemovedandlookedat separately.Liketheclassicvaseandfacesopticalillusionneitherthefacesnorthevase canberemovedandleavetheother.Thereareno‘scaffolds’orothermediatingmeans intermsofmetaphorsordiagramsthatcanbe‘removed’to‘leave’the‘objects’of instruction(fractionalreadings).The‘practiceofmethod’isentireand‘(t)hepractice ofmethodis,amongotherthings,theradicalacceptanceoftherebeingnothingsocial (culturalhistorical)independentofourcreatingit’(NewmanandHoltzman,1997,p. 107). The most important corollary of the ‘practice of method’ is, for Newman and Holtzmanthepriorityofcreatingandperformingovercognition: We are convinced that it is the creating of unnatural objects–performances–which is requiredforongoinghumandevelopment(developing).(NewmanandHoltzman,ibid,p. 109).

PME31―2007 235 Askew

Takingasmystartingpointthatschoolmathematicsinvolvesthe‘creatingofunnatural objects’–mathematicalobjects–Inowpresentanexampleofwhatmathematicsas performancemightlooklike. EXAMPLE OF A PERFORMATORY APPROACH TO MATHEMATICS. Thisexamplecomesfromworkinaschoolthathadahistoryof‘underperformance’ in National Test scores (The development through performance perspective raises questionsaboutwhatitmeansto‘underperform’).WhenIstartingworkinginthe school,theculturewassuchthattheteachersspokeofthechildrennotbeingableto ‘do’mathematics(Againa‘performance’perspectiveraisesquestions.Clearlythere wasalotthatthesechildrencoulddo.Observingthemintheplaygroundtheywereas capableasanyotherchildrenofbeingableto‘do’playand,forsome,withboth parentsoutatwork,theywereableto‘play’avarietyofrolesathome,including caretakersofsiblings.Whatmakes‘doing’mathematicsanymoredifficultthanbeing ableto‘do’playintheschoolyardor‘do’thepreparationofameal?) In particular, the teachers spoke of the children not being able to talk about mathematics,andsotheclassroomenvironmentswereoneswherethechildrenwere notencouragedtotalkaboutmathematics. Theperformatoryapproachadaptedwasoneofcreatingenvironmentswherechildren wereencouragedandexpectedtotalk.Twofactorswerecentraltothis:theuseof engagingcontextsthatthechildrencouldmathematise(Freudenthal,1973)andgetting childrentocooperateinpairstodevelop(improvise)solutionsandthenpairscomingto thefrontoftheclassto‘perform’theirsolutions. Thisexamplecomesfromworkingwithaclassofsixandsevenyearolds.Ittook placeinFebruaryafterwehadbeenworkingwiththe class in thisway since the previousSeptember.TheproblemisadaptedfromtheworkofFosnotandDolk(2001). These situations were set up orally, not simply to reduce reading demands but to encouragechildrento‘enterinto’the‘world’ofthestory.Mostofthetimethechildren willinglydidthis.Occasionallysomeonewouldask‘isthistrue’(answeredplayfully with‘whatdoyouthink?’)orachildwouldsay,inaloudstagewhisper‘it’snottrue youknow,he’smakingitup’,butevensuch‘challenges’totheveracityofthestories were offered and met with good humour and a clear willingness to continue to ‘suspenddisbelief.’ ThecontextsetupwasthatIhadgonetovisitacousininthecountry,whoranasweet shop. One of her popular lines was flavoured jellybeans. These were delivered in separate flavours and then mixed together for various orders. During my visit my cousinhadsomebagsofsixdifferentflavoursofjellybeans:didshehaveenough jellybeanstomakeuptotalorderfor300beans?KnowingthatIwasateacher,she wonderedwhetherthechildrenIworkedwithwouldhelpherfigureoutifshehad enough.Ofcoursetheywould.Iinvitedthechildrentoofferflavours,hopingthatthey would come up with some HarryPotteresque suggestions (earwax or frog?) for

236 PME31―2007 Askew flavours.Theywereconservativeintheirchoicesoffruitflavours,soIaddedinthelast two.Ontheboardwasalistofflavoursandthenumbersofeach:Strawberry–72; Orange – 23; Cherry – 33; Apple–16;Broccoli;20;Fish 72. Theclasshadbeenintroduced tousingtheemptynumberline asatool(propinthetheatrical sense) for supporting addition and subtraction, but they had not been presented with a string of five twodigit numbersbefore–thiswaswell inadvanceofwhatchildrenof thisageareexpectedtobeable Figure3 to do independently. All the Figure3 children were provided with paperandpencilbutwealsohadotherpropsreadytohandintheformofbaseten blocksforanyonewhowantedorneededtousethese.Somedidusetheblocksbutthe majorityoftheclasswerecontenttoworkonlywithpaperandpencil.Herearetwo improvisedsolutionsfromtwopairsofchildren–agirlandboyineachcase. The children’swhoseworkis showninFigure3wrotedown the six numbers in the order that they had been put up on the board, but added them in theorderoflargestnumberto smallest.Theycouldfigureout that80+72was152without writing everything down, ticked off these two numbers and then used an empty Figure4 numberlinetoaddoneachof Figure4 theremainingfournumbersin descending order of magnitude. Thechildren’swhoseworkisshowninFigure4adoptedadifferentapproach.They partitionedeachnumberintoitsconstituenttensandones,addedthetens,twoatatime, untilthetotalnumberoftenswasreached.Thentheyaddedtheones,finishingoffby addingthetensandonestogether. Asthechildrenwerefiguringouttheirsolutions,theteacherandIwereabletodecide whowould‘perform’theirsolutionstotherestof the class. These two pairs were

PME31―2007 237 Askew includedinthisselection,and,liketheotherschosen,weregivenduewarningofthis sothattheyhadtimetopreparewhattheyweregoingtosay DISCUSSION Didthechildrenlearnaboutadditionthroughthislesson?Icannotsay.Whatwasof concernwasthattheylearntthatmathematicsislearnableandthattheywerecapable ofperformingit.Developmentallearninginvolveslearningactasamathematicianand the realisation that the choice to continue to act as mathematicians is available. Developmentallearningisthusgenerativeratherthanaquisitional.AsHoltman(1997) problematisesit: Canwecreatewaysforpeopletolearnthekindsofthingsthatarenecessaryforfunctional adaptationwithoutstiflingtheircapacitytocontinuouslycreateforgrowth? Thisisakeyquestionformathematicseducation.InEngland,andelsewhere,policy makersarespecifyingthecontentandexpectedlearning outcomes of mathematics education in finer and finer detail. For example, the introduction of the National NumeracyStrategyinEnglandbroughtwithitadocumentsettingoutteachingand learningobjectives–the‘FrameworkforTeachingMathematicsfromReceptionto Year 6’ (DfEE, 1999) – a yearbyyear breakdown of teaching objectives. The objectives within the framework are at a level of detail far exceeding that of the mandatoryNationalCurriculum(NC). The NC requirements for what 7 to 11yearolds should know and understand in calculationsisexpressedinjustoveronepageand,typically,includestatementslike: workoutwhattheyneedtoaddtoanytwodigitnumbertomake100,thenaddorsubtract anypairoftwodigitwholenumbers,handleparticularcasesofthreedigitandfourdigit additionsandsubtractionsbyusingcompensationorothermethods(forexample,3000– 1997,4560+998)(DepartmentforEducationandEmployment(DfEE),1999a,p.25). Incontrast,theFrameworkdevotesover50pagestoelaboratingteachingobjectives forcalculation,atthisthelevelofdetail: Findasmalldifferencebetweenapairofnumberslyingeithersideofamultipleof1000 •Forexample,workoutmentallythat: 7003–6988=15 bycountingup2from6988to6990,then10to7000,then3to7003 •Workmentallytocompletewrittenquestionslike 6004–5985= □ 6004–□ =19 □–5985=19 (DepartmentforEducationandEmployment(DfEE),1999b,Y456examples,p46) Whileteachershavewelcomedthislevelofdetail,thereisadangerthat‘covering’the curriculum(inthesenseofaddressingeachobjective)becomestheoverarchinggoal ofteaching,that‘acquisition’ofknowledgebylearnersbecomesparamountandthe curriculumcontentreifiedandfossilised.Inparticulartheemphasisisonknowing ratherthandeveloping.Does‘coverage’ofpagesoflearningoutcomeshelpstudents viewthemselvesasbeingabletoactasmathematicians?

238 PME31―2007 Askew

CONCLUSION What might it mean to have a mathematics education that is not predicated on ‘knowing’–afterall,isnottheprimegoalthatstudentsshouldcometo‘know’some mathematics.Ithinktheissuehereisnotwhetherornotweshould(orevencould) erase ‘knowing’ from the mathematics curriculum, but that we need to examine carefullywhatitmeanstocometoknow,andinparticular,the‘myth’that,asteachers, wecanspecifyinadvanceexactlywhatitisthatstudentswillcometoknow.The scaffolding metaphor carries certain connotations – plans and blueprints. In architecture,thefinalproduct,thebuilding,canbeclearlyenvisagedinadvanceof startingit.Thus‘scaffolding’appealstooursenseofbeingincontrolasteachers,it tapsintoatechnicalrationalistviewofteachingandlearning.Getyourplanscarefully andclearlylaidout(andcheckedbyanauthority,orfailingthat‘download’themfrom anauthoritativesource),putuptherightscaffoldinthelessonandallwillbewell(if only!). Ratherthanlearninginclassroomsbeingbuiltupinthispredeterminedway,Iwantto suggestthatmaybeitismorelikeantsconstructinganthills:Antsdon’t(atleastwe assume)startoutwithablueprintoftheanthillthatwillbeconstructed.Theanthill emergesthroughtheirjointactivity.Whatemergesisrecognizablyananthill(andnot aneagle’snest)althoughtheprecisestructureisnotdetermineduntilcompletion(if suchastateeverexists).Antsarenot‘applying’amethodinordertoconstructanthills, theyaresimplypracticingtheirmethod. Inthesameway,childrenplayingatbeing‘mummiesanddaddies’arenot‘applying’ a method of‘play’theyaresimplyinvolvedinthe practice of play. Such play is performatory(theydon’tsitaroundplanningwhattoplay,theysimplygetonandplay) andimprovisational(the‘events’and‘shape’oftheplayemergethroughthepractice oftheplay).Thechildren’splaydoesnotsetouttobe‘about’anythinginparticular, expectinthebroadesttermsofbeingabout‘mummiesanddaddies’asopposedto,say, ‘princessesandprinces’.Itisthisplayful,performatory,improvisationalpracticeof method, that Holtzman and Newman argue can help classrooms become developmental In ‘playing’ the roles of helping the shopkeeper solve her problem, through cooperationsthechildrenwereabletoperform‘beyond’themselves,“performinga head taller than they are” (Vygotsky, 1978 p. 102) In such circumstances, the mathematicsemergesinclassrooms,buttheprecisenatureofitcannotbedetermined inadvance–Ihavetotrusttotheprocess,ratherthantrytocontrolit.Thesolution methodstothejellybeanproblemcouldnothavebeencloselypredetermined,buttrust inthecapabilityofthechildrentoperformasmathematiciansallowedrichsolutionsto emerge. That is not to say that teaching does not rest on careful preparation – good improvisationdoestoo–butthattheunfolding,theemergenceofalessoncannotbe

PME31―2007 239 Askew thattightlycontrolled(orifitisthatthelearningthatemergesislimitedandresistricted tobeingtrainedratherthanplayingapart). REFERENCES Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996) Effective teaching and learning: scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education. 22(1)pp3761 Bruner,J.(1985)Vygotsky:ahistoricalandconceptualperspective.,inJ.V.Wertsch(ed) Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives .Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress(pp.2134) Clay,M.M.&Cazden,C.B.(1990)AVygotskianinterpretationofReadingRecovery.,in Moll,L.C.(ed) Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology .Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress(pp.2134) Cole, M. (1996) Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline . Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversityPress DepartmentforEducationandEmployment(DfEE)(1999a) Mathematics in the National Curriculum .London:DfEE Departmentfor EducationandEmployment(DfEE)(1999) The National Numeracy Strategy: Framework for teaching mathematics from Reception to Year 6 .London:DfEE Fosnot,C.T.&Dolk,M.(2001) Young mathematicians at work: constructing number sense, addition and subtraction .Portsmouth,NH;Hiennemann Freudenthal,H.(1973) Mathematics as an educational task .Dordrecht:Reidel. Holtzman,L.(1997) Schools for growth: radical alternatives to current educational models . Mahwah,NJ&London:LawrenceEarlbaumAssociates. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation . Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress(pp2134) Newman, F., & Holtzman, L. (1993) Lev Vygotsky; Revolutionary scientist . London: Routledge. Newman,F.,&Holtzman,L.(1997) The end of knowing: A new development way of learning . London:Routledge. Rogoff,B.(1990) Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context .New York:OxfordUniversityPress Vygotsky(1978) Mind in society .CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress

240 PME31―2007 HOW CAN WE ASSESS MATHEMATICAL UNDERSTANDING? PatrickBarmby ,TonyHarries,SteveHigginsandJenniferSuggate DurhamUniversity,UnitedKingdom In assessing students in mathematics, a problem we face is that we are all too often assessing only a limited part of their understanding. For example, when asking a student to carry out a multiplication calculation, are we really assessing their understanding of multiplication? To be clear about how we do this, we need to be clear about understanding itself. Therefore, this paper begins by providing an overview of what we mean by this concept of understanding. Having established a working definition, we examine a range of possible approaches that we can bring to assessing understanding in mathematics.. The contribution of this paper is to clarify this link between assessment and understanding, and explain why more novel methods of assessment should be used for this purpose,

Theaimofthistheoreticalpaperistoexaminethedifferentwaysinwhichwecan examine students’ understanding in mathematics. In order to do so, we begin by definingexactlywhatwemeanbyunderstandinginthiscontext,beforemovingonto examinewhatthismeansforthemethodsofassessmentthatwecanemploy.Bybeing clear about what understanding is, we can show that more ‘novel’ approaches to assessmentareneededifwearetotryandaccessthis.Thiswillhaveimplicationsfor howwecarryoutresearchintostudents’understandingofmathematicalconcepts.

DEFINING ‘UNDERSTANDING’ We begin by examining some definitions or explanations of ‘understanding’ in mathematics. Skemp (1976) identified two types of understanding; relational and instrumental.Hedescribedrelationalunderstandingas“knowingbothwhattodoand why” (p. 2), and the process of learningrelational mathematics as “building up a conceptual structure” (p. 14). Instrumental understanding, on the other hand, was simplydescribedas“ruleswithoutreasons”(p.2). Nickerson(1985),inexaminingwhatunderstandingis,identifiedsome ‘results’of understanding: for example agreement with experts, being able to see deeper characteristicsofaconcept,lookforspecificinformationinasituationmorequickly, beingabletorepresentsituations,andenvisioningasituationusingmentalmodels. However,healsoproposedthat“understandingineverydaylifeisenhancedbythe abilitytobuildbridgesbetweenoneconceptualdomainandanother”(p.229).Like Skemp, Nickerson highlighted the importance of knowledge and of relating knowledge:“Themoreoneknowsaboutasubject,thebetteroneunderstandsit.The

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.4148.Seoul:PME . 241 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate richertheconceptualcontextinwhichonecanembedanewfact,themoreonecanbe saidtounderstandthefact.”(p.235236)HiebertandCarpenter(1992)specifically definedmathematicalunderstandingasinvolvingthebuildingupoftheconceptual ‘context’or‘structure’mentionedabove. “The mathematics is understood if its mental representation is part of a network of representations.Thedegreeofunderstandingisdeterminedbythenumberandstrengthof itsconnections.Amathematicalidea,procedure,orfactisunderstoodthoroughlyifitis linkedtoexistingnetworkswithstrongerormorenumerousconnections.”(p.67) Therefore,thisideaofunderstandingbeingastructureornetworkofmathematical ideasorrepresentationscomesoutclearlyfromtheliterature. Anotherimportantissuethatemergesfromtheabovediscussioniswhetherweare referringtounderstandingasanactionorasaresultofanaction.Sierpinska(1994) clarifiedthisbyputtingforwardthreedifferentwaysoflookingatunderstanding.First ofall,thereisthe‘actofunderstanding’whichisthementalexperienceassociatedwith linkingwhatistobeunderstoodwiththe‘basis’forthatunderstanding.Examplesof basesgivenbyherwerementalrepresentations,mentalmodels,andmemoriesofpast experiences.Secondly,thereis‘understanding’whichisacquiredasaresultoftheacts ofunderstanding.Thirdly,therearethe‘processesofunderstanding’whichinvolve links being made between acts of understanding through reasoning processes, including developing explanations, learning by example, linking to previous knowledge, linking to figures of speech and carrying out practical and intellectual activities. Sierpinska (1994) saw these processes of understanding as ‘cognitive activitythattakesplaceoverlongerperiodsoftime’(p.2).Inmakinglinksbetween understandingsofamathematicalconceptthroughreasoning,forexampleshowing why12×9givesthesameansweras9×12,wefurtherdevelopourunderstandingof theconcept.DuffinandSimpson(2000)developedSierpinska’scategories,referring tothethreecomponentsasbuilding,havingandenactingunderstanding. Drawingthevariousviewpointsfrompaststudiestogethertherefore,thedefinitionsof understandingthatweusearethefollowing: • To understand mathematics is to make connections between mental representationsofamathematicalconcept. • Understandingistheresultingnetworkofrepresentationsassociatedwiththat mathematicalconcept. These definitions draw together the idea of understanding being a network of internalisedconceptswiththeclarificationofunderstandingasanactionandaresultof an action. We have drawn on the definition of Hiebert and Carpenter (1992) and broadlytermedwhatwelinkwithinthisnetwork(includingthementalrepresentation of what we are trying to understand, mental models and the memories of past experiences) as mental representations. We view the enacting of or the result of understanding as being distinct, which has implications later when we come to considerhowweassessunderstandinginmathematics.

242 PME31―2007 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate

DEFINING ‘REPRESENTATIONS’ Having adopted a definition for understanding that involves ‘representations’, we shouldnowdefinewhatwemeanbythis.Firstofall,weshouldclarifythatweare referringtomentalorinternalrepresentations,usingthedefinitionfromDavis(1984): “Anymathematicalconcept,ortechnique,orstrategy–oranythingelsemathematicalthat involveseitherinformationorsomemeansofprocessinginformation–ifitistobepresent inthemindatall,mustberepresentedinsomeway.”(p.203) By their very nature, we can only speculate on the possible forms of internal representations. In previously trying to obtain a definition of understanding, we grouped togetherthe basessuggestedby Sierpinska(1994)undertheterm‘mental representations’.Inadditionthough,Goldin(1998)putforwardavarietyofinternal representations; verbal/syntactic, imagistic, symbolic, planning/monitoring/ controllingandaffectiverepresentation.Aninternalrepresentationofamathematical conceptmightthereforeinvolvefactsaboutthatconcept,picturesorprocedureswe mightdrawoninordertoexploretheconcept,and how we have felt in the past workingwiththatconcept.Incomingtounderstandmoreaboutthatmathematical concept, we link together these separate representations to create a more complex understandingaboutthatconcept. Although understanding in mathematics is based on internal representations, in instruction and assessment, what we actually use are ‘external’ representations of concepts. For example, external representations such as spoken language, written symbols,picturesandphysicalobjectsareusedinordertocommunicatemathematics (Hiebert and Carpenter, 1992). Miura (2001) referred to internal and external representations as ‘cognitive’ and ‘instructional’ respectively. The processes of understanding put forward by Sierpinska (1994) can be mediated through external representations, for example the proof of why √2 is an irrational number can be achievedthroughthemanipulationofsymbolsandlogicalstatements.Inassessment, weareusuallyaskingstudentstocommunicatetheresultoftheirunderstanding,using externalrepresentationstodoso.Onemightassumethattherewillbesomeconnection betweentheexternalrepresentationsusedininstructionorassessment,andtheinternal representationsdevelopedbystudents.However,wemustrecognisethedifficultythat “itismoreproblematictoassumethattheconnectionstaught explicitly areinternalised bythestudents.”(HiebertandCarpenter,1992,p.86,ouremphasis.)Wecanonlytry andaccessstudents’understandingthroughexternalrepresentations,inlightofwhat wethinkisthestructureofthisunderstanding.

ASSESSING UNDERSTANDING Havingclarifiedwhatwemeanbymathematicalunderstanding,wecannowfinally turntothemainaimofthepaper,thatistolook atwaysinwhichwecanassess understanding in mathematics. We have already highlighted a drawback to any

PME31―2007 243 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate potentialmethod,usingexternalrepresentationsofmathematicalconceptstotryand accessconnectionsmadebetweeninternalrepresentations.However,ourclarification hasresultedintwopointswhichwecantakeforward: • Understandingasconnectionsmadebetweenmentalrepresentations. • This understanding is distinct from the result (or enacting) of that understanding. HiebertandCarpenter(1992)statedthat“understandingusuallycannotbeinferred fromasingleresponseonasingletask;anyindividualtaskcanbeperformedcorrectly withoutunderstanding.Avarietyoftasks,then,areneededtogenerateaprofileof behavioural evidence.” (p. 89) In recognising understanding as a more complex network,ifwearetoassessthisunderstandingthenweneedtotryandaccessthe different connections that a student has. All too often, when we assess students’ understandinginmathematics,wearegaininginsightintoonlyasmallpartofthis network.Also,beingabletocarryoutamathematicaltaskimpliesonlythatsome understandingisthere(thismightonlybelinksbetweentheconceptandaprocedural model associated with that concept), not the extent of that understanding. An interesting development of this idea is the ‘nonbinary nature’ of understanding (Nickerson,1985).Ifastudenthascomeacrossaconceptinanyway,thentheywill havesomeunderstandingofthatconcept,howeverlimitedorinappropriatethelinks withintheirunderstandingmightbe.Also,wecanneverhavecompleteunderstanding; wecanalwaysdevelopunderstandingbydevelopingmorelinks,forexamplebetween apparentlyverydifferentconceptsthatwehavenotassociatedtogetherpreviously. Inlightofthesepoints,wecanconsiderdifferentwaysinwhichwecanassessthis understanding.PossiblemethodssuggestedbyHiebertandCarpenter(1992)wereto analyse: • Students’errors. • Connections made between symbols and symbolic procedures and correspondingreferents. • Connections between symbolic procedures and informal problem solving situations. • Connectionsmadebetweendifferentsymbolsystems. We can use these suggestions as a starting point to examine the possibilities for assessingmathematicalunderstanding.

Students’ errors From our definition of mathematical understanding, we can see why simple calculationsthatweoftenuseintheclassroomarelimitedintheirabilitytoassess understanding. For example, as highlighted by Skemp (1976), students can work instrumentally,onlylinkingproceduralrepresentationswiththeconceptandnotother representationsthatmightexplainwhytheproceduresareappropriate.Hiebertand

244 PME31―2007 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate

Carpenter(1992)statethat“anyindividualtaskcanbeperformedcorrectlywithout understanding.”(p.89)Wewouldmodifythisandsaythatanindividualtaskcanbe performedwithonlylimitedunderstanding.Therefore,thefactthatastudentgetsa calculation correct tells us little about the extent of their understanding. However, when a student makes a mistake in a calculation, then this might indicate the limitationsoftheirunderstanding,evenifthatunderstandingisonlyinstrumental. Connections made between symbols and symbolic procedures and corresponding referents Alternatively,ifweaskstudentstoexplainwhattheyaredoinginmathematicaltasks, thenwecantryandinferthelinksthattheyhave made between different mental representations.Studentsmightexplainacalculationusingexternalconcreteobjects, picturesorothersymbolicprocedures.Ofcourse,wehavethelimitationthatweare notdirectlyaccessingstudents’internalrepresentations.However,wemightexpect extensive links made between external representations to imply a more developed networkofinternalrepresentations.Asanexample of this approach, Davis (1984) outlinedthemethodologyfor‘taskbasedinterviews’usedbyhimtoexaminestudents doing mathematical calculations. The students can be asked to ‘talk aloud’ whilst doingthecalculation,withaudioandvideorecordingofthesessions,aswellasthe writingproducedbythestudentandobservationnotesmadebyresearchers.Providing studentswithopportunitiestoexplaintheirreasoninginwrittentestscanbeusedfor thispurposeaswell.Watson et al. (2003)providedanotherinterestingexamplewhere a questionnaire to examine students’ understanding of statistical variation was developed.Opportunitiesto‘explain’responses,aswellasthestraightforwardstating ofanswers,wereincludedinthequestionnaire.Allresponsesandexplanationswere coded according to the perceived level of understanding of the topic, and a Rasch analysiswascarriedoutontheresultingdatatoobtainahierarchyofunderstandingof differentaspectsofstatisticalvariation.Wecanalsousestudenterrorsforthepurpose ofelicitingtheseconnectionsbetweenrepresentations.Ifweaskstudentstoexplain whyanerrorhasbeenmadeinacalculation,thenwhatweareencouragingthemtodo istoshowthelinksbetweentheproceduralrepresentationandotherrepresentationsfor that concept. For example, Sowder and Wheeler (1989) based interviews around solutions to estimation problems from hypothetical students in order to elicit explanations. Connections between symbolic procedures and informal problem solving situations In analysing students’ approaches to solving specific tasks involving a particular mathematical topic, our examination of understanding may be constrained by the ‘closed’natureofthetask.Ifweprovidemore‘open’problemsolvingsituationswhere whatisrequiredisnotobvious,thenwemightaccessmoreoftheunderstandingheld

PME31―2007 245 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate by a student. For example, Cifarelli (1998) used algebra word problems to access problemsolvingprocessesusedbystudents(thereforelookingatbroaderprocedural representations for tackling mathematical problems) rather than a specific understandingofamathematicaltopic.Onceagain,taskbasedinterviewswithaudio andvideorecordingwereusedfordatacollection.Anotherrecentstudyemployingthis typeofapproachwascarriedoutbyKannemeyer(2005).However,inanalysingthe resultingdata,approachestoproblemsolvingwerecategorisedintermsofdifferent categoriesofexplanationprovidedbystudents.A‘fuzzy’mark(between0and1)was awardedforeachcategoryinanygivenexplanation,andthemarkscombinedtogether usingfuzzylogictoobtainanoverallmarkforunderstanding.Thisapproachenabled quantitative measures of understanding to be obtained from more unstructured qualitativedatasources. Connections made between different symbol systems TheexamplethatHiebertandCarpenter(1992)providedforthisformofassessing understanding was to examine extending the use of a particular symbolic representation(e.g.beingabletoextenddecimalnotationtoincludethousandths)or using different symbolic representations of the same mathematical idea (e.g. representing decimals as fractions). However, we can take a broader view of this categorytoincludeconnectionstocommonvisualrepresentations of mathematical ideasaswell.Forexample,wecandrawonsomeofourownworkthatwehave recently been carrying out, looking at children’s understanding of multiplication. Harries and Barmby (2006) carried out research where children were asked to representamultiplicationsumusinganarrayonacomputerscreen.Childrenworked in pairs with microphones connected to the computer, and a recording of their discussionsandtheirworkonthescreenwasmadeusingCamtasia®software.This methodologyprovidedustheopportunityofobservingwhetherchildrencouldmake the links between the symbolic and the particular visual representation in a more natural setting, without a researcher or video cameras possibly impacting on the situation. We plan to extend this research in the coming year, once again using computer programs to investigate children making links with a variety of visual representations and symbolic representation for multiplication. By looking at the varietyofexternalrepresentationsthattheycanlinktogether,wewanttotryandgain someinsightintotheinternalunderstandingthattheyhaveformultiplication. Other strategies for assessing understanding Ashighlightedpreviously,inassessingtheunderstandingofamathematicalconcept, wewanttofindoutthedifferentinternalrepresentationsthatastudentmighthold about the concept, whether they are procedural, conceptual or even affective representationsrelatedtotheconcept.Also,wewanttofindoutwaysinwhichthe representationsarelinkedtogether.Twootherstrategiesfortryingtogetanexternal manifestation for these internal links are to use concept maps and mind maps .

246 PME31―2007 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate

Brinkmann (2003) provided an overview for using these tools in the context of mathematicseducation,andWilliams(1998)usedconceptmappingtoassessstudents’ understandingoftheconceptoffunction.McGowanandTall(1999)alsousedconcept mapsproducedatdifferenttimestoshowthedevelopmentofstudents’understanding offunction.Bothconceptmapsandmindmapsinvolvestartingwithaparticulartopic in a drawing, and placing ideas and concepts that one associates with the central conceptinthedrawingaswell.Connectionsbetweenthesecanbephysicallydrawnas lines. Further ideas and concepts can then be added, emanating from the ‘subconcepts’ that have been added around the central topic. Williams (1998) highlightedtwopossibleadvantagesofusingsuchmethods:“Therationaleforusing conceptmapsinthisstudywastomaximiseparticipantinvolvementandtominimize theresearcher’sintrusiverole…Mathematicalknowledgeandstructuredonotlend themselvestosimplecategorizations,buttheycanbedepictedwellbyconceptmaps.” (p.414)Byusingconceptormindmaps,wecanviewthelinksthatstudentscanmake externally (e.g. does a child have a visual representation for a multiplication calculation?)andthereforeindirectlyassesstheirunderstandingandalsoimplygaps thattheymighthaveintheirunderstanding.

SUMMARY Inthispaper,wehaveusedtheexistingliteraturetoobtainaworkingdefinitionfor mathematical understanding. Having established this definition, we have been able lookatwhatthismeansifwewanttoassessstudents’understandingofmathematical concepts.Wehaveoutlinedarangeofpossibleassessmentmethodsformathematical understanding,mostofwhicharequitedifferentfromthemore‘traditional’methods ofassessmentthatweuse.Thenextstepthatwewilltakeinourownresearchistouse theideasandmethodssetoutinthispaper(inparticular,wehopetotakeadetailed lookatchildren’sunderstandingofmultiplication).Theclarificationoftheconceptof understanding,andtheidentificationofmethodsthatwemightemploy,isanimportant stepinlookingatstudents’understandingofmathematicalconcepts.

REFERENCES Brinkmann, A. (2003). Graphical Knowledge Display – Mind Mapping and Concept MappingasEfficientToolsinMathematicsEducation. Mathematics Education Review , 16 , 3548 Cifarelli,V.V.(1998).TheDevelopmentofMentalRepresentationsasaProblemSolving Activity. Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 17(2), 239264 Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning Mathematics: The Cognitive Approach to Mathematics Education .London:CroomHelm Duffin,J.M.&Simpson,A.P.(2000).ASearchforUnderstanding. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour , 18(4) ,415427

PME31―2007 247 Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate

Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational Systems, Learning and Problem Solving in Mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour , 17(2) ,137165 Harries,T.andBarmby,P.(2006).RepresentingMultiplication.Informal Proceedings of the BSRLM Day Conference November 2006 (Volume 26, No. 3). Birmingham,UK:BSRLM Hiebert,J.&Carpenter,T.P.(1992).LearningandTeachingwithUnderstanding.InGrouws, D.A.(Ed.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.6597). NewYork:Macmillan Kannemeyer, L. (2005). Reference framework for describing and assessing students’ understandinginfirstyearcalculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 36(2-3) ,269285 McGowan,M.&Tall,D.(1999).ConceptMapsandSchematicDiagramsasDevicesforthe Growth of Mathematical Knowledge. In Zaslavsky, O. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of PME , Haifa, Israel, July 1999 (Volume 3), 281288 Miura,I.T.(2001).TheInfluenceofLanguageonMathematicalRepresentations.InCuoco, A.A.andCurcio,F.R.(Eds.),The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics, Reston (pp.5362).VA:NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics Nickerson, R. S. (1985). Understanding Understanding. American Journal of Education , 93(2) ,201239 Sierpinska,A.(1994). Understanding in Mathematics .London:TheFalmerPress Skemp,R.(1976).RelationalUnderstandingandInstrumentalUnderstanding.Mathematics Teaching , 77 ,2026 Sowder,J.T.&Wheeler,M.M.(1989).TheDevelopmentofConceptsandStrategiesUsed in Computational Estimation. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education , 20(2) , 130146 Watson, J. M., Kelly, B. A., Callingham, R. A. & Shaughnessey, J. M. (2003). The measurement of school students’ understanding of statistical variation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 34 ,129 Williams,C.G.(1998).UsingConceptMapstoassessConceptualKnowledgeofFunction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education , 29(4) ,414421

248 PME31―2007 THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF MATHEMATICAL THINKING: THE ROLE OF RESEARCHERS’ DESCRIPTIONS RichardBarwell UniversityofOttawa,Canada A variety of perspectives on the nature and role of discourse in the teaching and learning of mathematics have been developed and applied in recent years. The conduct of research in mathematics education can also, however, be viewed from a discursive perspective. In this paper, I draw on discursive psychology, which has been described as an anti-cognitivist, anti-realist, anti-structuralist approach to discourse analysis and psychology. Based on this perspective, I examine discursive features of a research paper on mathematical thinking to argue that, within the mathematics education research community, researchers’ descriptions of students’ behaviour and interaction make possible subsequent accounts of mathematical thinking, rather than the other way around. DISCURSIVE PERSPECTIVES ON THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF MATHEMATICS A variety of perspectives on the nature and role of discourse in social life have influencedresearchwithinmathematicseducationinrecentyears.Someresearchhas drawnonsociologicaltheoriesofinteraction,includinginteractionalsociolinguistics and symbolic interactionism to explore the social organisation of mathematics classroomdiscourse,highlighting,forexample,theconventionsandnormsthatarise (YackelandCobb,1996).Arelatedbodyofworkhasdrawnonsocioculturaltheoryto arguethat,inmathematics,talkis‘almosttantamounttothinking’(Sfard,2001,p.13; Lerman,2001).Suchstudieshave,forexample,attemptedtotracetheprocessesof socialisationthroughwhichstudentslearntousemathematicaldiscourseandtodo mathematics(e.g.ZackandGraves,2001).Othershavebeenmoreinterestedinthe specificnatureofinteractioninmathematicsclassrooms.Thisworkincludesstudies thatdrawonsocialsemioticperspectivestoexplore,forexample,thenatureandrole ofmathematicaltextsandofintertextualityinmathematicseducation(e.g.Chapman, 2003).Similarly,othershaveemphasisedthesituatednessofmathematicalmeaning within classroom discourse (Mosckovich, 2003). Some researchers have turned to poststructuralismtoexaminetheprocessesthroughwhichmathematics,teachersand studentsarepositionedorconstructedbymathematicaldiscourses(e.g.Brown,2001). Morerecently,discursiveperspectiveshaveledtonewinsightsintotherelationship betweenmathematicsclassroominteractionandwiderpoliticalconcerns,suchas,for example,theroleofdifferentlanguagesinmultilingualsettings(Setati,2003). In general, the various approaches summarised above have sought to understand differentaspectsofmathematicalthinking(which,forthispaper,Iwillusetoalso

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.4956.Seoul:PME . 249 Barwell encompass mathematical learning, meaning and understanding). These approaches generally highlight a central role for language, symbols and interaction in mathematical thinking. Conducting such research is also, however, a discursive process,involving,forexample,theproductionandinterpretationofvariouskindsof texts, such as taperecordings of interviews, lesson transcripts or field notes. The discursive nature of this process has received less attention within the field of mathematicseducation.Inthispaper,Iexploreoneparticularaspectoftheresearch process:thepublishedresearchpaper.Todoso,Iwilldrawonideasdevelopedin discursive psychology, which are summarised in the next section. These ideas highlight,amongstotherthings,theroleofdescriptioninconstructingbothmindand reality.Takingoneresearchpaper(Sfard,2001)asanexample,Iexploretheroleof description in the construction of mathematical thinking in published accounts of research. I conclude by discussing some possible implications for research in mathematicseducation. DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY Discursive psychology (e.g. Edwards, 1997; Edwards and Potter, 1992) has been describedasofferingananticognitivist,antirealist,antistructuralistaccountofthe relationshipbetweendiscourseandcognitiveprocess,suchasthinking,meaningor remembering[1].Inthecontextofresearchinmathematicseducation,thesepoints havethefollowingimplications(forwhichIhavedrawn particularly on Edwards, 1997): • Anti-cognitivist :entailsashiftfromafocuson‘whathappensinthemind’(as anindividualmentalprocess)tohow‘whathappens in the mind’ is done throughdiscursivepractice(asasociallyorganisedprocess);thus,thenature of mathematical thinking or meaning, for example, are jointly produced throughinteraction. • Anti-realist : reality is seen as being reflexively (and so relativistically) constitutedthroughinteraction.Thus,inanygivensituation,mathematicsor mathematicalcognitiveprocessesarenotpregiven, but arebrought about through talk. Rather than mathematical meaning, for example, being predetermined by words, symbols or diagrams, participants read such meaningsintothesethingsthroughtheirinteraction. • Anti-strucuturalist :followingtheprecedingpoint,mathematicalmeaningand theorganisationofmathematicalinteractionaresituated,bothintimeandin place, emerging from preceding interaction, rather than in standard, predictableways. As Edwards (1997,p. 48) pointsout, this perspectiveistosomedegreerelatedto socioculturalapproachestopsychology.Bothapproachesrecognisethecentralrole playedbysocialprocesses,cultureandlanguageinthedevelopmentofthehuman mind.Formuchresearchinfluencedbysocioculturaltheory,however,theaimisto understandhowthemindworks,evenifmindisconstructedthroughparticipationin

250 PME31―2007 Barwell society. Discursive psychology, by contrast, is more interested in how ideas like ‘mind’ are constructed in particular situations. The difference, Edwards argues, is broadlybetweenontologicalandepistemologicalconcerns: Indiscursivepsychology,themajorsenseof‘socialconstruction’isepistemic:itisabout the constructive nature of descriptions, rather than of the entities that (according to descriptions)existbeyondthem.(Edwards,1997,pp.4748) Inthisapproach,therefore: Mindandrealityaretreatedanalyticallyasdiscourse’stopicsandbusinesses,thestuffthat talkisabout,andtheanalytictaskistoexaminehowparticipantsdescriptivelyconstruct them.(Edwards,1997,p.48) Inthecaseofresearchinmathematicseducation,concernswithmathematicalthinking, forexample,orthenatureofmathematics,wouldbetreatedasdiscursiveconstructs.I havesoughttousetheseideastoanalysevariousexamplesofmathematicsclassroom interaction(e.g.Barwell,2001).Myaimwastounderstandhowschoolstudentsand teachersjointlyconstructedmathematicalunderstanding,thinkingandlearning.Inthis paper,however,Iaminterestedinhowmathematicalthinkingisconstructedthrough the research process itself, particularly in research publications. To facilitate this inquiry,inthenextsectionIexamineonepublishedpaperbyAnnaSfard. DESCRIPTION AND MATHEMATICAL THINKING: AN EXAMPLE ThepaperIhaveselected(Sfard,2001)concernstherelationshipbetweendiscourse andmathematicalthinking.Thepaperisinteresting,inthatitcomparestwowaysof viewingmathematicalthinking:thecognitivist,learningasacquisitionapproachanda communicative,learningasparticipationapproach.Sfardseesthesetwoapproaches ascomplementary(p.49).Onestrandwithinthepaperinvolvesthepresentationand discussion of an exchange between a preservice teacher and a 7year old girl, reproducedbelow(seeSfard,2001,p.19).Inwhatfollows,Iexaminethisstrandofthe paperfromtheperspectiveofdiscursivepsychology.

Teacher: Whatisthebiggestnumberyoucanthinkof? Noa: Million. Teacher: Whathappenswhenweaddonetomillion? Noa: Millionandone. Teacher: Isitbiggerthanmillion? Noa: Yes. Teacher: Sowhatisthebiggestnumber? Noa: Twomillions. Teacher: Andifweaddonetotwomillions? Noa: It’smorethantwomillions. Teacher: Socanonearriveatthebiggestnumber?

PME31―2007 251 Barwell

Noa: Yes. Teacher: Let’s assume that googol is the biggest number. Can we add onetogoogol? Noa: Yes.Therearenumbersbiggerthangoogol. Teacher: Sowhatisthebiggestnumber? Noa: Thereisnosuchnumber! Teacher: Whythereisnobiggestnumber? Noa: Becausethereisalwaysanumberwhichisbiggerthanthat?

Indiscussingthisexchange,initiallyfromacognitivistperspective,Sfardwrites: Clearly,forNoa,thisverybriefconversationbecomesanopportunityforlearning.Thegirl beginsthedialogueconvincedthatthereisanumberthatcanbecalled‘thebiggest’and sheendsbyemphaticallystatingtheopposite:‘Thereisnosuchnumber!’.Thequestionis whetherthislearningmayberegardedaslearningwithunderstanding,andwhetheritis thereforethedesirablekindoflearning.(Sfard,2001,p.19) Thisparagraphisadescriptionofwhathappenedintheconversation.Thedescription isplausible.Nevertheless,thedescriptionconstructsvariousaspectsofmathematical thinkingonthepartofNoa.Inparticular,Noaisconstructedasbeing‘convinced’that there is a biggest number at the start of the conversation. Sfard describes Noa’s penultimatecontributionthatthereis‘nosuchnumber’as‘emphatic’,alsoimplyinga degreeofconviction.Theuseof‘emphatic’islinkedtotheuseofanexclamationmark (!) in the transcript, adding to the reasonableness of the description. Noa is also describedashavingproducedopposingstatements.Thesestatementsareimplicitly interpreted as a chronological shift, which is, in turn, called ‘learning’. ‘Being convinced’and‘learning’areaspectsofmathematicalthinkingthatare,however, read into theconversationthroughthedescription.ByjuxtaposingtwoofNoa’sstatements anddescribingthem asopposites,thedescriptionmakespossible,forexample,the interpretationthatlearninghastakenplace. Later in the same article, Sfard offers, by way of contrast, a more discursive perspectiveonthesameextract: …muchofwhatishappeningbetweenNoaandRadamaybeexplainedbythefactthat unliketheteacher,thegirlusesthenumberrelatedwordsinanunobjectifiedway.The term‘number’functionsinNoa’sdiscourseasanequivalentoftheterm‘numberword’, andsuchwordsashundredormillionarethingsinthemselvesratherthanmerepointersto someintangibleentities.Ifso,Noa’sinitialclaimthatthereisabiggestnumberisperfectly rational.Or,conversely,theclaimthatthereisnobiggestnumberisinconsistentwithher unobjectifieduseoftheword‘number’:Afterall,thereareonlysomanynumberwords, andoneofthemmustthereforebethebiggest,thatis,mustbethelastoneinthewell ordered of numbers…Moreover, since within this type of use the expression ‘millionandone’cannotcountasanumber(butratherasaconcatenationofnumbers),the possibility of adding one to any number does not necessitate the nonexistence of the biggestnumber.(Sfard,2001,p.46)

252 PME31―2007 Barwell

Again,Sfardoffersaplausibleaccount,withtheaim,inthiscase,ofresolvingthe puzzleraisedearlier,ofhowNoacomestobe‘convinced’ofopposingideasinthe spaceofashortconversation.Again,however,Sfard’sdescriptionconstructsvarious formsofmathematicalthinkingonthepartofNoa.Akeyfeatureofthedescriptionis the idea that Noa is interpreting the word ‘number’ as ‘an equivalentofthe term ‘numberword’’.Basedonthisdescription,Sfardisabletoprovidearationalaccount ofNoa’sutterances.Indeed,thelaterpartoftheaboveparagraphisdevotedtosetting out the linguistic and mathematical basis for that rationality, which amounts to a readingofNoa’smathematicalunderstandingintheearlierstagesoftheexchange. Thus,thenatureofthedescriptionisintimatelyrelatedwiththeargumentthatSfardis pursuing.Bysettingoutaparticularversionofwhatishappeningintheconversation, SfardmakesavailableparticularinferencesaboutNoa’s (cognitive) interpretations, whichinturnfitinwithSfard’slargerargumentthattheconversationrepresentsan exampleofdiscursiveconflict: …both interlocutors seem interested in aligning their positions. The teacher keeps repeatingherquestionabouttheexistenceof‘thebiggestnumber’,thusissuingmetalevel cuesignallingthatthegirl’sresponsefailedtomeetexpectations.Inordertogoon,Noa triestoadjustheranswerstotheseexpectations,andshedoesitinspiteofthefactthatwhat sheissupposedtosayevidentlydoesnotfitwithheruseofthewords the biggest number . (Sfard,2001,p.46) Thenotionofdiscursiveconflictstressestheclashofhabitualusesofwords,whichisan inherently discursive phenomenon. In our present case [of Noa], we could observe a conflictbetweenthetwointerlocutors’discursiveusesofthewords‘number’and‘bigger number’.Whileawareofthefactthattheteacherwasapplyingthesetermsinawayquite differentfromherown,Noawasignorantofthereasonsforthisincompatibility.Inthis case,therefore,thegirlhadtopresumethesuperiorityofherteacher’suseinordertohave any motivationatalltostartthinkingofrationaljustificationforachangeinher own discursivehabits.(Sfard,2001,p.48) Thenotionofdiscursiveconflictoriginates,perhaps,inthefirstparagraphabove,an accountoftheconversationinlargelydiscursiveterms;thatis,intermsofcues,repeats andalignments.Eveninthisdescription,however,adegreeofintentionisreadinto Noa’sbehaviour:she‘ tries toadjustheranswers’,forexample.Thisreadingisthen overlaid, however, with a more cognitively oriented account of ignorance, presumptions,motivationsandthinking.Again,then,itisthenatureofthedescription thatmakespossibletheinferencesaboutNoa’smathematicalthinking. DISCUSSION MypurposeinexaminingSfard’spaperinsuchdetailisnottochallengeherargument. Herexplorationoftheideaofcognitiveconflictandherproposalofthealternativeidea of discursive conflict are interesting developments and likely to be valuable for research and teaching. Rather, I am interested in how mathematical thinking is discursivelyconstructedthroughtheprocessofdoingandcommunicatingresearchin mathematicseducation.

PME31―2007 253 Barwell

MydiscussionofSfard’spaperparticularlyhighlightstheimportanceof descriptions of mathematical behaviour inconstructingmathematicalcognition.AsEdwards(1997, pp.3743)hasarguedinthecaseofcognitivepsychology,suchdescriptionsplayan importantrole:theymakeavailableparticularinterpretationsofcognitiveprocesses, whilstshuttingoutalternatives.Sfard’sdescriptions,forexample,buildincognitiveor discursiveconflict,whichcanthenbemadeexplicit.Moregenerallythen,inwritten researchreports,descriptionsofmathematicalbehaviourarelikelytobeshapedtosuit anauthor’swiderargumentconcerningmathematicalthinkingandlearning. Ofcoursemanyauthorsacknowledgetheirsubjectivity,inthesensethattheymakeit clearthattheiranalysesareinterpretations.IndeedSfard,inherarticle,comparestwo suchinterpretations.Commonly,suchacknowledgementsare,however,basedonthe argumentthat,byusinganexplicittheoreticalframeworkandgivingsufficientdetail abouthowthedatawereanalysed,readerscanmakeuptheirownmindsaboutthe trustworthinessoftheanalysis.Thiskindofargumentisbasedonadesiretogetatan objectivecognitiveprocessthatcanbeinterpreted,howeverindirectlyandtentatively, throughparticipants’behaviour.Studentssaythingstotheirmathematicsteachersand thetaskistosuggestwhatorhowthestudentisthinking,learningorunderstanding.I amnotmakingthereasonablepointthatlanguagedoesnotoffera‘window’intothe mind.Researchfromabroadlysocioculturalperspective (including that of Sfard) recognisesthecomplexroleoflanguageandcultureinmathematicalcognitionandin theresearchprocessandgenerallyacceptsthispoint(see,forexample,Lerman,2001). Nevertheless, such research is attempting to say something about minds and their relationshipwiththeworld. Thereareacouplerelevantpoints,then,thatarecommonlyacceptedbyqualitative researchers relevanttothis issue. Firstly, itis accepted that no description can be perfectlyaccurate.Secondly,itisacceptedthatalldescriptionsincludesomedegreeof biasorsubjectivityonthepartoftheauthor.Boththesepoints,however,assumethat theproblemis,simplisticallyput,oneofaccuracy.Mypointisslightlydifferent:itis thatthedescriptionsthemselvesconstitutemathematicalcognitionasitistheorised and conjectured about in publications about mathematics education. So Sfard’s descriptions of Noa’s conversation with the teacher make possible the ideas about cognitiveanddiscursiveconflictthatSfardwishestodiscuss(asmuchastheotherway around). IMPLICATIONS AND QUESTIONS Providingdescriptionsoftheinteractionorbehaviourofpeopleengagedindoingor learningmathematicsisanintegralpartofmuchpublishedresearchinthefield.There are,however,particularwaysofwritingsuchdescriptionsthatarespecifictothekind ofwritingfoundinresearchpapers,asopposedto,say,newspaperreports.Moreover, whilstIhavehighlightedtheroleofdescriptionintheconstructionofmathematical thinkinginwrittenresearchreports,otherpartsoftheresearchprocessarelikelyto draw on other practices. Interviews, for example, can be seen to construct

254 PME31―2007 Barwell mathematicalthinkinginparticularways.Similarly,discussionsbetweenresearchers orinformalconversationsatPMEmeetingsmayalsocontributeindifferentwaysto theconstructionofmathematicalthinking.Aninterestingquestionthenarisesofhow these different discursive practices work together to produce accepted accounts of mathematicalthinkingwithinawidercommunity.Itisalsointerestingtoconsiderhow descriptionsworkindifferentwaysatdifferentpointsintheprocess.Thetranscriptof Noaandherteacher,forexample,canbeseenasanotherformofdescription,perhaps producedpriortoanalysisandthewritingofaresearchpaper.Thestructuringofsucha transcriptisalsoimplicatedintheconstructionofmathematicalthinkingthatarises,as with,forexample,theroleoftheexclamationmarkIpointedoutearlier. ThepracticesIhavehighlightedarelikelytobefamiliartomembersofthePME community. PME members, however, are not the only people interested in mathematicalthinking;itisalsoofinterestto,for example, mathematics teachers, governmentadvisors,studentsortextbookwriters.TheNationalNumeracyStrategyof England and Wales (DfEE, 1999), for example, includes descriptive lists of what ‘pupils should be taught to know’, thereby constructing mathematical thinking as somethingthatcanbelistedandbrokendownintosmallcomponentstowhichteachers canbeheldaccountable.Inthiscase,therefore,descriptions are used to construct mathematicalthinkinginratherdifferentwaystothosefoundinresearchpapers.This observationleadstoamoregeneralquestion.Ifthediscursivepracticesofmathematics educationresearchareimplicatedintheconstructionofmathematicalthinkingwithin thecommunityofresearchers,andifdifferentdiscursivepracticesareusedtoconstruct mathematicalthinkingindifferentwaysindifferentcommunities(suchasthoseof teachersofcurriculumwriters),whatistherelationshipbetweenthem? GiventhelayersofreflexivityinherentintheargumentIhavemadeinthispaper (including,forexample,myuseofdescriptionsofSfard’swork),itwouldnotmake sensetosuggest,forexample,thatresearchersshouldbemorecarefulwhenproducing their own descriptions. Every description in a paper concerned with mathematical thinkingisimplicatedinitsconstruction.Twocoursesofactionareperhapspossible, eachequallyvaluable.Oneisforresearcherstobeawareofthepracticesthrough whichtheiraccountsofmathematicalthinkingareproduced.Theotherisforfurther researchtouncovermoreofthepracticesofourcommunity,sothatthatawarenesscan beenhanced. NOTE 1.ThethreeantisarederivedfromaresponsegivenbyMargaretWetherellaspartofa UKLinguisticEthnographyForumcolloquiumattheannualmeetingoftheBritish AssociationforApplied,Bristol,1517September2005. REFERENCES Barwell,R.(2001)Investigatingmathematicalinteractioninamultilingualprimaryschool: findingawayofworking.InvandenHeuvelPanhuizen,M.(ed): Proceedings of the 25th

PME31―2007 255 Barwell

meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) , vol2,pp.97104. Brown, T. (2001) Mathematics Education and Language: Interpreting Hermeneutics and Post-Structuralism (2ndedn.).Dordrecht:Kluwer. Chapman,A.(2003)Asocialsemioticoflanguageandlearninginschoolmathematics,in Anderson, M., SáenzLudlow, A., Zellweger, S. and Cifarelli, V. (eds.) Educational Perspectives on Mathematics as Semiosis: From Thinking to Interpreting to Knowing ,pp. 129148.Ottawa:Legas. DepartmentforEducationandEmployment[UK](DfEE)(1999) The National Numeracy Strategy: Framework for Teaching Mathematics from Reception to Year 6 .Sudbury:DfEE Publications. Edwards,D.(1997) Discourse and Cognition .London:Sage. Edwards,D.andPotter,J.(1992) Discursive Psychology .London:Sage. Lerman,S.(2001)Cultural,discursivepsychology:asocioculturalapproachtostudyingthe teaching and learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(13) 87113. Moschkovich,J.(2003)Whatcountsasmathematicaldiscourse?InPateman,L.,Dourgherty, B.andZilliox,J.(eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Joint meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) and PMENA, vol.3,pp.325–331. Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’i. Setati,M.(2003)LanguageuseinamultilingualmathematicsclassroominSouthAfrica:A differentperspective.InPateman,L.,Dourgherty,B.andZilliox,J.(eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 Joint meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) and PMENA, vol.4,pp.151–158.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai’i. Sfard, A. (2001) There is more to discourse than meets the ears: looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(13)1357. YackelE.andCobb,P.(1996)Sociomathematicalnorms,argumentation,andautonomyin mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 27(4)458477. Zack,V.andGraves,B.(2001)Makingmathematicalmeaningthroughdialogue:“Onceyou thinkofit,theZminusthreeseemsprettyweird.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 46 (13)229271.

256 PME31―2007 AUTHORITY AND ESTEEM EFFECTS OF ENHANCING REMOTE INDIGENOUS TEACHER-ASSISTANTS’ MATHEMATICS-EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 1 AnnetteRBaturo ,TomJCooperandKatherineDoyle QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Brisbane,Australia. The interaction between Australia’s Eurocentric education and the complex culture of remote Indigenous communities often results in Indigenous disempowerment and educational underperformance. This paper reports on a mathematics-education research project in a remote community to support Indigenous teacher assistants (ITAs) in mathematics and mathematics tutoring in an attempt to reverse Indigenous mathematics underperformance. It discusses teachers’ and ITAs’ power and authority within school and community, describes the project's design, and summarises the project’s results in terms of affects and knowledge. It draws implications on the relation between ITA professional development (PD), affect, esteem, knowledge, authority, teacher-ITA partnerships, and enhanced Indigenous mathematics outcomes. Forthelastsixyears,wehavebeenvisitingremotecommunitiestoworkwithschoolsin an attempt to reverse the mathematics underperformance and low retention rate of Australian Indigenous students (MCEETYA, 2005; Queensland Studies Authority [QSA],2006).WehavefoundthatatypicalremoteAustralianIndigenousclassroomhas twostaffmembers,namely,ayounginexperiencednonIndigenousteacherandanolder experienced ITA from the community (Cooper, Baturo & Warren, 2005; Warren, Cooper&Baturo,2004).TheteacherslackPDinIndigenouseducationandinworking withanotheradultwhiletheITAslackPDinhowtoassisttheteachereducationally;the teachersusuallyleavetheschoolaftertwoyearswhiletheITAstendtoremain.Thus, longtermprojectswithteachersinremotecommunitiesareproblematicandledusto believe,likeClark(2000),thatsustainableprogressinremoteschoolrequiresITAstobe givenamorecentralroleinteaching. ITAsfindthatAustralia’shighlyEurocentriceducationsystem(Rothbaum,Weisz,Pott, Miyake,&Morelli,2000)lacksculturalunderstandingsandclarity,leavingthemwith undefinedrolesandasenseofdisempowermenteventhoughtheyoftenholdpositions ofauthorityandesteemwithintheirowncommunities(Matthews,Watego,Cooper& Baturo, 2005; Sarra, 2003). As a consequence, we find that most teacherITA interactions are impoverished and unjust (Sarra, 2003; Warren, Cooper & Baturo, in press)andfailtotakeaccountoftheITAs’strengths(Cooper,Baturo&Warren,2005). Forthisreason,wehavechangedourresearchfocusfromteacherstoITAs.Thispaper analysesthefirstresearchproject 1weundertookwithITAs.

1ProjectfundedbyAustralianGovernmentDESTInnovativeProjectInitiativegrant.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.5764.Seoul:PME . 257 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle

POWER AND AUTHORITY IN SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY Weber(Haralambos,Holborn&Heald,2004)claimsthat power isrealisationofwill againsttheresistanceofrecipients,and authority ispowerlegitimisedbyrecipients. Heidentifiesthreetypesofauthority:(1)traditionalauthoritywhichisthe“takenfor granted”orconsensualauthoritygiventoarole(suchas“teacher”);(2)charismatic authoritywhichcomesfromthespecialpersonalityqualitiesofauthorityfigure;and (3) bureaucratic authority which is based on legal structures (such as schools) (Haralambos et al., 2004). Table 1 (extended from Warren, Baturo & Cooper, in press)summarisesthesetypesfornonIndigenousteachers(calledTsforthetable) andITAswithin school and community .TheclassificationsdependonnonIndigenous teachers’andITAs’rolesinthesetwoverydifferentsocialstructures. Table1: Authority types, Teachers and ITAs in school and community Authority School Community type T ITA T ITA Traditional   unlesslong ?dependson termorcomm. familystatus role Charismatic ?depends ?dependsonITA ?dependsonT ?dependson onT ITA Bureacratic  unlessrolepartof notpresent ?dependson schoolstructure comm.status Commonly,theteacher’sauthoritycomesfromtheschool(traditionalandbureaucratic authority),whiletheITA’sauthoritycomesfromthecommunityasmostarerespected communitymembersorelders(predominantlytraditionalauthority).Thisleavesmany possibilities: (1) the most likely is for an ITA to have high traditional and, possibly, charismatic authority within the community, but no bureaucratic authority within the school; (2) an ITA with little community respect and poor charisma can have little authorityinandoutofaclassroom;and(3)anITAwithstrongcommunityauthoritycan havethisauthoritytransfertotheschool. WealsotakecognisanceofFoucalt’s(1991)notionthatpowerisarelationinwhich knowledge haseffect.ThisissupportedbyWarren,Baturo,&Cooper’s(inpress) findings and Smith’s (2002) arguments claiming that education generally improves authority, particularly for race. Smith also argues that Black Americans have less authority because they have less training, accreditation and status attainment. This includesjob authority (theauthoritymostatriskintermsofrace)whichisespecially psychologicallyrewardingbecauseitbringsstatusinsideandoutsidetheworkplace andisrelatedtojobsatisfaction,personalidentityandselfesteem(Ardler,1993). THE “TRAIN A MATHS TUTOR” RESEARCH PROJECT The project’s aim was to develop ITAs as mathematic tutors for underachieving Indigenousstudents(Baturo&Cooper,2006).Itwasaqualitativeinterpretiveaction

258 PME31―2007 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle research collaboration incorporating Smith’s (1999) decolonising methodology exhorting “empowering outcomes with the secondary (Grades 812) and primary schools(Grades17)andthelocalCouncilwithinaremoteAboriginalcommunityin whichwehadworkedforthreeyears.Ourhopewasthattheprojectwouldprovidean educational(ratherthantheusualbehaviourmanagementrole)fortheITAsandto reverseIndigenousstudents’mathematicsunderperformance. Participants . Eleven ITAs volunteered for the project (7 primary, 4 secondary), representingalmostalltheITAsfrombothschools,ahugepersonnelinvestment.They were “longterm, local residents, mostly women, who work parttime for modest wages…oftenparentsorgrandparentsofstudents”(Ashbaker&Morgan,2001.p. 2). Most feared mathematics, had received little PD in its teaching, and lacked understanding (only one could fully understand 3digit numbers at the beginning of PD); their role in classrooms had been behaviour control. The PD took place in communitybuildings–PDsessionsinabrandnewcounciltrainingbuilding;lunchat thecommunitycentre.ThetutoringtrialstookplaceatthesecondaryschoolwithYears 810studentswholackedunderstandingof3digitnumbers. TheAboriginalcommunityinwhichtheresearchwassitedwasestablishedintheearly 20thcenturyandsetupbyforcibleremovalofAboriginalpeoplefromtheirtraditional lands, many of which were more than 1000 km away. Until the late 1970s, the community was owned by the government and run by white staff. At the end of the 1970s,withouttrainingorpreparation,thecommunitywasgiventotheAboriginesto runthroughacouncil.Thecommunityismadeupofmorethan10differentcultures makingitdifficulttogetconsensusonmanyissues.Itsharesthecommonproblemsof remoteIndigenouscommunities:poverty,substanceabuse,violence,poorhealth,low lifeexpectancyandincarceration(Fitzgerald,2001). Intheyearbeforetheproject,thestudents’mathematicsperformancewasbelowthatof othersimilarIndigenouscommunities.Schoolattendancewas<30%,behaviourwasout of control in most classrooms, all Grade 2 students failed to meet State minimal standards,andmanysecondarystudentscouldnotmeetGrade3standards.Theyoung inexperiencednonIndigenousteacherstaughtwhiteurbanmathematicswithlittleorno Indigenouscontextualisation(Matthewsetal.,2005)togiverelevanceandbuildpride. However,thenewprimaryschoolprincipalwasjustabouttosetupaschoolrenewal programbasedonthesuccessfulmethodsofSarra(2003). The PD program . The program was based on two main assumptions: (1) ITAs, beinglongtermcommunitymembers,wouldbefamiliarwithcommunitymoresand language,abletomeetthestudents’culturalneeds,andtheschools’keytostability (Baturo, Cooper & Warren, 2004; Clark, 2000), and (2) the PD should be “2way strong”(wehopedtolearn,fromtheITAs,aboutIndigenouscontextualisationand language in which to embed teaching). It was developed from three clusters of principles (Baturo & Cooper, 2006): (1) mathematics/pedagogy – teaching for structuralunderstanding(Sfard,1991)usingkinaestheticlearningwithmaterialsand developinginformalandformallanguage(Baturo,2003,2004);(2)PD usingtrain

PME31―2007 259 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle trialcycles(whereITAstrialtheirideaswithstudents)withjustintimesupportand reflection(Baturo,Warren&Cooper,2004)andenoughtimesetasidetodoallatthe detailrequired;and(3) social –experiencingsuccess(Clarke&Hollingsworth,2002), buildinggroupcohesionandITAs’identities(Sfard & Prusack, 2005) astutors;and workinginapositivelearningspace(Skill&Young,2002). Procedure . A mathematicseducation manual was produced for the ITAs (see online report–Baturo&Cooper,2006).ThePDprogram ranfour hoursadayMonday to Thursdayfor4weeks.Week1providedthemathematicsandpedagogicbackgroundfor the tutors while Weeks 2 to 4 focused on providing the tutors with particular mathematicsandpedagogicskillsforcrucialtransitionpointsinteachingwholenumber numeration.Weeks2to4wereorganisedsothat,everysecondday,theaidescouldtrial, withactualstudentsatriskwithrespecttomathematics,thenumerationactivitiesthey had learnt the previous day. Even though the ITAs knew us very well, they were reluctanttoattendas(theylatertoldus)theywerenervousof"doingthebigmaths". However,oncethey hadexperiencedasession,theyattendedregularly.Lunchatthe communitycentreandreflectionsessionsweremadesocialoccasionswhereITAsand researcherscouldbuildpersonalrelationshipsandgroupcohesion.Thematerialtobe trialledwithstudentswasdesignedtomotivateandtoensuresuccessfullearning. ThePDsessions,tutoringtrialsandreflectionsessionswerevideotapedandfieldnotes werewritten.Atleast4researcherswerepresentforeachPDandtriallingsession–one researchertaughtwhiletheothersobserved(PD)butallwereavailableforintervention, ifrequired,duringthetrials.Althoughsomeinformaldemographicdataweregathered priortothePD,wefeltthatwecouldnotriskfullpreinterviewswiththeITAsbecause ofthefragilityofearlyattendance.Wewerealsounabletoundertakeindividualpost interviewswithITAsduetotheremotenessofthesiteandthedifficultyinorganising times.However,wewereabletoundertakeacollectivepostinterview. Analysis .Weevaluatedtheprojectfromobservationsof,andinformaldiscussions,with the ITAs during PD, trials and reflections, and audiotaped followup interviews with teachersandprincipals.Inparticular,weuseda5pointratingscale(1lowand5high) to jointly assess (all ratings were negotiated between 2 researchers) the ITAs at the beginningandendoftheprogramintermsof:(1)mathematicsandtutoringaffectsand beliefs,and(2)mathematicsandpedagogyknowledge,andtutoringskill RESULTS Attendance and empowerment. Theprojectwassuccessfulintermsoftheseratings (Baturo&Cooper,2005).Attendancewas90%forthePDwhenspecialpersonaland contextualcircumstancesweretakenintoaccount,aratewhichexperiencedmembers of the community said was very high. For us, it was gratifying considering that attendancewasnotcompulsoryandPDtookmostoftheschoolday(andsomeITAs wereunderpressurefromteacherstospendtimeinclassrooms).Oneimplicationof such high attendance was that the PD “hit the spot” for ITAs in its focus (early mathematics),itspaceanditsstancethatwewereequalcollaborators(2waystrong).

260 PME31―2007 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle

As their confidence increased across the four weeks, so too did their sense of job authority(asevidencedintheirinteractionswiththestudents). Knowledge, affects and empowerment . From researcher, teacher and student observations, the project was highly successful (Baturo & Cooper, 2006). All researchersandobserverscommentedonhowdramaticallytheITAshadchangedacross thefourweeksofthecourseasinitialshynesshadbeenreplacedby,asoneresearcher calledit,a thirst for knowledge .TheITAswantedallthatwecouldgivethemonthe structureofthenumbersystemandtechniquesforteachingit.Thefeedbackfromthe ITAstothePDandtutoringwasinfectious;againallresearchersandobserversfeltit. The ITAs were excited about what they were learning and very proud of how they tutoredthestudents;weweresonervousatthetutoringtrialsandtheITAsweresocalm; theteachersandstudentsweredelightedbythetasksandtheir"new"tutors.Wewere alsoimpressedwiththeITAs'confidence,theiruseofmaterialsandtheirquestioning. Oneobserverremarkedthatitwas like a dam had burst and there was a pouring out of interest;anothersaiditwas like rain falling on land after a drought .Oneprincipal stated, the ITAs have been more successful in their work with students and far more confident in the way they deal with students generally in the classroom, the kids have also responded positively . TheteacherswereamazedatwhattheITAscoulddointhetrialsandwantedthemto returnimmediatelytotheclassroomandrepeatitwith their students. One teacher commented, kids were well behaved because they knew and liked what they were doing … for kids who generally didn’t succeed at school work, they liked the fact that they were able to succeed ,andanothersupported, kids also seemed to enjoy every part of it particularly the one-on-one teaching they received . The teachers also commentedonhowthe ITAshad changed across the four weeks, sayingthatnow theymovedaroundtheclassroomhelpingstudentsinallsubjects,notsittingbackand watchingastheyhaddonebefore.Themostpowerfulevidencewasfromtheprimary schoolprincipalwholatergavecredittoherITAs’ tutoring skills for six students meetingtheYear2minimumstandardsinmathematics,somethingwhichnostudent hadachievedpreviouslyintheschool. However,itwasthecommunity’sresponsetothePDthatwasmostunexpected.The graduation ceremony we gave the ITAsbecame a major eventinthe town; many elders and community members attended as did external dignitaries in Indigenous Affairs. All applauded the success of the ITAs. One Elder commented that her generationwasnoteducatedpastYear4andthatshe never thought she’d see the day when people of her community would have the opportunity to undertake a university program .Anothercommentedthattherewas no shame. Theseandothersindicated theirprideintheITAs’achievement. Improvementinperformanceratingswasalsosignificant(seeTable2),butthiswas almostaselffulfillingprophecyconsideringtheITA’slackofpriorPDandlimited previouseducation,andreactionstothisPDopportunity.Theinitialratingsindicate

PME31―2007 261 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle thenoveltyofthePD(andnervousnessoftheITAs)whilstthefinalratingsindicated thattheITAshadengaged,learntandgrownconfident. Table2: IEWs’ pre-post ratings for mathematics and mathematics tutoring affects, knowledge and tutoring skill Mathematics Mathematics Tutoring Affect, knowledge and Pre Post Pre Post tutoring-skill characteristics Mean Mean Mean Mean Affects Motivation 1.6 4.5 1.7 4.5 Confidence 1.6 4.4 1.5 4.4 Knowledge 2digitnumbers 2.5 4.5 1.1 3.8 3digitnumbers 2.0 4.1 1.0 3.7 Tutoring 2digitnumbers N/A N/A 1.9 4.3 3digitnumbers N/A N/A 1.7 4.1 Note .N/Ameans“NotApplicable”.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS From the point of view of everyone involved, the PD program was successful − it improvedITAs’mathematicsknowledgeandpedagogyandtutoringskillsandbuilttheir confidenceandgavethemesteemwithinthecommunity.Itappearedtoaffectpositively all who came in contact with it; for example, the government representative at graduationsupportedfurthergrantapplicationsandtheprimaryprincipal’sopensupport inameetingofStateprincipalssecuredustheschoolsupportweneededforfollowup research.ItwasevidentthattheITAswereamenableto,needed,andbenefitedfromthe PDandthattheproject’sPDprogramwaseffectiveandefficient(Baturo&Cooper, 2006).However,theinterestinthispaperistounderstandhowandwhythingsappeared toworksowell.Forthis,wewillinitiallylookattheeffectofsomeoftheprogram’s underlying principles, then at authority, and finally at a serendipitous confluence of interventions.FinallywewilldrawimplicationsforfuturePDandresearch. Principles . The basis of the project’s success appeared to be how the principles interacted. First, our choice of using council buildings rather than the school as the learningspaceappearedtobeinfluential.Itmadetheprogramovert,publicandvisible tothecommunitywhogatheredeachdayattheshopsandcounciloffices.Italsogave the ITAs and the project the appearance of council approval and boosted the ITA’s esteem in the community. Second, our decision to teach mathematics for structural learningwasalsoinfluential.TheITAsrecognisedthattheyweresuccessfullylearning andtutoringimportantbasicconceptsandprocesses(whattheycalled, the big maths ) notjustsimplefactsandskills,andthattheresearchershadhighexpectationsofthem (an important component of improving performance and building pride according to Sarra, 2003). Third, our decision to have student trials and to design instruction to maximiseITAtutoringsuccessworked,andboostedtheITAs’confidence,motivation, pride and commitment and made them willing to try other new things (a PD cycle describedinClarke&Hollingsworth,2002).

262 PME31―2007 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle

Authority .Theproject’ssuccesscanalsobeseenintermsofpowerandauthority(see Table 3). The project provided the ITAs with knowledge and skills to operate successfullyinclassroomsinwaystheyhadnotknownbefore,thusboostingITApower and authority within the schools (Foucalt, 1991; Smith, 2002). Similarly, in Weber’s terms(Haralambosetal.,2004),thepublicnatureoftheprojectandthevisiblesupport of the council boosted the ITAs’ charismatic and bureaucratic authority in the community , particularly as regards job authority (Ardler, 1993). Consequently, the balanceofteacherITAauthoritychangedpositivelyfortheITAsasperTable3. Serendipity .Atthesametimeasourprojectwasrunning,theprimaryschoolprincipal wasputtinginplaceaschoolrenewalbasedonSarra(2003),oneofwhosetenetsisto increase Indigenous leadership in schools. As a consequence, the ITAs role in the primary school was given bureaucratic authority , thus further changing authority relationships (see Table 3). Thus, teacherITA partnerships were more equitable in primarythansecondaryschool(whichexplainsthegreatersuccessoftheprimaryITAs). Table3:Authority types, Teachers and ITAs in school and community after PD Authority School Community type T ITA T ITA Traditional present notpresent notpresent ?depends Charismatic ?depends present ?depends present Bureacratic present notpresent notpresent present present* Note .*representsthechangeintheprimaryschoolaftertheprincipal’sschoolrenewal . Implications . Two main implications emerged from the projects’ results. First, successfulITAPDrequiresstructuralmathematics,traintrialcycles,carefulselectionof learning space and a focus on success. These principles interact to build affect and esteem, and the ITAs become effective tutors and improve students’ mathematics outcomes(Baturo&Cooper,2006).Second,anyPDprogramtoeducateITAswillhave effects on authority within school and community which in this project led to more balancedpowerrelationships,betterteacherITApartnerships,greaterschoolIndigenous influence and leadership, more contextualisation, pride and belief in ability, and improved mathematics outcomes (Foucalt, 1991; Matthews et al., 2005; Sarra, 2003; Smith,2002;WarrenBaturo,etal.,inpress).Theseauthoritychangesmustbecateredfor ortheymayhaveunwittingnegativeeffectsaswellasserendipitouspositiveeffects. References Ardler,S.(1993). We're under this great stress and we need to speak out: Reflections on the Shoalhaven Aboriginal Education Research Project .Sydney,NSW:DepartmentofEducation. Ashbaker,B.,&Morgan,J.(2001).Growingrolesforteachers’IEWs. Education Digest. 66 (7),15. Baturo,A.R.(2003).AustralianIndigenousstudents’knowledgeoftwodigitnumeration:Adding one ten. Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.8188).Honolulu,HI:PME. Baturo,A.R.(2004).EmpoweringAndreatohelpYear5studentsconstructfractionunderstanding. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.95102).Bergen,Norway:PME.

PME31―2007 263 Baturo, Cooper & Doyle

Baturo, A., & Cooper, T. (2006).Train a maths tutor: Final report . http://www.dest. gov. au/literacynumeracy/innovativeprojects/Baturo_Train_Maths_Tutor/contents.htm Baturo,A.,Cooper,T.,&Warren,E.(2004). Enhancing educationally-disadvantaged Indigenous students’ numeracy outcomes through enhancing Indigenous IEWs’ mathematics and pedagogic knowledge .NCTMResearchPreconference,Philadelphia,USA. Clark, M. (2000). Direction and support for new nonaboriginal teachers in remote aboriginal community schools in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 28 (2),18. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 ,947967. Cooper,T.,Baturo,A.,&Warren,E.(2005).IndigenousandnonIndigenousteachingrelationships inthreemathematicsclassroomsinremoteQueensland. Proceedings of the 29 th Conference of IGPME, 4,305312.Melbourne:UniversityofMelbourne. Fitzgerald,A.(2001). Cape York Justice Study Report .Brisbane,Qld:QueenslandGovt,Deptof thePremierandCabinet. Foucault,M.(1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison .Harmondsworth:Penguin. Haralambos,M.,Holborn,M.,&Heald,R.(2004). Sociology: Themes and perspectives .London: HarperCollins. Matthews,C.,Watego,L.,Cooper,T.J.,&Baturo,A.R.(2005).Doesmathematicseducationin AustraliadevalueIndigenousculture?IndigenousperspectivesandnonIndigenousreflections. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference MERGA28 ,Melbourne,Vic. MinisterialCouncilonEducation;Employment;TrainingandYouthAffairs.(2005).Australian directions in Indigenous education 20052008. http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/resources/ AustralianDirections_in_Indigenous_Education_20052008.pdf QueenslandStudiesAuthority.(2006). Overview of Statewide Student Performance in Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy: Report to the Minister. http://www.childcomm.qld.gov.au/pdf /publications/reports/snapshot2006/snapshot2006chapter9.pdf .[Accessed04/01/07] Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. Pott, M. Miyake, K. & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture. American Psychologist, 55 (10),10931104. Sarra,C.(2003). Young and black and deadly: Strategies for improving outcomes for Indigenous students .Deakin,Vic:AustralianCollegeofEducators. Sfard,A.&Prusack,A.(2005).Tellingidentities:Themissinglinkbetweencultureandlearning mathematics. Proceedings of the 29 th Annual Conference ofIGPME .Melbourne,Vic:University. Skill,T.D.,&Young,B.A.(2002).Embracingthehybridmodel:Workingattheintersectionsof virtualandphysicallearningspaces. New Directions for Teaching and learning , 92 ,2332. Smith,L.T.(1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Dunedin,NZ: UniversityofOtagoPress. Smith,R.A.(2002).Race,gender,andauthorityintheworkplace:Theoryandresearch. Annual Review of Sociology, 28 ,509542. Warren,E.,Baturo,A.,&Cooper,T.(inpress,14.01.07).Powerandauthorityinschooland community:InteractionsbetweennonIndigenousteachersandIndigenousassistantsinremote Australianschools.InJ.Zajda(Ed.) Handbook of Social Justice .Springer,NY. Warren,E.,Baturo,A.,&Cooper,T.(2005).QueenslandIndigenousStudentsinruralandremote classrooms: Pedagogical Practices and numeracy learning. In J. Zajda & P, Ninnes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23 rd Annual Conference of ANZCIES. 17(1),5872.CentreforResearchin EducationContext:Armidale. Warren, E., Cooper, T., & Baturo, A. (2004). Indigenous students and Mathematics: Teachers’ perceptions of the role of teacher aides. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 33, 3746.

264 PME31―2007 RAISING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING: LINEAR ALGEBRA MariannaBogomolny SouthernOregonUniversity This study is a contribution to the ongoing research in undergraduate mathematics education, focusing on linear algebra. It is guided by the belief that better understanding of students’ difficulties leads to improved instructional methods. The questions posed in this study are: What is students’ understanding of linear (in)dependence? What can example-generation tasks reveal about students’ understanding of linear algebra? This study identifies some of the difficulties experienced by students with learning the concepts of linear dependence and independence, and also isolates some possible obstacles to such learning. In addition, this study introduces learner-generated examples as a pedagogical tool that helps learners partly overcome these obstacles.

BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE Thereisacommonconcernexpressedintheliteraturethatstudentsleavingalinear algebracoursehaveverylittleunderstandingofthebasicconcepts,mostlyknowing howtomanipulatedifferentalgorithms.Carlson(1993)statedthatsolvingsystemsof linearandcalculatingproductsofmatricesiseasyforthestudents.However, when they get to subspaces, spanning, and linear independence students become confusedanddisoriented:“itisasiftheheavyfoghasrolledinoverthem.”Carlson (1993)furtheridentifiedthereasonswhycertaintopicsinlinearalgebraaresodifficult for students. Presently linear algebra is taught far earlier and to less sophisticated studentsthanbefore.Thetopicsthatcreatedifficultiesforstudentsareconcepts,not computationalalgorithms.Also,differentalgorithmsarerequiredtoworkwiththese ideasindifferentsettings. Dubinsky (1997) pointed out slightly different sources of students’ difficulties in learninglinearalgebra.First,theoverallpedagogicalapproachinlinearalgebraisthat oftellingstudentsaboutmathematicsandshowinghowitworks.Thestrength,andat thesametimethepedagogicalweakness,oflinearsituationsisthatthealgorithmsand proceduresworkeveniftheirmeaningisnotunderstood.Thus,studentsjustlearnto apply certain wellused algorithms on a large number of exercises, for example, computingechelonformsof matricesusingtheGaussian row elimination method. Secondly,studentslacktheunderstandingofbackgroundconceptsthatarenotpartof linear algebra but important to learning it. Dorier, Robert, Robinet, and Rogalski (2000)identifiedstudents’lackofknowledgeofsettheory,logicneededforproofs, andinterpretationofformalmathematicallanguageasbeingobstaclestotheirlearning oflinearalgebra.Thirdly,thereisalackofpedagogicalstrategiesthatgivestudentsa chancetoconstructtheirownideasaboutconceptsinlinearalgebra. Examples play an important role in mathematics education. Students are usually providedwithexamplesbyteachers,butareveryrarelyfacedwithexamplegeneration 2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.6572.Seoul:PME . 265 Bogomolny tasks, especially as undergraduates. As research shows (Hazzan & Zazkis, 1999; Watson&Mason,2004),theconstructionofexamplesbystudentscontributestothe development of understanding of the mathematical concepts. Simultaneously, learnergeneratedexamplesmayhighlightdifficultiesthatstudentsexperience. This studyexamineshowandinwhatwayexamplegenerationtaskscaninformaboutand influencestudents’understandingoflinearalgebra.TheAPOStheoreticalframework wasadoptedinthisstudytointerpretandanalysestudents’responses(Asialaetal, 1996). METHOD The participantsofthestudy were students enrolled in Elementary Linear Algebra courseataCanadianUniversity.Thecourseisastandardonesemesterintroductory linearalgebracourse.Itisarequiredcoursenotonlyformathematicsmajorsbutalso for students majoring in computing science, physics, statistics, etc. 113 students participatedinthestudy.Laterinthecoursethestudentswereaskedtoparticipatein individual,clinicalinterviews.Atotalofsixstudentsvolunteeredtoparticipateinthe interviews. These students represented different levels of achievement and sophistication. Thedataforthisstudycomesfromthefollowingsources:students’writtenresponses to the questions designed for this study, and clinical interviews. To follow the examplegeneration process, Task: Linear (in)dependence was included in the interview questions as well. Having students generate examples and justify their choicesthroughwrittenresponsesandinaninterviewsettingprovidedanopportunity notonlytoobservethefinalproductofastudent’sthinkingprocessbutalsotofollowit throughinteractionwithastudentduringhis/herexamplegeneration. Task: Linear (in)dependence a).(1). Give an example of a 3 x3 A with real nonzero entries whose columns a1, a2,a 3 are linearly dependent. (2). Now change as few entries of A as possible to produce a matrix B whose columns b1,b 2,b 3 are linearly independent, explaining your reasoning. (3). Interpret the span of the columns of A geometrically b). Repeat part a (involving A and B), but this time choose your example so that the number of changed entries in going from A to B takes a different value from before. The prerequisite knowledge for many concepts in linear algebra is the linear dependence relation between vectors. The purpose of the task was to investigate students’understandingoftheconceptoflineardependenceandlinearindependence ofvectors,inparticular,in R3.Manyconceptsoflinearalgebraareconnected,and studentsshouldbeabletouseallthesetermsfreelyandwithunderstanding.Onone hand,thistaskconnectsthenumberoflinearlyindependentcolumnsinamatrix A,the numberofpivotsinanechelonformof A,andthedimensionofthevectorspace

266 PME31―2007 Bogomolny spannedbythecolumnvectorsof A. On the other hand, it connects the minimum numberofentriesrequiredtobechangedin Atomakeitscolumnslinearlyindependent, andthenumberoffreevariablesinthematrix Ax= 0.Thistaskalsoexplores thepossiblepropersubspacesofavectorspace R3(excludingthesubspacespannedby thezerovector,Span{ 0}).Itcanbefurtherextendedtoa4x4case,andthentothe generalcaseof nxnmatrices. Thisisanopenendedtaskwithnolearntprocedurestoaccomplishit.Theroutine tasksaskstudentstodetermineifasetofvectorsislinearlydependentorindependent byapplyingthedefinitionorpresentedinthecourse.Inpart(a1)ofthetask, the given and the question are reversed. Zazkis and Hazzan claim that ‘such “inversion”usuallypresentsagreaterchallengeforstudentsthanastandardsituation’ (1999,p.433).TocompleteTask(a1)studentshavetoadjusttheirpriorexperiencesin ordertoconstructasetofthreelinearlydependentvectorsin R3,viewedascolumnsof a3x3matrix A.

RESULTS: LINEAR DEPENDENCE AND LINEAR INDEPENDENCE Thetwoconceptsoflineardependenceandindependencearecloselyconnected.To haveasolidunderstandingofoneoftheminvolveshavingunderstandingoftheother. I first present the summary of students’ responses for constructing matrix A with linearly dependent columns, and then use APOS theoretical framework to analyze students’understandingoflinear(in)dependence. Constructing matrix A with linearly dependent columns InTask(a1)thestudentswererequiredtogiveanexampleofthreelinearlydependent vectorsrepresentedasa3x3matrixwithnonzerorealentries.Table1presentsthe summary of different approaches usedto complete this part of the task. The total frequencies exceed the number of participants as some students provided two examples for the task. Although all but 6% of the students constructed correct examples,theirmethodsindicatedifferentlevelsofunderstanding. Theresponsestotheremainingpartsofthetaskdependedontheconstructionofa matrix A. The results and analysis of these remaining parts are presented with examplesofstudents’workbelow. Linear dependence as action Forstudentsusingaguessandcheckstrategythelineardependencewasconcludedas anoutcomeofanactionperformedonachosen3x3matrixA.TocompleteTask(a1), thesestudentshadtopick9numberstoperformasetofoperationsonthesenumbers gettingacertainresult,inthiscase,atleastonezerorowinthemodifiedformof A. Thisisaconsequenceoftheconditionforthecolumnsofamatrixtobelinearly dependent.Thesestudentshadtogothroughcalculationsexplicitlytoverifythattheir examplesatisfiedtherequirementofthetask.

PME31―2007 267 Bogomolny

Table1: Constructing3x3matrix Awithlinearlydependentcolumns

Method Examples Frequency of occurrence

GuessandCheck 1 4 2 1 4 2 1 4 2 17% method A       = 2 5 1 → 2 5 1 → 2 5 1 3 6 7 3 6 3 3 6 0

Rowsmethod:same 1 2 3 4 6 9  23% rows,onerowmultiple A   A   = 2 5 1 ;or = 8 − 7 − 5 ofanotherrow 2 5 1 2 3 9 2

Echelonmethod:start 1 0 1 1 0 1 5% withechelonform Uof U   R3→R3+R2+R1   = 0 1 1  → 0 1 1 A 0 0 0 1 1 2

R1→R1+R3 2 1 3 R2→R2+R3   A  → 1 2 3 = 1 1 2

Identicalcolumns 1 1 1 1 1 1 8% method: A   A   = 2 2 2 ;or = 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 [a1a1 a1]where a1has     nonzerorealentries

Multiplecolumns 1 3 9 19% method:twocolumns A   =[ a13a1 9a1]= 1 3 9 ; aremultiplesofthe 1 3 9 firstone[ a1 c a1 da1] wherea 1 hasnonzero 3 6 9  realentriesand cand A   =[ a12a1 3a1]= 2 4 6  darebothnonzero 4 8 12 realnumbers

268 PME31―2007 Bogomolny

Twomultiplecolumns 1 1 1 2 4 5 21% method:twoidentical A   A   = 2 2 2 ;or =[ a12a1 a3]= 3 6 6 columnsortwo 3 3 4 4 8 1 columnsmultiplesof eachotherandthe thirdcolumnhaving anynonzeroreal entries:[ a1ca1 a3]

Linearcombination 1 3 4 18% method:anytwo A   =[ a1a2 a1+a2]= 2 4 6 ; columns, a and a , 1 2 3 5 8 havingnonzeroreal entriesand a3= ca1+  1 2 1  da A   2 =[ a1a2 2a1+(−1 2)a2]=  1 − 2 3  1 2 −1 3 2 Linear dependence as process ApplyingtheAPOStheoreticalframework,studentsareoperatingwiththeprocess conception of linear dependence when they construct a matrix A emphasizing the relationsbetweentherows.Theymayknowthatinorderforthecolumnsof Atobe linearly dependent an echelon form of a matrix has to have a zero row. The row reductionprocessisanintendedactioninthiscase.Itisperformedmentally,andthen reversedtogeneratearequiredmatrix. Thereisanintermediatestepthatlinksthelineardependenceofcolumnsofamatrix anditsechelonformhavingazerorow.Thedefinitionoflineardependenceofasetof vectorsisgivenintermsofasolutiontoavectorequation.Thatis,asetofvectors{ v1, …, vn}islinearlydependentifthevectorequation, c1v1+…+ cnvn= 0hasanontrivial solution.Thesolutionsetofthisvectorequationcorrespondstothesolutionsetofa matrixequation Ax= 0havingthe vi’sascolumnswhichinturncorrespondstothe solutionsetofthesystemoflinearequationswhoseaugmentedmatrixis[ A0].Inthe priorinstructionitwasshownthatthelinearsystem Ax= 0hasanontrivialsolutionifit hasfreevariables,andthiscanbeinferredfromanechelonformof A.Thus,some studentsformedtheconnection:lineardependence↔freevariables ↔zerorowin echelonform.Asaresultsomeexampleswerejustifiedwiththefollowingstatements: ‘alinearlydependentmatrixisamatrixwithfreevariables’,‘columnsof Aarelinearly dependentsince x3isfreewhichimplies Ax= 0hasnotonlytrivialsolution’, or ‘when the forms are reduced into reduced echelon form, the linearly dependent matrixhasafreevariable x3;however,thelinearlyindependentdoesn’t–ithas a uniquesolution’.

PME31―2007 269 Bogomolny

Only50%ofthestudentscompletedbothpartsofthetask,with 63% of incorrect responses to Task (b). In the majority of incorrect responses students ignored the differentstructuresoflineardependencerelationsbetweenvectors.Theyeitherused the same matrix Ainbothpartsofthetaskoramatrix A having the same linear dependence relations between columns. Then if the students changed the correct numberofentriesinTask(a),theirresponsetoTask(b)wasincorrect.Forinstance, onestudentconstructedmatrix Aforbothpartswiththesamedependencerelation betweencolumns, a3inSpan{ a1, a2},andchanged1entryinthefirstpartbut3entries inthesecondpart. Linear dependence as object The row reduction process is central to linear algebra. It is an essential tool, an algorithm that allows students to compute concrete solutions to elementary linear algebraproblems.However,encapsulationoflineardependenceasanobjectrequiresa movement beyondthe outcome of actualor intendedprocedures of row reduction towardaconceptualunderstandingofthestructureoflineardependencerelationsina setofvectors. Anindicationoftheconstructionoflineardependenceasanobjectisdemonstrated when students emphasize the relation between vectors, when they use the linear combinationmethodtoconstructtheirexamplesofthreelinearlydependentvectors.In thelinearcombinationmethod,therecouldberecognizeddifferentlevelsofgenerality forconstructinganexample.Eitherstudentsgaveaspecificexampleofamatrixwitha lineardependencerelationsbetweencolumnseasilyidentified,ascanbeseeninTable 1,ortheyidentifiedageneralstrategyforconstructingaclassof3x3matriceswith linearlydependentcolumns.Forexample,Amywrote:‘tobelinearlydependent,at leastoneofthecolumnsofamatrix Ahastobealinearcombinationoftheothers… x1a1+ x2a2+ x3a3= 0withweightsnotallzero.Pick a1and a2.Thenfor a1, a2, a3tobe linearlyindependent, a3hastobealinearcombinationof a1and a2.So,let a3= a1+ a2’. Inthelattercase,studentsappliedthepropertythatif uand varelinearlyindependent vectorsin Rn,thenthesetofthreevectors{ u, v, w}islinearlydependentifandonlyif wisinSpan{ u, v}(i.e.wisalinearcombinationof uand v). Duringclinicalinterviews,studentswereabletomovefromtheprocessunderstanding oflineardependencetotheobjectlevel.Initially,bothAnnaandLeonusedmatrix A withthesamelineardependencerelationbetweencolumnstocompleteTask(b).They were changing different number of entries but knew that some changes were unnecessary. Working through this task helped students understand the connection between the lineardependencerelations,thegeometricinterpretation,andtheminimumnumberof entriesneededtochange: Leon :…actually,Ithinktomaketwochangesisminimum,becauseallthreevectorsare linearlydependenttooneanother.Changingonewillnotchangetherelationship overall.Youwillstillhaveatleasttwolinearlydependentvectors.SocanIdraw

270 PME31―2007 Bogomolny

fromthatwiththreelinearlydependentvectorsyouneedtwochangesandwith onlytwolinearlydependentvectorsyouonlyneedonechange. Annaevenattemptedtogeneralizeherstrategyforan nxncase: Anna :First,ifmyvectorsarethesameit’sgoingtotakemorethanonesteptomakethem linearlyindependent.Butiftwoofthevectorsaredifferentandthelastoneisthe sameasoneoftheotherones,Ijustneedtochangetheleadingentrynumberinthat matrix;sowhenIrowreduceit,Ihaveanidentitymatrix…IfIhavean nby n matrix,andIhave{ v1,…, vn1}andthenIhave2 v1.Thisonevectoristwice v1, or threetimes v1,justtokeepitgeneral,asmy vn.SoifImake{ v1,…, vn1}linearly independent,andtheverylastoneis cv1thenIneedtochangeonlyoneentry. Object conception of linear dependence relation includes mastery of all possible characterizationsofalinearlydependentsetofvectors, in particular, the ability to recognizethepossiblewaystoalterasetinordertoobtainalinearlyindependentset. In Task: Linear (in)dependence, encapsulation of linear dependence as an object includesviewingamatrixasasetofcolumnvectors,notasdiscreteentriesthathave certainvaluesafterperformingalgebraicmanipulations.Thelatterperspectiveinhibits students’ geometric interpretation of the span of columns, because the structure of lineardependencerelationsisnotvisible.Thus,thestudentsthatcorrectlycompleted both parts of the task might be operating with the object conception of linear dependence.

CONCLUSION Ingeneral,examplegenerationtasksprovideaviewofanindividual’sschemaofbasic linearalgebraconcepts.Throughtheconstructionprocessandstudents’exampleswe see the relationships between the different concepts. Task: Linear (in)dependence revealedthattheconnectionslineardependence↔freevariables/pivotpositions/ zerorowinechelonform,andlinearindependence↔nofreevariables/vectorsnot multiplesofeachotherarestronginstudents’schema. Learners’responsestoTask:Linear(in)dependenceshowedthatmanystudentstreat lineardependenceasaprocess.Theythinkoflineardependenceinreferencetotherow reductionprocedure.Somestudentsconnectedlineardependencetothehomogeneous linearsystem Ax= 0havingfreevariablesthatinturncorrespondstothe nxnmatrix A havingazerorowinanechelonform.Otherstudentslinkedthelinearindependenceof vectorstoahomogeneouslinearsystemhavingonlybasicvariablesandtherefore n pivotpositions.However,fewstudentsconsideredthedifferentstructuresofthelinear dependencerelations. Even though geometric representation helps in visualizing the concepts, for some studentsgeometricandalgebraicrepresentationsseemcompletelydetached.Thiscan beseeninstudents’attemptstoprovideageometricinterpretationofthespanofthe columnsofamatrix.Therewasacommonconfusionofthespanofthecolumnsof A withthesolutionsetofAx=0.Insteadofprovidingageometricinterpretationofthe spanofthecolumnsof A,somestudentsgaveageometricinterpretationofthesolution setofthehomogeneoussystem Ax=0.

PME31―2007 271 Bogomolny

Thetaskssolicitinglearnergeneratedexamplesweredevelopedinthisresearchforthe purposeofdatacollection.However,thesetasksarealsoeffectivepedagogicaltools forassessmentandconstructionofmathematicalknowledge,andcancontributetothe learningprocess.PartofthepowerofTask:Linear(in)dependenceisthatitanticipates the concept of rank, long before students are exposed to it. In playing with the examples(assignedafteronlytwoweeksofclasses),studentsdeveloptheirintuition about what linear (in)dependence “really means”. Thestudents may notbe ableto articulatewhythesecondexampleworksdifferentlyfromthefirst,buttheyarestarting todevelopa“feel”forthedifference.Thistaskcan be further extended to higher dimensionalvectorspaces. Itishopedthatbyexaminingstudents’learning,thedatacollectedcanleadtoteaching strategies, which will help students expand their example spaces of mathematical conceptsandbroadentheirconceptimages/schemas.Itisproposedthatfurtherstudies coulddiscussthedesignandimplementationofexamplegeneration tasks intended specificallyasinstructionalstrategies,andevaluatetheireffectiveness. References Asiala,M.,Brown,A.,DeVries,D.,Dubinsky,E,Mathews,D.,andThomas,K.(1996).A Framework for Research and Curriculum Development in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II , CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education ,6,132. Carlson, D. (1993). Teaching linear algebra: must the fog always roll in? College Mathematics Journal , 12 (1),2940. Dorier,J.L.,Robert,A.,Robinet,J.,andRogalski,M.(2000).Theobstacleofin linearalgebra.InDorier,J.L.(ed),Ontheteachingoflinearalgebra.85124.Dordrecht, theNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Dubinsky,E.(1997).Somethoughtsonafirstcourseinlinearalgebraonthecollegelevel.In CarlsonD.,Johnson,C,Lay,D.,Porter,D.,Watkins,A,&Watkins,W.(eds.). Resources for Teaching Linear Algebra ,pp.107126.MAANotes,Vol.42. Hazzan,O.&Zazkis,R.(1999).Aperspectiveon“giveanexample”tasksasopportunitiesto construct links among mathematical concepts. FOCUS on Learning Problems in Mathematics , 21 (4),113 . Watson,A.&Mason,J.(2004). Mathematics as a constructive activity: learners generating examples. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociatesInc. Zazkis,R.andHazzan,O.(1999).Interviewinginmathematicseducationresearch:Choosing thequestions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (4),429239.

272 PME31―2007 INFORMAL CONCEPTIONS OF DISTRIBUTION HELD BY ELEMENTARY PRESERVICE TEACHERS DanielL.Canada EasternWashingtonUniversity

Relatively little research on the distributional thinking has been published, although there has been research on constituent aspects of distributions such as averages and variation. Using these constituent aspects as parts of an conceptual framework, this paper examines how elementary preservice teachers (EPSTs) reason distributionally as they consider graphs of two data sets having identical means but different spreads. Results show that the subjects who reasoned distributionally by considering both averages as well as variability in the data were likelier to see the data sets as fundamentally different despite the identical means used in the task.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to report on research describing the conceptions of distributionheldbyelementarypreserviceteachersinresponsetoataskinvolvinga comparisonoftwodatasets.Thetwodatasetswerepresentedintheformofstacked dot plots, and two aspects of statistical reasoning germane to the task were a considerationoftheaverageandvariationofthetwodistributions.Whileresearchhas uncovereddifferentwaysthatpeoplethinkinregardstomeasuresofcentraltendency (Mokros&Russell,1995;Watson&Moritz,2000),fewerstudieshasbeendoneon how people coordinate averages and variation when comparing distributions. Of particular interest was the role that variation, or variability in data, played in the subjects’ conceptions of distribution. This interest stems from the primacy that variationholdswithinthedisciplineofstatistics(Wild&Pfannkuch;1999). Furthermore,althoughprecollegestudentshavebeenthefocusformanyresearchers interested in statistical reasoning, relatively less attention has been paid to the statistical thinking of the teachersof those students. Even less prevalent has been publishedresearchonhowpreserviceteachersreasonstatistically(Makar&Canada, 2005).Therefore,thisstudyaddressesthefollowingresearchquestion:Whatarethe informalconceptionsofdistributionheldbyEPSTsastheycomparetwodatasets? After describing some related research concerning the aspects of distributional reasoning used in the analytic framework, the methodology for the study will be explicated. Then, results to the research question will be presented, followed by a discussionandimplicationsforfutureresearchandteachertrainingprograms.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Thekeyelementscomprisingtheconceptualframeworkforlookingatdistributional reasoningareaconsiderationbothaspectsofcenter(average)andvariation,which

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.7380.Seoul:PME . 273 Canada impliestakinganaggregateviewofdataasopposedtoconsideringindividualdata elements(Konold&Higgins,2002).Coordinatingthesetwoaspectsiswhatenablesa richerpictureofadistributiontoemerge(Mellissinos,1999;Shaughnessy,Ciancetta, &Canada,2004;Makar&Canada,2005). Forexample,ShaughnessyandPfannkuch(2002)foundthatusingdatasetsfortheOld Faithfulgeysertopredictwaittimesbetweeneruptionsprovidedanexcellentcontext forhighlightingthecomplementaryrolesofcentersandvariationinstatisticalanalysis. Thequestiontheyposedtohighschoolstudentswasabouthowlongoneshouldexpect towaitbetweeneruptionsofOldFaithful.Atfirst,manystudentsjustmadeaninitial predictionbasedonmeasuresofcentraltendency(suchasthemeanormedian),which alsodisregardsthevariabilityinthedistribution.ShaughnessyandPfannkuch(2002) pointoutthat“studentswhoattendtothevariabilityinthedataaremuchmorelikelyto predictarangeofoutcomesoranintervalforthewaittimeforOldFaithful...rather thanasinglevalue”(p.257). Similarly,Shaughnessy,Ciancetta,Best,andCanada(2004)investigatedhowmiddle andsecondaryschoolstudentscompareddistributionsusingataskverysimilartothe taskusedinthecurrentstudyreportedbythispaper.Giventwodatasetswithidentical meansandmedians,subjectsshowedhowtheyreasonedaboutaveragesandvariation, with higher levels of distributional reasoning attributed to those responses that conflatedbothcomponentsofcentersandspread.Theresearchers(Shaughnessyet.al., 2004)foundthatsubjects’conceptionsincludedthenotionof“variabilityasextremes orpossibleoutliers;variabilityasspread;variabilityintheheightsofthecolumnsin thestackeddotplots;variabilityintheshapeofthedispersionaroundcenter;andtoa lesserextent,variabilityasdistanceordifferencefromexpectation”(p.29).Their findingsandrecommendationsechoedthatofMellissinos(1999),whostressedthat althoughmanyeducatorspromotethemeanasrepresentativeofadistribution“the conceptofdistributionreliesheavilyonthenotionofvariability,orspread”(p.1). Thus, recognizing the importance of getting students to attend to both aspects of average as well as variation when investigating distributional reasoning, these two aspectshelpedinformnotonlythetaskcreationforthisresearchbutalsothelensfor analysisoftheEPSTs’responses.

METHODOLOGY ThetaskchosentolookatEPSTs’thinkingaboutdistributionwhencomparingdata setswascalledtheTrainTimestask,andwasmotivatedbyasimilartasksinitiallyused inpreviousresearch(e.g.Shaughnessyet.al.,2004;Canada,2006).Thetaskscenario describestwotrains,theEastBoundandWestBound,whichrunbetweenthecitiesof HillsboroandGreshamalongparalleltracks.For15differentdays(andatdifferent timesofday),dataisgatheredforhowlongthetriptakesoneachofthetrains.The timesforeachofthesetraintripsareroundedtothenearest5secondsandarepresented inFigure1.

274 PME31―2007 Canada

EASTBOUND 58:20 58:25 58:30 58:35 58:40 58:45 58:50 58:55 59:00 59:05 59:10 59:15 59:20 59:25 59:30 59:35 59:40 59:45

EastBoundTrainTimes[Mean=59:03,Median=59:00,Mode=58:40] WESTBOUND 58:20 58:25 58:30 58:35 58:40 58:45 58:50 58:55 59:00 59:05 59:10 59:15 59:20 59:25 59:30 59:35 59:40 59:45 WestBoundTrainTimes[Mean=59:03,Median=59:05,Mode=59:10] Figure1:ThegraphsusedintheTrainTimetask ThetaskwasdeliberatelyconstructedsothattheEastBound and WestBound train timeshavethesamemeans,yetdifferentamountsof variation are apparent in the graphs. As a part of the task scenario, subjects were told that the Transportation Departmentwasdeliberatingwhetherornotonetrainwasmorereliablethantheother. Subjectswerewhethertheyagreedwithahypotheticalargumentthattherewas“no realdifferencebetweenthetwotrainsbecausethedatahavethesamemeans”,andto explain their reasoning. This methodology follows that of Watson (2000), where subjectsareaskedtoreacttoacommonlineofreasoning.Asimilartechniquehasbeen usedinotherresearchonstatisticalthinking(e.g.Shaughnessyet.al.,2004;Canada, 2006). Would subjects be persuaded by the hypothetical argument of “no real difference”intimesbecauseoftheidenticalmeans?Wouldtheyargueonthestrength of the different modes, which are often a visual attractor for statistical novices reasoning about data presented in stacked dot plots? Or would they attend to the variabilityinthedata,andifso,howwouldtheyarticulatetheirarguments?The subjectswereEPSTswhotookatenweekcourseatauniversityinthenorthwestern United States designed to give prospective teachers a mathematics foundation in geometryandandstatistics.VirtuallynoneoftheEPSTsexpressedadirect recallofeverhavinghadanypriorformalinstruction in probability and statistics, althoughtheirearliereducationataprecollegelevelmaywellhaveincludedthese topics. Early in the course, and prior to beginning instruction in probability and statistics,subjects were giventhe TrainTimes task as a writtenresponse item for completioninclass.Thetaskwasnotgivenaspartofaformalevaluationforthecourse, butratherasawayofhavingthesubjectsshowtheirinformalsenseofhowtheywere initially thinking. Two sections of the course, taught by the author, were used for

PME31―2007 275 Canada gatheringdata,andatotaloffiftyeightwritten responses were gathered from the EPSTs.Thetaskwasthendiscussedinclass,andthediscussionswerevideotapedso thatfurtherstudentcommentscouldberecordedandtranscribed. Thedata,comprisedofthewrittenresponsesandtranscriptionsoftheclassdiscussions, wasthencodedaccordingtothecomponentsofconceptualframeworkwhichrelatedto thedistributionalaspectsofcentersandspread.Responsescouldbecodedaccordingto whethertheyincludedreferencestocenters,ortoinformalnotionsofvariation,orto both.

RESULTS Almost35%(n=20)oftheEPSTsinitiallyagreedwiththehypotheticalargumentthat therewas“norealdifferencebetweenthetwotrainsbecausethedatahavethesame means”Whileitmightbeexpectedthatsubjectswhowerepredisposedtothinkofthe meanasthesoleorprimarysummarystatisticfora set of data might support the hypotheticalargument,acarefulanalysisoftheresponsesshoweddifferentdegreesto which subjects relied on centers and variation in their explanations. Thus, in addressing the primary research question (“What are the informal conceptions of distributionheldbyEPSTsastheycomparetwodatasets?”),resultsarepresentedfirst accordingtoresponsesthatfocusedprimarilyoncenters,thenprimarilyonvariation. Finally,examplesofthoseresponsesthatintegratedcenterswithaninformalnotionof variationarepresentedasrepresentingaformofdistributionalreasoning. Centers Outofallsubjects,24.1%(n=14)hadresponsesthatincludedwhatwerecodedas General referencestocenters,andtheexemplarsthatfollowshowtheinitialsofthe subjectaswellasan(A)or(D)toshowwhethertheyinitiallyagreedordisagreedwith thehypotheticalargumentof“norealdifferences”presentedinthetaskscenario: SE: (A)Becausetheaverageisthesameforbothofthem DW: (A)Eachtrainhadthesameaveragetime Althoughitcanbepresumedthatthesubjectsequate“average”withthemean,the General responsesforcenterincludednospecificlanguage. Incontrast,the39.7%ofsubjects(n=23)whohad Specific referencestocenterswere moreexplicitasfaraswhattheywereattendingto: SG: (A)The“mean”meanstheaverage,sobothtrainsdotravelforthesame lengthoftime LT: (D)Iwouldprobablygowiththemode,becauseitisthemostcommon answer RB: (D)Iwouldgobythemedianonthisone NotehowsubjectsLTandRB,infocusingonthemodeormedian,disagreedwiththe hypotheticalargumentof“norealdifference.”Indeed,althoughthemeansforthedata

276 PME31―2007 Canada setsinTrainTimestaskwereidentical,themediansandmodesdiffered,andsome subjectswith Specific centerresponsespickeduponthesedifferences: CM: (D)Themedianandmodesarenotthesame,meaningresultsvaried LN: (D)Themedian&modearedifferent.Becausethedataisverydifferentin itsvariation HereweseeCMandLNtyingtheirobservationsofdifferencesinmeasuresofcenters toaninformalnotionofvariation. Variation Forthepurposesofthisresearch,variationneednotbedefinedinformaltermssuchas astandarddeviation(forwhichthesesubjectshadnoworkingknowledge),buttiedto the informal descriptions such as those offered by Makar & Canada (2005). In particular,theessenceofvariationisthattherearedifferencesintheobservationsof the phenomena of interest Of all subjects, 32.8% (n = 19) gave a more General referencetovariation: CG: (D)Becausethedataforbotharedifferentinvariationoftime TS: (D)Thetrainscouldallhavedifferenttimessporadically LR: (D)Becausethetimepatternsaredifferentbetweenthetwotrains Notethatintheseexamples,thethemeofdifferencesamongdatacomesoutinthe naturallanguageoftheresponse.Clearlythesenseofvariationasdifferencesisanaive andbasicidea,butonethatisfundamentalandapotentiallyusefulspringboardfora deeperinvestigationastohowtodescribethosedifferences A slightly higher percentage of all subjects, 37.9% (n = 22) had more Specific referencestovariation,andthemainmotivationfor looking at specific constituent characteristics of variation came from the related literature on thinking about variabilityindata(e.g.Shaughnessyet.al.,2004;Canada,2006)Thesecharacteristics includerelativespread,extremevalues,andrange.Forexample,considerthesetwo exemplarsofmore Specific reasoningaboutvariation: EK: (D) Because looking at the charts, the data is more spread out going EastBoundthanitisgoingWestBound AD: (D)BecausethetimesfortheEastBoundtrainsareveryspreadoutwhile theWestBoundtrains’timesareclusteredtogether. AlthoughEKandADdidnotcaptureformalnumericaldescriptorsofvariationabouta mean,theydiduseinformallanguagetoconveyanintuitivesenseoftherelativespread ofdata.Othersubjectsincludedvariabilitycharacteristicsintheirresponsesbypaying attentiontoextremevalues: AU: (D)No,becausetheEastBoundhasmoreoutliersandismorescattered AN: (D)OneEastBoundtraintook59:40whilethelongestWestBoundtrain tookonly59:15,andthatisalmosta30minutedifference Note how AU shows sensitivity to the presence of outliers, while AN includes referencestothemaximalvalueineachdataset.Inadditionto Specific characteristics

PME31―2007 277 Canada ofvariationcapturedbyresponsessuggestingafocusonrelativespreadorextreme values, some responses made explicit connection between both maximum and minimumvalues: AU: (D)EastBoundhasahigherrange,from58”25to59:40,&WestBound’s smallerrangeisfrom58:45to59:15 DM: (A)Therangeis1:15secondsEastBoundand0:30secondsWestBound. Itwasinterestingtonotethatevenwhileacknowledgingthedifferentranges,DMstill chosetoagreewiththehypotheticalargumentinthetask. Distributional Reasoning As noted in the previous exemplars, some responses focused more on centers and othersoninformalnotionsofvariation.However,inlinewiththepreviousresearch (e.g.Shaughnessy,Ciancetta,Best,&Canada,2004),responsescodedasdistributional neededtoreflectanintegrationofbothcenters and variation.Ofthetotal58subjects, 43.1%(n=25)suchresponsesthatreflecteddistributionalreasoning: HH: (D)Becausethemeanisanaverage,andtogetanaverageyouwillmost likelyusevaryingnumbers.AllthetimesforthemostpartonEastBound trainsaredifferent.Justbecausethemeanisthesamedoesn’tchangethat. AJ: (D)Thedataisdifferent,althoughtheaverageisthesame.Wecansee,for example,thedifferenceinconsistencyoftheWestBoundtrain,wherethe timesareclosertogether,andholdnearertoschedule AB: (A)The meanistheaverageoftimes.BUT,thereisa greaterspreadof timesonEastBoundvs.WestBound.AndEastmodeislowerthanWest mode. Notetherichnessintheexemplarsprovidedabove,assubjectsintegratecenterand spreadin their consideration of the two data sets. We see, for example, how HH understandsaboutcombining“varyingnumbers”togetanaverage.AJactuallylays thegroundworkformakinganinformalinference,inthewaythattheWestBoundmay betomorereliabletrainbecauseitholds“nearertoschedule”Meanwhile,ABagrees withthehypotheticalargumentofthetask,despiteapparentlytakingnoteofthemeans andcommentingonthedifferencesinmodeandspreadofthedatasets.Whenasked furtherforanexplanationofhisstanceinagreeing,heremarkedtotheeffectthat“Still, theyarebasicallythesameonaverage”.Suchisthepowerof the mean in many peoples’mindsasawayofsummarizingdata. DISCUSSION Outofall58subjects,20(34.5%)initiallyagreedand38(65.5%)disagreedandwith thehypotheticalargumentof“norealdifferences”betweenthetrains.Butthisresearch is about how EPSTs reason distributionally, and so it was crucial to dig into their explanations. The exemplars provided have been intended to show how subject responsescouldreflectafocusoncenters,onvariation,oronboth.Sinceresponses couldbecodedformultipleaspects,includingsomefacetsofstatisticalthinkingnot reportedoninthispaper,asafinalnoteitisinterestingtolookatthebreakdownof

278 PME31―2007 Canada whoagreedversuswhodisagreedwiththehypothetical argument based on whose responses coded only for centers, or only for variation, or coded for distributional reasoning (both centers and variation). Looking strictly within those groups of responses,thepercentageofthosesubjectswhoagreedordisagreedispresentedin Table1: TypeofReasoning (A)gree (D)isagree OnlyCenters (n=12) 75.0% 25.0% OnlyVariation (n=16) 31.3% 68.8% Distributional (n=25) 20.0% 80.0%

Table1:Supportfor“norealdifferences”bytypeofreasoning Again,thepercentagesinTable1areoutoftherespectivenumbersofresponsesfalling withinthegiventypesofreasoning(thenumbersdonottotal58becausesomestudents had explanations that went outside the themes of this paper). Comparing those percentageswiththetotalpoolofsubjects(34.5%agreeingand65.5%disagreeing), severalinterestingobservationscanbemade.First,whilemorethanhalfofallsubjects disagreed,themajorityofthosesubjectswhoonlyreliedonreasoningaboutcenters agreedwiththehypotheticalargumentof“norealdifferences”Second,thepercentage ofthosesubjectswhoonlyusedvariationreasoninganddisagreedisquiteclosetothe percentageofallsubjectswhodisagreed.Thirdandmostimportant,thesubjectswhose responses reflected distributional reasoning had the highest percentage of disagreementwiththehypotheticalargument.

CONCLUSION This study was guided by the question “What are the informal conceptions of distributionheldby EPSTsastheycomparetwodatasets?”Althoughlimitedtoa singletaskthatwasbynaturecontrivedsoastoinviteattentiontoidenticalmeansyet differingamountsofspreadintwodatasets,theresearch suggests that EPSTs do reflectonaspectsofdistributionalreasoning,andthispapergivesasenseofhowthose aspectsmanifestedthemselvesintheresponsesofthesubjects.However,justasprior researchhasshownwithmiddleandhighschoolstudents(e.g.Shaughnessyet.al., 2004),wealsoseethatEPSTsmakemorelimitedcomparisonsofdistributionswhen theyfocusoncenterswhilenotattendingtothecriticalcomponentofvariabilityindata. In contrast, the distributional reasoners who attended to both centers as well as variationmaderichercomparisonswithinthegiventask. While further research is recommend to help discern the most effective ways of movingEPSTstowardadeeperunderstandingofdistributions,certainlytaskssuchas theoneprofiledinthispaperprovidegoodfirststepsinhelpinguniversitiesoffer opportunitiestobolstertheconceptionsofthepreserviceteacherstheyaimtoprepare.

PME31―2007 279 Canada

Inturn,thesenoviceteacherscanthenpromotebetterstatisticalreasoningwiththeir ownstudentsintheschoolswheretheyeventuallyserve. References Canada,D.(2006).ConceptionsofVariation:ComparisonsofDataSetsbyMiddleSchool StudentsandPreserviceTeachers. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Statistics, Mathematics, and Related Fields .Honolulu,HI. Cobb, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Mathematics, Statistics, and Teaching. American Mathematics Monthly, 104 (9),801824. Konold,C.,&Higgins,T.(2002).Highlightsofrelatedresearch.InS.J.Russell,D.Schifter, &V.Bastable(Eds.), Developing mathematical ideas: Working with data, (pp.165201). Parsippany,NJ:DaleSeymourPublications. Makar, K., & Canada, D. (2005). Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of Variation. In H. Chick&J.Vincent(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education .Melbourne,Australia. Mellissinos, M., (1999). What the Mean Does (and Does Not) Tell Students About a Distribution .PaperpresentedattheResearchPresessionofthe77thAnnualMeetingofthe NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics. Mokros, J., & Russell, S. (1995). Children’s concepts of average and representativeness. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26 (1),2039. Shaughnessy, J.M., Ciancetta, M., Best, K., & Canada, D. (2004). Students’ Attention to Variability when Comparing Distributions .PaperPresentedattheResearchPresessionof the 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Philadelphia,PA. Shaughnessy,J.,&Pfannkuch,M.(2002).HowfaithfulisOldFaithful?Statisticalthinking: Astoryofvariationandprediction. Mathematics Teacher, 95 (4),252270. Shaughnessy, J., Ciancetta, M., & Canada, D. (2004). Types of Student Reasoning on SamplingTasks.InM.JohnsenHøines&A.BeritFuglestad(Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education . Bergen,Norway. Watson,J.(2002).Inferentialreasoningandtheinfluenceofcognitiveconflict. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51 ,225256. Watson,J.,&Moritz,J.(2000).Thelongitudinaldevelopmentofunderstandingofaverage. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2 ,1150. Wild,C.,&Pfannkuch,M.(1999).Statisticalthinkinginempiricalenquiry.International Statistical Review, 67, 233265.

280 PME31―2007

FIRST GRADERS’ STRATEGIES FOR NUMERICAL NOTATION, NUMBER READING AND THE NUMBER CONCEPT GabrielleA.Cayton andBárbaraM.Brizuela TuftsUniversity,Medford,MAUSA We have come to accept that children’s appropriation of written numbers is not automatic or simple. Studies of children’s use of notation point to different types of notational practice (Alvarado, 2002; Brizuela, 2004; Scheuer et. al., 2000; Seron & Fayol, 1994). In a recent study (Cayton, 2007) we found that some common strategies of children for representing large numbers were correlated with different levels of understanding of our base-ten system. In this paper, we explore the connections among three representations of the number system, addressing the question: Are there differences in how children represent (through production and interpretation): numbers in writing; numbers orally; and numbers conceptually?

RATIONALE AND PAST RESEARCH Theaimofthestudydescribedinthispaperwastoexploretheconnectionsamong three representations of the number system in children: nonverbal representations, representationsthroughthewrittennumbersystem,andrepresentationsthroughthe oralnumbersystem.Pastresearchhasusuallyfocusedonchildren’sperformanceon each of these different modes of representation in an isolated way. For instance, previousstudies(e.g.,Fuson&Kwon,1992;Miura&Okamoto,1989;Power&Dal Martello,1990;Ross,1986;Scheuer,1996;Seron&Fayol,1994;Sinclair&Scheuer, 1993) have focused on place value notation, number decomposition, and oral numeration.Yettherehasbeenverylittleworkon thecorrelationofanyofthese aspectswithoneanother. More recent research hasbegun to explore thepotential connections among these different systems. For example, Scheuer et al (2000) discuss, among others, two distincttypesofincorrectnumericalnotationstrategiesusedbychildren:logogramic (writingtheentirenumberliterally,suchas100701foronehundredseventyone)and compactednotation(removingsomeofthezerosfromthelogogramicnotationwhile stillnotcondensingthenumberentirelyintoitsconventionalform,suchas1071for onehundredseventyone).Scheuerandhercolleaguesspeculatethatperhapsthesetwo typesofnotationalstrategiesstemfromdifferentideasinchildrenabouttheconceptof number, yet her study only focuses on written numbers. Other studies explore children’suseofnotationandpointtoseveraldifferenttypesofnotationalpractice possiblylinkedtostagesintheunderstandingofmultidigitnumbers(e.g.,Brizuela, 2004)andpossiblylinkedtostagesintheunderstandingofplacevalueinbaseten(e.g., Alvarado,2002;Brizuela,2004;Scheueretal,2000;Seron&Fayol,1994).Thestudy wedescribedinthispaperisnovelinthatweseektoexploretheconnectionsamong thesedifferent—yetfundamentallyrelated—modesofrepresentation.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.8188.Seoul:PME . 281 65 Cayton & Brizuela

A number of other studies also set the ground for the need to look at children’s representation of number across different systems. For instance, Power and Dal Martello(1990)conductedastudyofItaliansecondgraderstakingnumericaldictation ofone,two,three,andfourdigitnumeralswithandwithoutinternalzeros.Sincethe Italiannumberwordshaveasimilartransparency 1tootherRomancelanguagessuchas SpanishaswellastoEnglish,findingsinthisstudycanbeconsideredrelevanttothe studyherebeingproposed.Thesecondgradersinthisstudycorrectlyannotatedall numbersbelow100,demonstratingthattheyhadbothsucceededandmasteredthe number system in this range, making the findings with larger numbers quite remarkable. For numbers above 100, Power and Dal Martello (1990) found both lexical (such as using a 7 instead of an 8) and syntactical (adding extra zeros, improperly arranging numbers, etc.) errors, though the syntactical errors far outweighedthelexical,indicatingamisunderstandingofthesystemandnotsimplya mistakeonthepartofthechild.Therewerealsosignificantlymoreerrorsforfourdigit thanthreedigitnumbers,demonstratingthatthereareindeedstepsintheacquisitionof thesystemanditisnotsimplyan“allornothing”understanding.Thatis,eachnumber rangeposesnewproblemsorelicitspriorproblemsonceagain.However,onequestion thatarosefromPowerandDalMartello’s(1990)study was what role the spoken numbershadplayedinchildren’sperformance.Forthis purpose, Seron and Fayol (1994)devisedafollowupexperimentaimedatansweringwhetherthechildreninthe Power and Dal Martello (1990) study comprehended correctly the verbal number formsandtofurtherunderstandwhatrolelanguagehasinthisprocess.Intheirstudy, theycomparedFrenchandWalloonchildren.Frenchhasaverysimilarnumeration systemtoEnglishandItalian,asidefromtheformsfor70,80,and90thattranslateto sixtyten, fourtwenty, and fourtwentyten respectively. However, in Wallonia, a regionofBelgiumwhereFrenchisspoken,thewordsfor70and90(septanteand nonante,respectively)mirrorthoseusedinEnglishandmostRomancelanguages.Due tothissmalldifferenceinthelanguages,SeronandFayol(1994)conductedasimilar transcodingexperimenttoPowerandDalMartello(1990)toseeiftheFrenchand Walloonchildrenwouldhaveanydifferencesinnumericaldictationorunderstanding ofthewrittennumbersystemcausedbythedifferencesintheoralnumerationofeach language.SeronandFayol(1994)adoptedalongitudinalapproachbyinterviewing childrenatthreesessions,eachdistantbyathreemonthinterval.Inthesesessions, childrenwereaskedtobothtranscribedictatednumeralsandcreatethenumbervalues fromtokensof1;10;100;and1,000units.SeronandFayol(1994)foundverysimilar lexicalandsyntacticalerrorstoPowerandDalMartello (1990) and Scheuer et al (2000).Notsurprisingly,certainincorrectsyntacticalresponseswereseenonlyamong Frenchchildrensuchas6018for“soixantedixhuit”(seventyeight)and42017for “quatrevingtdixsept”(ninetyseven).Interestingly,theseerrorsareverysimilarto 1Transparency/nontransparency(seeAlvarado&Ferreiro,2002)hastodowiththedegreetowhichanumbersoundslike itswrittenformwhenspokenaloud.Forexample,inEnglish,60ismoretransparentthan30sincethe“six”isclearly heardinthepronunciationofthenumber.Despitethisdistinction,transparencyisstillsomewhatrelative,because,for instance,wecannotsaythat60iscompletelytransparentsincethe“ty”doesnotsoundexactlylike“ten”or“zero.”

282 PME31―2007 Cayton & Brizuela thoseproducedbyFrenchadultaphasics(DeLoache&Seron,1982),indicatingthat thisislikelyanerroratthelevelofprocessingorcomprehension,notanerroratthe stage of production (though we cannot be certain, it is always possible that two differentsourcesoferrorproducethesameoutcome).Thetypesoftasksatwhichthe children from Wallonia excelled versus erred demonstrate that their difficulties in transcodingfromoralnumberstowrittennumbersweremainlyduetotheproduction of the written numbers themselves and not a difficulty in understanding what numerosity the spoken number referred to. The same cannot be said for French children,whoproducedtokenarrangementsverysimilartotheirtranscodingerrors.As Seron and Fayol (1994) pointed out, it remains to be determined where in the functional architecture of number processing the children’s transcoding errors originate.Isittheresultofinadequatecomprehensionoftheverbalnumberforms, difficulties located at the production stage of written numbers, inadequate comprehensionofthenumbersystemitself,oraconjunctionoftwoorthreeofthose possibilities? Prior research thus sets the ground for our assumption that connections across representationalsystemsareimportant,andthatfullyreflectingandunderstandingthe natureoftheseconnectionsisaworthwhileendeavor.However,whatremainstobe understoodandansweredthroughtheresearchstudyweareproposingis:Whatisthe nature of these connections? What is a child’s understanding of number and numerosity when they either correctly or incorrectly name a number? When they correctlyorincorrectlywriteanumber?Whentheycorrectlyorincorrectlybuilda numberwithtokensorsomeothertool?

METHOD Participants Twentysevenfirstgradestudents(studentsneedtobesixyearsofagebythetimethey beginfirstgrade)wereinterviewedindividuallytowardstheendoftheirfirstgrade. TheschoolthesechildrenattendisinanurbansuburbofBoston,Massachusetts,inthe UnitedStatesofAmerica.Theschoolisethnically,racially,andsocioeconomically diverse.Inaddition,theschoolprovidesatwowaybilingualeducationtochildren. Materials and Procedures Interviewswerecarriedoutasclinicalinterviews(Piaget,1965).Duringthecourseof theinterviews,childrenwerepresentedwiththenumbersdetailedinTable1.Ourgoal wastobeabletoexplorechildren’soral,written,andnonverbalrepresentationsof number.Ourproposalwastoaccesschildren’soralrepresentationthroughtheiroral namingofnumbers;theirwrittenrepresentationthroughtheirwritingofnumbers;and their nonverbal representations through their construction, through tokens, of the “value”ofthedifferentnumbers.

PME31―2007 283 Cayton & Brizuela

Series NumberType 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1 Twodigit– 40 60 70 80 90 “transparent”withfinal0 Series2 Twodigit– 50 30 20 nontransparentwithfinal0 Series3 Twodigit– 43 64 79 88 91 transparentwithout0 Series4 Twodigit– 53 21 19 35 17 nontransparentwithout0 Series5 Threedigit–without0 127 143 324 465 132 Series6 Threedigit–internal0 101 207 301 401 504 Series7 Threedigit–final0 300 760 640 430 910 Series8 Fourdigit–without0 1127 3143 4324 5465 7132 Series9 Fourdigit–X0XX 3064 2053 1019 4035 5091 Series10 Fourdigit–XX0X 2101 3504 1401 4207 1760 Series11 Fourdigit–XXX0 1300 3760 2640 1430 1910

Table1:Numberspresentedtochildreninthedifferenttasks(orally,through differentvaluedtokens,orinwriting) Childrenwererandomlyassignedtooneofsixtaskorders: (1a) OWTO:Numberswerepresentedorally bytheinterviewer, from which the childcompletedthewrittenpartofthetask.Next,thechildcompletedthetokentask basedonhis/herownwriting,andfinallycompletedtheoraltaskfromthetokens. (1b) OTWO:Numberswerepresentedorally bytheinterviewer, from which the childcompletedthetokentask.Next,thechildcompletedthewrittentaskbasedon his/herowntokens,andfinallycompletedtheoraltaskfromhis/herownwriting. (2a) WOTW: Numbers were presented in written form by the interviewer, from whichthechildcompletedtheoraltask.Next,thechildcompletedthetokentaskbased onhis/herownoralforms,andfinallycompletedthewrittentaskfromhis/herown tokens. (2b) WTOW: Numbers were presented in written form by the interviewer, from whichthechildcompletedthetokentask.Next,thechildcompletedtheoraltaskbased onhis/herowntokenforms,andfinallycompletedthewrittentaskfromhis/herown oralform. (3a) TOWT:Numberswerepresentedintokenformbytheinterviewer,fromwhich thechildcompletedtheoraltask.Next,thechildcompletedthewrittentaskbasedon his/heroralforms,andfinallycompletedthetokentaskbasedonhis/herownwritten forms. (3b) TWOT:Numberswerepresentedintokenformbytheinterviewer,fromwhich thechildcompletedthewrittentask.Next,thechildcompletedtheoraltaskbasedon

284 PME31―2007 Cayton & Brizuela his/herwrittenforms,andfinallycompletedthetokentaskbasedonhis/herownoral forms. Eachofthetaskshasthreeparts:oral,written,andtokens.Eachoneofthesepartshas bothaproductionandinterpretationmode:whennumbersarepresentedintokens,they can be interpreted through writing or through naming orally; when numbers are presentedinwriting,theycanbeinterpretedthroughconstructionoftokensorthrough namingorally;whennumbersarepresentedorally,theycanbeinterpretedthrough constructionoftokensorthroughwriting. Oral part of task: Inthispartofthetask,childrenwereaskedtoreadfromapieceof paperorfromatokencompositionthenumbersinTable1.Childrenwhocorrectly namethefirsttwonumbersinaserieswerepresentedwiththenextseries(seeeachone oftherowsinTable1).Childrenwhoreadatleastonenumberincorrectlyinaseries received 13 more numbers until the child’s strategy with that category became apparent. Written part of task: Inthispartofthetask,everychildwasaskedtowriteatleasttwo numbers from each series. Children who wrote the first two numbers in a series conventionallywerepresentedwiththenextseries.Childrenwhowroteatleastone numberincorrectlyreceived13morenumbersinthatseriesuntilthechild’sstrategy withthatseriesbecomesapparent. Tokens part of task: Thispartofthetaskwasdesignedforthepurposeofunderstanding theconsistencies/inconsistenciesinthechild’sunderstandingofournumbersystem withouttheuseofnotation.Intheobjectnumeracytasks,childrenwerepresentedwith anumberoftasksinvolvingtheuseoftokensofdifferentcolors.Tokenswerechosen based on the work of Nunes Carraher (1985) performing similar tasks in the understandingofplacevalueinyoungchildrenandilliterateadults.Thechildwastold thatredtokensareworth1point,bluetokensareworth10points,whitetokensare worth100points,browntokensareworth1,000points,andmaroontokensareworth 10,000points.Thechildwaspresentedwiththesamenumbersasintheprevioustasks butintokenformandaskedhowmanypointshe/shehasorwasaskedtocomposea numberwiththetokens.Onceagain,childrenwhocorrectlycomposedorrecognized thefirsttwonumbersinaserieswerepresentedwiththenextseries.Childrenwho namedatleastonenumberincorrectlyreceived13morenumbersuntilthechild’s strategywiththatseriesbecameapparent.

RESULTS Ourfirstquestionwas:doesthemannerinwhichchildrenwerefirstintroducedtothe numbers(i.e.inwriting,orally,throughtokens)affecttheoutcomeoftheirsubsequent responses?Table2showsthenumberofincorrectanswersgiveninthefirststepofthe task,accordingtotheirtestingcondition.

PME31―2007 285 Cayton & Brizuela

NumberSeries 1099 100999 10009999 Total Oral 0/72(0%) 18/64(28%) 39/90(43%) 57/226(25%) introduction Written 3/75(4%) 11/59(19%) 34/75(45%) 48/209(23%) introduction Token 12/76(16%) 16/63(25%) 15/87(17%) 43/226(19%) introduction Total 15/223(7%) 45/186(24%) 88/252(35%) 148/661(22%)

Table2:Numberoferrorswithfirststepoftask.Frequenciesareshownovertotal amountofnumberspresentedineachtaskcondition AscanbeseeninTable2,thereweremoreerrorsasthenumberseriesadvanced(that is,moreerrorsinthethousandsthaninthehundredsandmoreerrorsinthehundreds than in the tens). This would be expected as the children have had less previous exposuretothenumbersastheyincreasedinlength.TheOralandWrittenmodesof presentationhadahigherlikelihoodofresultinginaninitialincorrectanswerthanthe Tokenintroduction,aswasconfirmedwithachisquaretest(α=0.01).Thus,theformat that numbers are presented in does make a difference to children’s subsequent production.Inourstudy,childrenweremorelikelytomakeacorrectinterpretationand rerepresentation of a number in a different mode when the number was initially presentedtothemthroughtokensandtheyhadtosubsequentlyrepresentthesame numbereitherthroughthewrittenororalnumbersystems. Sincethechildrenwereproducingeachrepresentationoffoftheirpreviousone,we wonderedifachildwhocouldinitiallyproduceanunconventionalrerepresentationof anumberinadifferentmode(e.g.,rerepresentanumberpresentedthroughtokens through the written or oral number systems), could later produce a conventional rerepresentationwhenaskedtousethesamemodethatthenumberhadinitiallybeen presentedin,evenifthisoccurredlaterinthetask(e.g.,correctlyrerepresentthrough tokensanumberthatearlierhadbeenpresentedtothemthroughtokens). Firstrepresentationincorrect,final Firstrepresentationincorrect,final correct incorrect 1099 100 1000 Total 1099 100 1000 Total 999 9999 999 9999 Oral 0/0 4/18 14/39 18/57 0/0 14/18 25/39 39/57 Intro. (%N/A) (22%) (36%) (32%) (%N/A) (78%) (64%) (68%) Written 3/3 9/11 21/34 33/48 0/3 2/11 13/34 15/48 Intro. (100%) (82%) (62%) (69%) (0%) (18%) (38%) (31%) Token 0/12 1/16 1/15 2/43 12/12 15/16 14/15 41/43

286 PME31―2007 Cayton & Brizuela

Intro. (0%) (6%) (7%) (5%) (100%) (94%) (93%) (95%) Total 3/15 14/45 36/88 53/148 12/15 31/45 52/88 95/148 (20%) (31%) (41%) (36%) (80%) (69%) (59%) (64%)

Table3:Abilitytorecoverfrominitialerroramongdifferentconditions.Frequencies areshownovertotalamountoffirstincorrectrepresentations.Alldifferencesintotals aresignificant(α=0.01). InTable3weseethatwhenthenumberswerefirst presented through tokens, the childrenweretheleastlikelytorecoverfromtheerrorinsubsequentproductions.Of 43errorsinthefirstrepresentationwhenpresentedwithtokens,therewereonlytwo instances(5%)ofthefinalrepresentationmatchingtheinitialproduction.Theinitial oralpresentationhadaslightlybetteroutcomewith18of57(32%)representations recovering from initial error. Interestingly, when initially presented with a written number,in33of48cases,(69%)childrenwereabletorecoverandproducethecorrect writtennumberintheend. WhileitmayseemthatthisiscountertotheresultsdescribedinTable2,wherewe foundthaterrorsfromthewrittenandoralproductionweremorelikelythantoken production, we argue that these findings are complementary: while they have less difficultieswiththeirtokenproductionsandinterpretations,childrenarestilltryingto figure out details of written and oral representations. Some types of initial representations, such as tokens, may be more helpful than others for children to developtheirownrepresentationsofnumber.Inaddition,wefindthatchildrenareable torememberandproduceacorrectwrittennumberrepresentationdespitealackof abilitytoproducethenumberorallyorcomposeitsvaluethroughtokens.

DISCUSSION These results elicit some essential questions as to the focus of early mathematics curriculaintheUnitedStates,wherechildrenaretypicallytaughttowritenumbers throughrepeatedpracticeandmathematicstestingistypicallydoneonpaper.Itwould appear from the above results that children are internalizing the memorization of written numbers without mapping them onto their nonverbal representations. This allowsforgoodrecallofwrittennumberswhilesimultaneouslypermittingagapinthe bridgebetweenthewrittenandthenonverbal. Inthereversesituation,manychildrenareabletomapanonverbalrepresentationonto aspokenorwrittennumber;yetwithnumbersthattheyarenotyetabletomap,they havenomethodofretrievingthenumberoncethefocusiscenteredonattemptinga writtenand/orverbalform.Thiscouldprovetobeanobstacleinconceptualproblem solving. Theneedforfurtherstudiesexaminingmethodsoftransferfromonerepresentational modetoanotherisevident.Weintendtofollowthesesamechildrenintothesecond gradetoexaminewhetherthetransferhasimprovedwithexposuretolargernumbers

PME31―2007 287 Cayton & Brizuela andmorearithmeticalpracticeswhichrequiremorethansimplyretrievalofawritten numberform.Wealsointendtoanalysethespecifictypesoferrorsmadebychildrenin theirdifferentrepresentations,orally,inwriting,andthroughtokens. References Alvarado, M. (2002). La Construcción del Sistema Gráfico Numérico en los mometos iniciales de la adquisición del Sistema Gráfico Alfabético . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,CINVESTAV,IPN,México. Alvarado, M., & Ferreiro, E. (2002). Four and fiveyear old children writing twodigit numbers.InM.A. Pinto(Ed.), Rivista di Psicolinguistica (Vol.II3,pp. 2338).Pisa: IstitutiEditorialiePoligraficiInternazionali. Brizuela,B.M.(2004). Mathematical development in young children: exploring notations . NewYork:TeachersCollegePress. Cayton,G.A.(2007). Numerical notation and the place-value concept in young children. Unpublisheddoctoralqualifyingpaper,TuftsUniversity,Medford,MA. Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1992). Learning addition and subtraction: effects of number wordsandotherculturaltools.InJ.Bideaud,C.Meljac&J.P.Fischer(Eds.), Pathways to number: Children's developing numerical abilities .Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. Miura,I.T.,&Okamoto.(1989).ComparisonsofU.S.andJapanesefirstgraders'cognitive representation of number and understanding of place value. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (1),109113. NunesCarraher,T.(1985,July2226).Thedecimalsystem:Understandingandnotation. PaperpresentedattheNinthInternationalConferenceforthePsychologyofMathematics Education,Noordwijkerhout. Piaget, J. (1965). The Child's Conception of the World (J. Tomlinson & A. Tomlinson, Trans.).Totowa,NJ:Littlefield,Adams,&Co. Power,R.J.D.,&DalMartello,M.F.(1990).ThedictationofItalianNumerals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5 (3),237254. Ross,S.(1986). The development of children's place-value numeration concepts in grades two through five. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco. Scheuer, N. I. (1996). La construction du systeme de notation numerique chez l'enfant. l'UniversitedeGeneve,Geneva,Switzerland. Scheuer,N.,Sinclair,A.,MerlodeRivas,S.,&TiecheChristinat,C.(2000).Cuandociento setenta y uno se escribe 10071: niños de 5 a 8 años produciendo numerales [When a hundredandseventyoneiswritten10071:Fivetoeightyearolds'productionofwritten numerals]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 90 ,3150. Seron,X.,&Fayol,M.(1994).Numbertranscodinginchildren:Afunctionalanalysis. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12 ,281300. Sinclair,A.,&Scheuer,N.I.(1993).Understandingthewrittennumbersystem:6yearolds inArgentinaandSwitzerland. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24 ,199221.

288 PME31―2007 AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ELEMENTARY BEGINNING MATHEMATICS TEACHER EFFICACY Chang,Y.L. andWu,S.C. MingDaoUniversity/NationalChiayiUniversity Referring to the significant factors affecting teacher quality, “teacher efficacy” deserves to be in the heart of this dilemmatic evolution. The purpose of this study aimed to examine beginning teachers’ sense of efficacy in elementary schools, as well as its influential factors. Beginning teachers whose background were and were not in mathematics and science were compared to explore the differences of their teacher efficacy. According to research findings, we should devote all efforts to establish a positive and effective learning organization in order to promote their teacher efficacy internally, externally, and promptly starting from the beginning year.

INTRODUCTION Thesignificanceofenhancingteacherqualitybecomesthecoreintheprocessofglobal educationalreform,whereteacherpreparationprogramsmusttakethisresponsibility (e.g., Holmes Group, 1995; Ministry of Education [MOE], Taiwan, 2001; MOE, Taiwan, 2004; National Research Council [NRC], 2001; Wright et al., 1997; Wu, 2004). The integrity and implementation of the teacher education program had actuallyagreatinfluenceonateacher’sacquisitionofsubjectmatterknowledgeand instructionalstrategy,andevenmoreonteacherefficacy(Chang&Wu,2006).In another word, teacher efficacy was considered as not only the key indicator on examining the appropriateness and adequacy of a teacher’s personal instructional readiness (e.g. Allinder, 1995; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Denham & Michael, 1981; Rosenholtz, 1989) but also a warning of showing critical problems the teacher education program faced and orienting future directions of its reform movement (Chang,2003;Chang&Wu,2006).However,moststudiesconductedinTaiwan(e.g. ChuChen,2002;Hong,2002)focusedoninvestigatingelementaryteacherefficacy “quantitatively”and“generally”(i.e.notspecificallyforcertainsubjectareas),fewof them chose single subject area such as mathematics for their examinations. Consequently, understanding elementary mathematics teacher efficacy under the circumstanceofexecutingpracticalinstruction,theprocessingtrendoftheirefficacy change, and factors influencing their efficacy qualitatively would be essential and helpful at the current stage. Especially for those beginning teachers who lacked practical teaching experiences, how would they apply theories learned from the preservicetrainingprogramtoinstructionalproblemstheyfacedonsite?Wouldthe development of their efficacy be influenced while confronting struggles between theoriesandpractices?Whatwouldbethetrendoftheirefficacydevelopmentand change?Thesecriticalissuesshouldbeexploredqualitativelyanddeeply.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.8996.Seoul:PME . 289 Chang & Wu

Accordingtothereportofattending“TrendsinMathematicsandScienceStudy2003 (TIMSS 2003)” from the National Science Council [NSC] (2004), Taiwanese elementary students ranked the fourth position in mathematics. However, their performancehadasignificantlydifferencefromthoseatthefirst(Singapore)andthe second(HongKong)positions.Further,comparingtotheresultofTIMSS1999,there were 16 percentage increases in the response of students who disagreed “I like mathematics”.Thisfindingshowedthatmoreandmorestudentsjointhetrainof “lackinginterestsinmathematics”.Whydidourstudents’achievementandinterest step back? What kind of role did teacher efficacy play in affecting students’ achievementandinterest? “Beginningwithresearchinthe1970s(e.g.,Armoretal.,1976;Bermanetal.,1977), teacherefficacywasfirstconceptualizedasteachers’generalcapacitytoinfluence studentperformance”(Allinder,1995,p.247).Sincethen,theconceptofteacher’s senseofefficacyhasdevelopedcontinuouslyandcurrentlyisdiscussedrelevantto AlbertBandura’s(1977)theoryofselfefficacy,whichindicatesthesignificanceof teachers’beliefsintheirowncapabilitiesinrelationtotheeffectsofstudentlearning andachievement.Ashton(1985)alsostatedthatteacherefficacy,thatis,“theirbelief intheirabilitytohaveapositiveeffectonstudentlearning”(p.142).Severalstudies furtherreported,“Teacherefficacyhasbeenidentifiedasavariableaccountingfor individualdifferencesinteachingeffectiveness”(Gibson&Dembo,1984,p.569)and had a strong relationship with student learning and achievement (Allinder, 1995; Gibson&Dembo,1984).Consequently,inordertobetterunderstandthereasonsof thereductioninmathematicalachievementandinterestaswellasfindingoutwaysof improvingbothteachingandlearningquality,anindepthprocessingstudywouldbe thebestchoiceatthemoment.

PURPOSE AND METHOD Thepurposeofthisstudyaimedtoexaminebeginningteachers’senseofefficacyin elementary schools, as well as its influential factors. Beginning teachers whose backgroundwereandwerenotinmathematicsandsciencewerecomparedtoexplore thedifferencesoftheirteacherefficacy.Amixedmethodsdesignwasemployedin this processing study. “Participant Main Survey” and “Mathematics Teaching EfficacyBeliefsInstruments(MTEBIChineseversion,Chang,2003)”wereusedas theinstrumentsofthequantitativepartofthisresearch.Participantswere64beginning elementary mathematics teachers in Taichung, Taiwan. Pre and posttests were administeredtoobtaintheirefficacyratingsquantitatively. In the qualitative part, beginning teachers with and without background in mathematics andscience were selectedpurposefullyasparticipantsaccordingtotheirefficacyratingsofpretests. Theywerethendividedintothreegroups:high,medium,andlow;threeteacherswere randomlyselectedfromeachgroup.Alltogether,sixbeginningmathematicsteachers participated in the qualitative part of this study. Influential factors to beginning teachers’ sense of efficacy were identified through interviews, recordings, observations, and researchers’ reflection notes for exploring practical strategies to

290 PME31―2007 Chang & Wu improvetheirefficacy.Theanalysisincontextstrategywasemployedforreachingthe researchobjectives,whichwastheintegrationofdescriptiveandinferentialstatistical analyses(i.e.ANCOVA)andthequalitativeanalysis.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION Quantitative teacher efficacy comparison Findingsofthisstudywerereportedintwoparts.Forthequantitativepart,therewere 18elementarybeginningmathematicsteacherswithmathematicsandscience(M&S) backgroundand46withoutmathematicsandsciencebackground.Inregardtothe pretest,beginningmathematicsteacherswithM&Sbackgroundhadasignificantly superior rating in both cognitive dimensions of Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy(PMTE)andPersonalScienceTeachingEfficacy(PSTE).Afterreceiving fouryears of training, beginning mathematics teachers with M&S had more confidenceintheirownteachingabilitiesthanthosewhodidnotspecializeineither mathematics or science. With regard to the posttest (one year later), beginning mathematicsteacherswithM&Sbackgroundstillscoredsignificantlyhigherinboth PMTEandPSTEthanthosewithoutM&Sbackground.Inordertoobtainabetter understatingofthedifferencesbetweenthesetwogroups(i.e.withandwithoutM&S background) in the performance of PMTE and MTOE, a oneway analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the effects of the two backgroundsontheefficacyscores.Aftereliminatingthedifferencesinthepretest, beginning mathematics teachers with M&S background still scored significantly superiorinbothPMTEandPSTEintheposttestthanthosewithoutM&Sbackground. Table1showedthecomparativestatisticsofPMTEandMTOE. Program Value Sig. MeanDifferences 1 Pretest PMTE t=2.808 p<.01 3.379 MTOE t=3.393 p<.001 2.297 Posttest PMTE t=4.947 p<.001 5.461 MTOE t=4.958 p<.001 4.292 ANCOVA PMTE F=19.770 p<.001 MTOE F=18.759 p<.001 Note:1.MeanDifferences =MeanwithM&S -MeanwithoutM&S

Table1:ComparativeStatisticsofPMTEandMTOE However,consideringtheaveragemeanscoresofPMTEandMTOE,thosebeginning mathematicsteacherswithoutM&Sbackgroundonlyhadapproximately71.94percent ofconfidence(posttest)intheirownteachingabilities.Thisinformationprovideda warningforallteachertrainingprograms:Ifthesebeginningteachersbelievedthey were not ready to assume the teaching responsibility, teaching quality would be potentially jeopardized. Moreover, they did not have adequate confidence (only

PME31―2007 291 Chang & Wu

72.83%)inprovidingefficientteachingintheclassroomeither.Thus,eventhough theybelievedeffectiveteachingwasvitalforstudents’learningandachievementin mathematics,thequalityofteachingandlearningcouldstillnotbeassured.These findingsjustmatchedtheresultsofpreviousstudies,suchasBall(1990),ChuChen (2002), Hong (2002), and Chang (2003). As Gibson and Dembo (1984) stated, teacherswithhighefficacyshould“persistlonger,provideagreateracademicfocusin theclassroom,andexhibitdifferenttypesoffeedbackthanteachers’whohavelower expectationsconcerningtheirabilitytoinfluencestudentlearning”(p.570).Further, “when it comes to the education of our children…failure is not an option!” said PresidentGeorgeW.Bush(2001).Accordingly,sincetherewasnotimeforwaiting and no room for going back and regret, how to enhance beginning mathematics teachers’efficacyquicklyandeffectivelyforthepurposeofprovidingqualityteaching processandlearningenvironmentwouldbeurgentandcriticaltaskforallinservice trainingprograms. Influential Factors of Teacher Efficacy For the qualitative part, 6 beginning mathematics teachers were selected for discoveringinfluentialfactorsoftheirteacherefficacy.Table2and3showedtheir background information. According to the qualitative findings, two categories of factorsthatinfluencedthechangeoftheirteacherefficacyweregeneralized,teacher’s teaching belief and practical instruction (internal factor) and peer interaction and administrativesupport(externalfactor).Theinternalfactorhadthreesubcategories: mathematicsbackgroundknowledgeandpreviousexperience,instructionalbeliefand action, and teacherstudent interaction. The external factor was divided into three subcategoriestoo:peerinteraction,administrativesupport,andteachingresource. Teacher Sex Grade Major Pretest(totalscore) Efficacy Level (average:80.61) M1 High M 6 ScienceEducation 86 M2 Middle M 3 MathEducation 80 M3 Low M 3 MathEducation 71

Table2:InformationofTeacherswithM&SBackground Teacher Sex Grade Major Pretest(totalscore) Efficacy Level (average:74.93) N1 High F 5 FoodScience 83 N2 Middle F 5 MusicEducation 74 N3 Low F 4 ArtEducation 68

Table3:InformationofTeacherswithoutM&SBackground A.InternalFactor Firstofall,thefindingsindicatedthatbeginningmathematicsteachershadinadequate mathematicalbackgroundknowledgeandpracticalexperiencebeforetheyenteredthe

292 PME31―2007 Chang & Wu classroom.Thisinadequacyledtoseveralobstacles,suchasthedifficultyinpreparing thelessons,mistakesmadeintheteachingprocess, and low teacher efficacy. For example, when students proposed a difficult question, teachers with low efficacy usuallycouldnotdecidehowtodealwiththissituation.Sameconditionshappened whilestudentsappliedvariousstrategiestosolvetheproblemthatwasdifferentfrom thestrategyusedbytheteacher.Whatshouldtheteacherdo?Shoulds/heexplainand presenteverystrategythatcouldsolvetheproblemorjustignoreit?Thisdilemma woulddefinitelyresultedinainadequateandineffectiveinstructionandlearning.As Allinder(1995)indicated,“Teacherswithhighpersonalefficacyandhighteaching efficacyincreasedendofyeargoalsmoreoftenfortheirstudents…Teacherswith highpersonalefficacyeffectedsignificantlygreatergrowth”(p.247).Whilethinking howtopromotemathematicalteachingoutcomes,educatorsshouldconsiderdeeply howtoincreasebeginningmathematicsteacherefficacyfirst. Secondly, beginning mathematics teachers who had low efficacy tended to have insufficientinstructionalstrategyandbadteacherstudentinteraction.Theyusually did not know how to propose questions and guide the classroom discussion. Consequently, they mostly used “lecture” while teaching. Even if they had a discussion, it wasalways ineffective. This situationledtonotonlydecreasetheir teacherefficacybutalsoreducestudents’learninginterestsandmotivations,aswellas lessteacherstudentinteraction.ThisfindingcorrespondedwithCzerniak’s(1990) opinion:Teacherswithahighsenseofefficacyhavebeenfoundtobemorelikelyto applyinquiryandstudentcenteredteachingstrategies,whilelowefficaciousteachers aremorelikelytouseteachercenteredstrategies,e.g.lectureandreadingfromthe textbook.Therefore,teacherefficacydidplayasignificantroleinconsideringhowto improvethequalityofteaching,andwasonereasonablyimportantpartoflearning quality.Onlyiftheteacherefficacywereincreased,students’interestsinlearning mathematicsandtheiractivelearninghabitswouldbepromotedeffectively. Anotherinternalsubcategorywastechniquesappliedforclassroommanagement.In thisstudy,beginningmathematicsteacherswithlowefficacywerelikelytospenda greatdealoftimeinmanagingtheclassroomorder.Theyoftenfeltpowerlessand pressured,whichledtoanunsuccessfulteaching.Infact,employingbodylanguage andspecificmovementsappropriatelycouldkeepstudents’attentiontotheinstruction andcultivatepositiveagreementsbetweentheteacherandstudentssimultaneously. Thus,providingrelativeinformationofclassroommanagementwouldcomplementthe instructionalstrategiesandteacherstudentinteractionseffectivelyforenhancingboth teachingandlearningquality. B.ExternalFactor Allsixbeginningteachersmentionedthattheyfeltmorecomfortableandconfidentin preparingorimplementingtheirinstructiononcereceivingactivecareandassistance from experienced teachers or teachers of the same grade level within the school. Severalstudies(e.g.Piaget,1970;Rogoff,1990;Saxe,Gearnart,&Guberman,1987) indicatedthattheseexperiencesharingandencouragementsweresohelpfulthatthey

PME31―2007 293 Chang & Wu learnedalotandfeltfullofenthusiasmtokeepgoingforward.However,theyall complained of the inadequacy of the sharing and encouragement environment. Consequently,howtomanagetheworkingenvironmentwithinoneelementaryschool, builduptheopportunityofcooperativelearningamongallteachers,andpromotethe interchange of instructional knowledge and experience would be crucial to assist beginning mathematics teachers’ professional development. Further, the school administratorsshouldrethinktheirmanagementbeliefandstrategyforthepurposeof establishaneffectivelearningorganizationforallteachers(Borko,2004),wherethey couldlearnfromeachotherefficientlyandgrowtogetherprofessionally. Moreover,allsixteachersindicatedthattheschooladministrativelevelexcessively interfere their teaching in the classroom. This interference worsened the communicationchannelandledtoanunfavourablerelationshipthatbecameanother externalfactorofthedecreaseofteacherefficacy.Inaddition,beginningteachers wereoftenassignedtoparticipateincompetitionswithinoroutsideoftheschoolthat werenotrelevanttotheirmajororthesubjecttheytaught.Theyhadtospendmore timefortheseextratasksandresultedinlesstimeforpreparingtheirownteachingin the classroom. Consequently, instead of giving extra interferences and duties, the school administrative level should reconsider what realistic supports should be provided for beginning teachers in order to assist them to enhance their teacher efficacyandfocusontheirownteaching.

CONCLUSION Accordingtothefindingsofthisstudy,beginningmathematicsteacherswhomajored in mathematics and science education had a significantly higher increase in their efficacyratingsthanthosewhodidnotmajorinmathematicsandsciencebothatthe beginningandtheendofthefirstyear.Also,beginningmathematicsteacherswho majoredinmathematicsandscienceeducationhadasignificantlyhigherincreasein bothpersonalteachingefficacyandteachingoutcomeexpectancythanthosewhodid notmajorinmathematicsandscience.Further,twocategoriesoffactorsfoundinthis studyinfluencingbeginningmathematicsteacherefficacyincluded:teacher’steaching beliefandpracticalinstruction(internalfactor)andpeerinteractionandadministrative support(externalfactor).AsHermanowicz(1966)andLadd(1966)stated,“Teachers repeatedly have indicated that their teacher training did not prepare them to be effectiveteachers.Manyhavemadesuggestionsforimprovingteachereducation”(p. 53).Benzetal.(1992)furtherconfirmedtheiropinion26yearslater.Especiallyfor those mathematics beginning teachers, under the condition of having low teacher efficacyandinadequatereadinessinteaching,howtoassisttheminregardtotheir belief, confidence, and practical instruction would be the first task of teacher professionaldevelopment.Accordingly,asteachereducators,weshouldreflectfrom thesepreviousrecommendationsandresearchfindings,andfurtherdevotealleffortsto establish a positive and effective learning organization in order to promote their teacherefficacypromptlystartingfromthebeginningyear.

294 PME31―2007 Chang & Wu

Acknowledgement ThisresearchwasfoundbytheNationalScienceCouncil(NSC)ofTaiwan,numbered as “NSC 942521S451001”. An ongoing research project will provide further informationqualitativelyofapplyingspecificstrategies of learning organization to improveinserviceteacherefficacyinPME32. References Allinder, R.M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculumbased measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16 (4),247254. Armor,D.,ConroyOsequera,P.,Cox,M.,King,N.,McDonnel,L.,Pascal,A.,Pauley,E.,& Zellman,G.(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority school .(R2007LAUSD).SantaMonica,CA:RandCorp. Ashton,P.(1985).Motivationandtheteacher’ssenseofefficacy.InAmes,C.&Ames,R. (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol.2): The classroom meliu (pp.141174). Orlando,FL:AcademicPress. Ashton,P.,&Webb,R.(Eds.)(1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement .NewYork:LongmanInc. Ball,D.L.(1990).Prospectiveelementaryandsecondaryteachers’understandingofdivision. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 21 (2),132144. Bandura, A. (1977). Selfefficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review , 84 (2),191215. Benz, C.R., Bradley, L., Alderman, M.K., & Flowers, M.A. (1992). Personal teaching efficacy:Developmentalrelationshipsineducation. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5),274285. Berman,P.,McLaughlin,M.,Bass,G.,Pauly,E.,&Zellman,G.(1977).Federalprograms supporting educational change (Vol. 7): Factors affecting implementation and continuation.SantaMonica,CA:TheRandCorporation. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. EducationalResearch,33(8),315. Chang,Y.L.(2003).Knowledgeassessmentandselfefficacyratingsinteacherpreparation. PaperpresentedattheannualconferenceofNorthwestAssociationofTeacherEducators (NWATE),Spokane,WA,U.S.A. Chang Y. L. & Wu, S. C. (2006). Teacher efficacy and elementary teacher education. AcademicExchangeQuarterly,10(3),7579. ChuChen,H.S.(2002).Therelationshipbetweenelementaryteacher’sselfefficacyand professional knowledge. Taichung, Taiwan: Unpublished thesis of National Taichung TeachersCollege. Czerniak, C. M. (1990). A study of selfefficacy, anxiety, and science knowledge in preserviceelementaryteachers.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheNationalAssociation forResearchinScienceTeaching,Atlanta,GA.

PME31―2007 295 Chang & Wu

Denham, C. H. & Michael, J. J. (1981). Teacher sense of efficacy: A definition of the constructandamodelforfurtherresearch.EducationResearchQuarterly,5,3963. Gibson,S.&Dembo,M.H.(1984).Teacherefficacy:Aconstructvalidation.J ournal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4),569582. Hermanowicz,H.J.(1966).Thepluralisticworldofbeginningteachers.In The real world of the beginning teacher .ReportofthenineteenthnationalTEPSconference.Washington, DC:NationalEducationAssociation. HolmesGroup(1995). Tomorrow’s school of education .EastLansing,MI:TheHolmes Group. Hong, C. C. (2002). The long-term effect of teaching with the guidance of lessons: Instructional concept, professional meed, and teacher efficacy of the intern . Taipei, Taiwan:FinalReportoftheNationalScienceCouncilProject. Ladd, E. T. (1966). Interpretation and perspectives. In The real world of the beginning teacher .ReportofthenineteenthnationalTEPSconference.Washington,DC:National EducationAssociation. MinistryofEducation,Taiwan(2001).ReviewandimprovementMeetingofEducational reform:Newthinking,newaction,andnewvision.Taipei,Taiwan:Author. Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2004). 2004 Education in Republic of China . Taipei, Taiwan:Author. National Research Council (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium .Washington,DC:NationalAcademy Press. National Science Council, Taiwan (2004). The report of TIMSS 2003 . Jan. 15, 2006 Retrievedfrom http://www.nsc.gov.tw/_newfiles/head.asp?add_year=2004&tid=38 . Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In J. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, Vol. 1 .NewYork:BasicBooks. Rogoff,B.(1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools . New York:Longman. Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. No.216, 52(2). Wright,S.P.,Horn,S.P.,&Sanders,W.L.(1997).Teachersandclassroomcontexteffectson student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 ,5767. Wu,W.D.(2004).Challengesofteacherpreparationandprofessionaldevelopment.InThe ChinesesocietyofeducationandChineseTeacherAssociationSociety(Eds.). Research in Issues of Teachers’ Professional Development ,p.324.Taipei,Taiwan:PEPress.

296 PME31―2007 PRESERVICE SECONDARY MATHEMATICS TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND INQUIRY TEACHING APPROACHES OliveChapman UniversityofCalgary This paper discusses the nature and role of preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge that supports their use of inquiry approaches during their practicum teaching. It highlights how four categories of teachers’ knowledge and, more importantly, the connectedness among them based on a common theme influenced the preservice teachers’ use of inquiry approaches and their ability to transform pedagogical theory to practice. The paper also addresses the importance of learning experiences in teacher education that treat these domains of teacher knowledge in an integrated way within classroom-based contextual situations in order to facilitate the development of an appropriate, usable network of knowledge. This study investigated the nature and role of preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge that supported their use of inquiry approaches during their practicumteaching.Itispartofanongoingfouryearlongitudinalstudyofbeginning secondarymathematicsteachers’growth. RELATED LITERATURE Aninquiryperspectiveofteachingisconsideredtobeeffectivetofacilitatestudents’ development of mathematics understanding and mathematics thinking. In inquiry classrooms, students are expected to construct mathematical meaning through reasoning, communicating, exploring, and collaboratingwithpeersandtheteacher whileworkingontasksthatareinquiryorientedactivities,includinggenuineproblems andinvestigations(NCTM,1991).However,teacherstypicallyfinditchallengingto adoptinquiryapproachesintheirteaching,particularlyatthesecondarylevel,partly becausetoteachthiswayrequiresteachingdifferentlyfromhowtheyweretaught. Currentteacherpreparationprogramsarelikelytoexposeprospectiveteacherstosuch approaches to various degrees. However, based on my experience with an inquirybasedprogram,thisexposure,regardlessofhowsubstantive,maynotresultin implementationintheclassroomduringpracticum,evenwhenthesupervisingteachers givethestudentteachersthefreedomtodoso.Thisraisestheissueofwhenandhow are prospective teachers able, or likely, to implement inquiry approaches in their teaching during practicum and potentially in their future practice. This study contributestoourunderstandingofthisissue. Theresearchliteratureprovidesevidencetosupportconcernsabouttheadequacyof preserviceteachers’knowledgeasabasistoteachmathematicsinaninquiryway.For example,researchstudiesthatexaminedpreservicesecondarymathematicsteachers’ mathematics knowledge (e.g., Even, 1993; FeimanNemser & Remillard, 1996;

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.97104.Seoul:PME. 297 Chapman

Kinach, 2002; Knuth, 2002) suggest that these teachers often do not hold a sound understanding of the mathematics they need in order to teach it with depth. This includesfundamentalconceptsfromtheschoolcurriculum,suchasoperationswith ,functions,andproof.Incontrasttoknowledgeofmathematics,studieson preservice teachers’ knowledge of mathematics teaching and learning are less represented in the research literature (Ponte & Chapman, 2006). However, some studiesshowthattheycouldhaveinadequateunderstandingofstudents’mathematics thinking (Tirosh, 2000; Stacey et al., 2001) and knowledge of communication and questioning(Moyer&Milewicz,2002;Blanton,Westbrook,&Carter,2005). Ingeneral,studiesonpreserviceteachers’knowledgetendstofocusonwhattheydo notknowthanontheirsensemaking(Ponte&Chapman,2006),includingthenature oftheirknowledgethatsupportsinquiryorientedteaching.Infocusingontheirsense makingandpracticalknowledge,thisstudyisframedinahumanisticperspectiveof teacherthinkinginwhichteachersareviewedascreatingtheirownmeaningtomake sense of their teaching (Fenstermacher, 1994). It also adopts the perspective of Kilpatrick,SwaffordandFindell(2001)thatthreemajorcomponentsofmathematics teacherknowledgearenecessaryforeffectivemathematicsteaching:knowledgeof mathematics,students,andinstructionalpractices. RESEARCH PROCESS Thestudywasframedinaqualitative,naturalisticresearchperspectivethatfocuseson capturingandinterpretingpeoples’thinkingandactionsbasedonactualsettings.Case studies(Stake,1995)wereconductedtoallowforindepthexaminationofthesituation. Theparticipantsweretwosecondarypreservicemathematicsteacherswithbachelor degreesinmathematicsandwereinthesecondyearoftheirtwoyearB.Ed.program, whichhadafocusoninquiryteaching.Thestudywasbuiltaroundtheirsemester3 practicumwhentheywereintheirassignedschoolsteachingformostofthesemester, fourdaysperweek.Duringthissemester,theyintegratedinquiryapproachesintheir teachinginspiteofbeinginpredominantlytraditionalclassrooms. The main sources of data were interviews, classroom observations and teaching documents.Theopenendedinterviewsbeforeandafterthesemesterincludedafocus on: their thinking about mathematics and inquiry teaching and learning; their meanings/interpretationsofselectedmathematicsconceptscoveredintheirteaching; theiractualexperienceswithinquiryapproachesduringtheirpracticumteaching;their thinkingbehindplanningandconductingtheirlessons;andtheirthinkingaboutwhat supportedorinhibitedtheiruseofinquiryapproaches.Classroomobservationswere conductedforlessonsincludingandnotincludinginquiryapproaches.Datafromthe observationsincludedteacherstudentinteractionsaboutthemathematicstopicsbeing taught;descriptionoflearningactivitiesstudentsengagedin;whattheteacherattended toasstudentsworkedonmathematicstasks;andteachingstrategiesforthecontent. Documentsconsistedoflessonplans,teacherpreparedmathematicsactivitiesandfield journalrecordsoftheirreflectionsontheirteaching.

298 PME31―2007 Chapman

Analysisinvolvedclosescrutinyofthedatabytheresearcherandresearchassistants, focusingonidentifyingtheparticipants’knowledgeandthinkingaboutmathematics, students’learningandinquiryteaching;explicitandimplicitsituationsofwhen,how and why they used inquiry approaches; and apparent relationships between their knowledgeorthinkingandinquiryteaching.Themesweredeterminedbyidentifying conceptualfactorsthatcharacterizedeachparticipant’sthinkingandpracticebasedon theinformationfromtheinitialscrutinyofthedata.“Pattern”emergedasthemost dominantthemeinrelationtoinquiryteaching,then,thedatawerescrutinizedfurther in order to understand the nature of this theme. Verification procedures included triangulationbycomparingoutcomefromthevariousdatasources,crosschecksby researchteam,memberchecksandeliminationofinitialassumptions/themesbasedon disconfirmingevidence. FINDINGS Thetwopreserviceteachersdifferedinhowtheyplannedandconductedtheirlessons duringtheirpracticumteaching,buttheyexhibitedsomekeysimilaritiesthatseemed to characterize their sense making of using inquiry approaches. These similarities involved four factors: their beliefs aboutmathematics, their beliefs about students’ learning, how they held their knowledge of mathematics and their pedagogical knowledgeofengagingstudentsininquiry.Inparticular,therelationshipsamongthese factors seemed to be the key to explaining their use of inquiry approaches. The followinghighlightsthenatureofthesefactorsandtherelationshipsamongthem. Beliefs about mathematics: The participants held a similar core belief about mathematics that provided the foundation for when and how they used inquiry approaches.ForSara,thisbeliefwas“patterns,makingconnectionsbetweenpatterns andtheworld,”forReba,“alotofpatterns…canbefoundeverywhere.”Theyalso heldthebeliefinawaythatwas“centralandpsychologicallystrong”(Green,1971). Beliefs about students’ learning: Theparticipantsalsoheldasimilarcorebeliefabout students’learningthatwascompatiblewithinquirylearninganddirectlyrelatedtothe belief about mathematics. This belief focused on having students “make the connectionsforthemselves”(Sara)or“seepatternsforthemselves”(Reba).AsSara explained,“Ialwayssay,canyouseeapattern?LikeIalwayssaid,canyouseeit? Lookforit.”Sheadded,“Itwasfunnybecausebytheendoftheclasssomeofthekids wouldpickuponthatandask,arewelookingforpatternsagain?Yes,we’realways lookingforpatterns.”Thebeliefalsofocusedon“allowingstudentstodeveloptheir ownideasaboutthings…tofindtheirwaytotheanswer…givingthemthespacetobe abletodothat.”(Sara)Similarly,“notthattheyarediscoveringeverythingontheir own,butusingwhatknowledgetheyhave,…[then]tobeabletomaketheconnections themselves,witheachotherandbeingabletoaskthemselvesquestionslike:doesthis work?Doesthismakesense?”(Reba) Mathematics knowledge: The way the participants held their knowledge of mathematicsplayedasignificantroleintermsofwhenandhowtheywereableto

PME31―2007 299 Chapman transform theirbeliefs about mathematics andlearning into practice. For example, mathematicsconceptsorproceduresthattheyreadilyunderstood,oralreadyheld,in termsofpatternsweretaughtthroughinquiryorientedapproaches.Thisseemedtobe moreimportantthanwhethertheyhadconceptualversusproceduralunderstanding, sincedeepunderstandingofthemathematicswasnotalwayspresentordemonstrated withuseoftheinquiryapproach.Theparticipantswereabletoassociatetheconcepts andprocedurestheyheldaspatternswithspecificinquirylearningapproachesthat focusedonthemathematicalstructureoftheconceptsorprocedures.Theseapproaches involvedusingacompare/contrasttechniquewithtasksoftheformofexamplesversus nonexamples;alternativerepresentationofthesameconcept;cardsorting;concrete situations;andsolvedexamples.Thus,thepreserviceteacherswereabletoselector constructtasksthatembodiedthebeliefsaboutmathematicsandlearningwhenthey (mathematics, concepts, learning) were all viewed as directly related to pattern as structure or way of knowing. The following are two examples of these mathematical/pedagogicaltasksthattheycreated. Bothexamplesconsistofconceptsorproceduresthatwerenewforthestudents.Sara’s example:ThistaskdealtwithprimeandcompositenumbersinherGrade7class.Sara wrotethenumbers1through20ontheblackboard.Studentswererequiredtoworkin groupstofindthefactorsofeachnumberbasedontheirpriorknowledge.Then,they “mustlookforpatternsfoundinthefactors”andbepreparedtoshareanddiscussthem inwholeclasssetting. Reba’s example: This task dealt with solving systems of linear equation through eliminationandsubstitutionasrequiredbythecurriculumforherGrade11class.Reba preparedthreesolvedexamplesofeliminationandthreeofsubstitution.Thefollowing isthesetofequationsusedfortheeliminationcases. Adifferent set wasused for substitution. (i) 3x–5 y=9; 4x+5 y=23 (ii) 2x+3 y–32=0; 3 x–2 y–22=0

(iii) x − 3 – y − 5 =1; x + 3 + y − 3 =1 2 3 2 4 Studentswererequiredto“figureouthoweachprocess works through the solved examples…[and]tobeabletoexplainfullyhowandwhyeachmethodworks…how dotheexamplesdifferandcomparewithoneanother.”[Sara] Theparticipants’beliefsaboutmathematicsincludedconnectionstotheworld.Butthis did not play a significant role in when or how they intentionally used inquiry approachesinteachingamathematicsconcept.Thisaspectoftheirbeliefwasreflected onlyintheuseofwordproblemswheretheytriedtoincluderealworldlikesituations orsomethingtomakethetaskfuninaproblemsolvingcontext.Saradidthismore oftenthanRebabecausethejuniorhighschoolcontextshewasinseemedtolenditself bettertothatthantheseniorhighcontextforReba.InSara’scase,afewoftheproblem solvingtaskssheusedallowedfornonalgorithmicskillstoarriveatasolution.For

2100 PME31―2007 Chapman example,sheexplained,“Mykeyistomakethem[thetasks]engaging.…Whenwe didwordproblems…IhadtheseplasticeggsandIstuckthingsinsidethem.…They hadtofindoutwhatwasinsidetheeggwithoutopeningit,andtheyhadtotalkabout it.”Bothparticipantsalso,onafewoccasions,onintroducingatopicprovidedsome historicalinformationaboutit. Instructional knowledge: Finally, the participants held instructional knowledge for engagingstudentsinthelearningtasksthatwasdirectlyrelatedtotheirbeliefsabout learning. In particular, their thinking and practice indicated that this knowledge includeduseofgroups,open/probingquestioning,andflexiblelisteninginaninquiry learningcontext.Forexample,Saraexplained:“Ialwaystriedtomakethemtellme whattheyweredoing.TheywouldaskaquestionandIwouldalwaystrytoreaskthe questiontothem.”Shelaterexpandedonthis.“[I]say,whatdoyoumeanbythat?Or whereareyougoing?Orwhatareyoudoingwiththat?SoIalwaystriedtolistento theirprocess…howaretheythinkingandwhy.”Also,asRebanoted:“Iwouldask themwellwhatareyouthinkingofbecausethenthatcouldmaybetriggerthemwithout mehavingtosaytothemhowdoyouexactlysolvethis.” Practice: Classroomobservationsofthepreserviceteachers’ practice revealed that theirinquiryorientedlessonshadasimilarstructure.Eachparticipantwasuniquein howthisstructurewaslivedintheclassroom,butanexamplefromReba’scasewillbe usedtoillustratethestructure,whichconsistedofthefollowingfourstages. An introduction stage: This differed based on the topic and included a check of students’priorknowledge;briefhistoryofthemathematicsconcept;andclarifying tasks. For Reba’s Grade 10 introductory lesson on coordinate geometry involving length,midpointandslopeoflinesegments,sheintroducedthelessonthroughastory explainingthehistoryofDescartesandhowthecoordinatewasinvented.She alsoclarifiedthetaskandexplainedtheunfamiliarnotionusedforapoint. An exploration stage: Thisinvolvedstudents’workingontasksingroupswiththe teacherposingquestionsandprompts.Forthisstage,Rebapreparedcardsconsisting of different representations of the concepts. One set of cards had “length of line segment”,“midpointoflinesegment”,and“slopeoflinesegment.”Theothersetsof cards contained, for each of the three concepts, equations, graphs, problems, and solutionsoftheproblems.Studentswererequiredtosortthecardsaccordingtothe threeconceptsandbeabletoexplainwhytheirsolutionsmadesense–“howdoyou knowthatthesegotogether?”Studentsfirstworkedinpairsthengroupsoffourto compare and discuss their findings. Reba, in response to their questions, or her observations,wouldpromptthemtothinkaboutwhattheyweredoingornotnoticing. A sharing and discussion stage: Here,studentssharedanddefendedtheirfindingsina wholeclass setting. Reba guided the discussion to makesuretheycoveredallshe expectedthemtoknowabouttheconcepts. A conclusion stage: Here,Rebaguidedthestudentstothinkaboutwhattheylearnt abouttheconceptsandsummarizedthekeyideas.

PME31―2007 2101 Chapman

This brief outline of the lesson does not include the ongoing teacherstudent interactions that occurred to facilitate the students’ thinking, inquiry, and sharing processesthatwerenecessaryforthelessontohaveaninquirytone. DISCUSSION Thefourcategoriesofthepreserviceteachers’knowledgedescribedabovearekey factorsinaccountingfor,andunderstanding,theiruseofinquiryapproachesintheir teaching. But this importance of the four categories of knowledge lies in their interconnectedness.Thisconnectednessprovidedthetwopreserviceteacherswitha logicalandviableimageofwhatthisteachingcouldlooklike.Itwasnecessaryfor theseteacherstotranscendotherfactors,likecontextualconstraints,inordertoteach withinquiryorientedtechniques.Infact,whentheinterconnectednesswaslacking,for example,themathematicsconceptwasviewedasafactinsteadofasapattern,these teachers resorted to traditional teaching and justifieditintermsofthecontextual constraintstheyperceived,forexample,teachercentered classrooms; limited time; preestablishedclassroomtone;preestablishedsequenceofunits;natureoftopic.As Saranoted:“Asastudent[teacher],youarelivinginthepartnerteachersenvironment, sothisputsconstraintonhowopenendedIcanbeinmyteaching.” Thisintegratedviewofthepreserviceteachers’knowledgecouldbeconsideredasa network of the preservice teachers’ understandings of key ideas of mathematics, students and instruction and, more importantly, of relationships among them. The following model offers a way of conceptualizing the relationships as held by the preserviceteachers.Themodelconnectsthepreserviceteachers’beliefsand Mathematics Studentas Teacher as aspattern inquirer facilitator Concept/procedure aspattern Taskasinquiry ofpattern Mathematical Taskasnoticing taskaspattern pattern conceptions of mathematics, mathematics concepts and procedures, students and instructionalpracticeswhentheysupportinquiryorientedteachingapproaches.Inthis model,pattern,asitrelatestomathematicalstructure,isthemainorganizingtheme

2102 PME31―2007 Chapman that connects mathematics, learner and inquiry pedagogy as follows. First, mathematics as pattern is associated with a mathematics concept/procedure that is viewedintermsofitsmathematicalstructureand,thus,aspattern.Then,thisconcept orprocedureisassociatedwithamathematicaltaskdesignedintermsofthispattern. Second,thestudentisviewedintheroleasinquirerinordertolearntothinkaboutand seemathematicsaspattern.Themathematicaltaskbecomesalearningtaskforthe studentthatinvolvesinquiryofpattern.Thislearningtaskisframedinasocialcontext. Third,theteacherisviewedintheroleasfacilitatorinordertosupportstudentsas inquirers.Themathematicaltaskbecomesaninstructionaltaskfortheteacherthat involvesusingpromptsandquestioningtohelpstudentstonoticerelevantpatterns builtintothetask. This model indicates that the preservice teachers constructed an image of inquiryoriented practice that involved understanding mathematics as patterns, understandinglearnerasinquirerofpatternsandunderstandingteacherasfacilitatorof student as inquirer of patterns. As can be expected of novice teachers, these understandings, and thus the image of practice, lacked depth. But, in spite of the qualityoftheirknowledge,whethertheseunderstandingswereheldinadisconnected wayorconnectedwaythatmadesensetothemwasofmoreimportanceinshaping theirpractice.Thisconnectionwasimportanttoprovidethepreserviceteacherswith anintentionofteachingthatwasexplicitandconcrete,thatis,tohelpstudentstosee “pattern”asawayoflearningandunderstandingmathematics. Thisconnectedness,then,wasnecessaryforthepreserviceteacherstomakesenseof how to transform their newly constructed theoretical pedagogical knowledge into practical knowledge. In this case, when this connectedness was missing, usually becauseoflackofassociationbetweenmathematicsaspatternandconceptandtasksas pattern,althoughtheteachersstillhadknowledgeaboutinquiryorientedpedagogy, therewaslittleevidenceofitintheirteachingastheyresortedtomoretraditional, teacherorientedpractice.Thus,forpreserviceteacherssuchastheseparticipants,the key to developing the connectedness is understanding mathematics as pattern conceptuallyandpedagogically.Thisisimportantforthemtobeabletoselectorcreate mathematicaltasksthatarerelevantandmeaningfulforinvestigatingpatternsandto understandthewaysofthinkingandrolesofthelearnerandteacherintheinquiry. Thus, to add depth to their practice, they need experiences that will deepen this understanding of mathematics as pattern conceptually and pedagogically. In the contextofteachereducation,thisrequireslearningexperiencesthatintegrateandallow fortheintegrationofknowledgeofmathematics,learnerandinstruction. CONCLUSION The findings suggest that preservice secondary teachers could transform theory to practiceregardinginquiryteachingiftheyconstructarelevant,integratedviewofthe threecoredomainsofteacherknowledge–mathematics,instructionandstudents.This allowsthemtoorganizetheirthinkingcoherentlyaboutwhatandhowtheyintendto

PME31―2007 2103 Chapman teach.Thefindingsalsosuggestthatitisimportanttoprovidethemwithexperiences that treat these domains of teacher knowledge in an integrated way. Rather than treatingtheknowledgeseparately,asisoftendoneinteachereducation,anapproach that treats them as interwoven within classroombased situations could help prospectiveteacherstodevelopknowledgethatisusefulandusable. Note :ThisstudyisfundedbySocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada. References Blanton,M.L.,Westbrook,S.,&Carter,G.(2005).UsingValsiner’szonetheorytointerpret teaching practices in mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8 (1),533. Even,R.(1993).Subjectmatterknowledgeandpedagogicalcontentknowledge:Perspective secondary teachers and the function of concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ,24(2),94116. FeimanNemser,S.,&Remillard,J.(1996).Perspectivesonlearningtoteach.InF.B.Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp.6391).SanFrancisco:JosseyBass. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: the nature of knowledge in researchonteaching. Review of Research in Education ,20,356. Green,T.F.(1971). The activities of teaching. NewYork:McGrawHillBookCompany. Kilpatrick,J.,Swafford,J.,&Findell,B.(Eds.).(2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics .Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress. Kinach, B. (2002). Understanding and learningtoexplain by representing mathematics: Epistemological dilemmas facing teacher educators in the secondary mathematics “methods”course. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education ,5,153186. Knuth, E.J. (2002). Teachers’ conceptions of proof in the context of secondary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education ,5(1),6188. Moyer,P.S.,&Milewicz,E.(2002).Learningtoquestion:Categoriesofquestioningusedby preservice teachers during diagnostic mathematics interviews. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5 ,293315. NationalCouncilofTeachersforMathematics(1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston,VA:NCTM. Ponte,J.P.&Chapman,O.(2006).(2006).Mathematicsteachersknowledgeandpractices. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp.461494). Rotterdam:Sense. Stacey, K, Helme, S., Steinle, Y., Baturo, A., Irwin, K., & Bana, J. (2001) Preservice teachers’ knowledge of difficulties in decimal numeration. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4 (3),205225. Stake,R.E.(1995). The art of case study research. ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children's conceptions: Divisionoffractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 (1),525.

2104 PME31―2007 DEVELOPING AND TESTING A SCALE FOR MEASURING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTIONS CharalambosY.Charalambous UniversityofMichigan The study reported in this paper is an attempt to develop and test a scale for measuring students’ understanding of fractions. In developing the scale, several criteria proposed in previous studies for examining students’ construction of the notion of fractions were employed. A test consisting of 44 tasks related to the five subconstructs of fractions was developed and administered to 351 fifth graders and 321 sixth graders. A two-parameter Item Response Model was used and the scale developed was analyzed for reliability and fit to the data. The analysis of the data revealed that the scale had satisfactory psychometric properties. Hierarchical cluster analysis also suggested that the 44 tasks within the scale could be grouped into three clusters, according to their level of difficulty. The findings of the study are discussed with respect to teaching and learning fractions. INTRODUCTION Inthemid1970sKieren(1976)proposedthattheconceptoffractionsismultifaceted and that it consists of five interrelated subconstructs: partwhole, ratio, operator, quotient and measure. Since then, several researchers have put forth and tested a numberofcriteriaforexaminingstudents’understandingofthedifferentsubconstructs of fractions (e.g., Baturo, 2004; Boulet, 1999; Lamon, 1999; Marshall, 1993; Stafylidou&Vosniadou,2004).Yet,theextenttowhichthosecriteriacanformascale for measuring students’ understanding of fractions remains an open question. The presentpaperaimstoaddressthisresearchgapbydevelopingandtestingsuchascale. The summary of the relevant literature that follows provided guidelines for the developmentofatestassessingstudents’constructionoftheconceptoffractions. Thepartwholesubconstructoffractionsisdefinedasasituationinwhichacontinuous quantityorasetofdiscreteobjectsarepartitionedintopartsofequalsize(Lamon, 1999).Todevelopthepartwholesubconstructoffractions,studentsshouldunderstand thatthepartsintowhichthewholeispartitionedmustbeofequalsize;theyshouldalso beabletopartitionacontinuousareaoradiscretesetintoequalpartsanddiscern whether the whole has been partitioned into equal parts. In addition, they should developtheideaofinclusionorembeddedness(i.e.,thepartsofthenumeratorarealso componentsofthedenominator)andunderstandthatasthenumberofpartsintowhich the whole is divided increases, their size decreases (Boulet, 1999). Finally, a full understandingofthepartwholesubconstructrequiresthatstudentsdevelopunitizing and reunitizing abilities (Baturo, 2004) which allowthemtoreconstructthewhole basedonitspartsandrepartitionalreadyequipartitionedwholes. Theratiosubconstructconsidersfractionsasacomparisonbetweentwoquantities.To graspthenotionoffractionsasratios,studentsneedtoconstructtheideaofrelative amounts (Lamon, 1999). They should also comprehend the covarianceinvariance

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.105112.Seoul:PME. 2105 Charalambous property, according to which the two quantities in the ratio relationship change togethersothattherelationshipbetweenthemremainsinvariant.The“orangejuice task”(Noelting,1980),inwhichchildrenareaskedtospecifywhichmixtureoforange juice makes the juice the most “orangey” has been widely employed to examine whetherstudentshavedevelopedtheseideas. Intheoperatorinterpretationoffractions,rationalnumbersareregardedasfunctions appliedtosomenumber,object,orset(Behretal.,1993;Marshall,1993).Onecould thinkoftheoperatorasanapplicationofthenumeratorofthefractiontothegiven quantity,followedbythedenominatorquantityappliedtothisresult,orviceversa. Alternatively,onecouldconsidertheoperatorasatransformerthatchangesthesize –butnottheshape–ofafigureorchangesthenumberofelementsinasetofdiscrete objects(Lamon,1999).Tomasterthissubconstruct,studentsshouldbeabletoidentify asinglefractiontodescribeacompositemultiplicativeoperation(i.e.,amultiplication and a division), and relate inputs and outputs (e.g., a 3/4 operator results in transforminganinputquantityof4into3)(Behretal.,1993). Accordingtothequotientsubconstruct,fractionsaretheresultofdivision,inwhichthe numeratordefinesthequantitytobesharedandthedenominatordefinesthepartitions ofthequantity.Todevelopanunderstandingofthissubconstruct,studentsneedtobe abletorelatefractionstodivisionandunderstandthe role of thedividend and the divisor in this operation. Mastering the quotient subconstruct also requires that studentsdevelopasoundunderstandingofpartitiveandquotitivedivision(Marshall, 1993). The measure subconstruct conveys the idea that a fraction is a number; this subconstructisalsoassociatedwiththemeasurementofthedistanceofacertainpoint onanumberline(Marshall,1993;Stafylidou&Vosniadou,2004).Severalresearchers have argued that, despite their relative understanding of the aforementioned subconstructsoffractions,manystudentsappearnottofullyunderstandthatfractions areanextensionofthenumbersystem(Amato,2005;Hannula,2003).Hence,Lamon (1999)referstoaqualitativeleapthatstudentsneedtoundertakewhenmovingfrom wholetofractionalnumbers.Arobustunderstandingofthemeasurenotionrequires thatstudentscomprehendthatbetweenanytwofractionsthereisaninfinitenumberof fractions.Theyshouldalsobecapableoflocatingafractionalnumberonanumberline andidentifyafractionalnumberrepresentedbyapointonanumberline(Hannula, 2003). Inthiscontext,thepresentstudysoughtanswerstotworesearchquestions.First,to what extent can the criteria proposed above help develop a scale with good psychometricpropertiestomeasurestudents’understandingoffractions?Andsecond, provided that such a scale can be developed, do tasks that measure different subconstructsoffractionsdifferintheirlevelofdifficultyandtheircontributiontothe developmentofthescale?Answerstothesequestionsareimportantbothforteaching andassessingfractions.

2106 PME31―2007 Charalambous

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST To address the research questions, a test on fractions (available on request) was developedtakingintoconsiderationtheprecedingliteraturereviewandthecurriculum usedinCypruswherethestudywasconducted.Table1presentsthespecificationtable thatguidedtheconstructionofthetestandthetasksemployedtoexaminestudents’ performanceoneachofthefivesubconstructsoffractions. Subconstruct Tasks Part-whole 16,20,2228,39 Ratio 9,10,1315,25,30,31,38 Operator 8,11,12,18,44 Quotient 7,29,40,41,43 Measure 16,17,19,21,3237,42 Table1:Specificationtableofthetestusedinthestudy The first six tasks of the partwhole subconstruct asked students to identify the fractions depicted in discrete or continuous representations. Tasks 22, 27, and 39 examined students’ unitizing and reunitizing abilities (Baturo, 2004), whereas the remaining tasks addressed common misconceptions related to the notion of embeddedness, the requirement that the parts be of equal size and the inverse proportional relationship of the size and the number of parts into which a unit is partitioned(Boulet,1999).Ninetaskswereusedtoexaminethedevelopmentofthe notion of fractions as ratios. Those included expressing the relative size of two quantitiesusingafraction(tasks910),identifyingfractionsasratios(task25)and comparing ratios, based either on quantitative (1315) or qualitative information (3031)(thelatterfivetaskswererelatedtothe “orange juice problem”). Task 38 referredtothewidelycitedproblemofboysandgirlssharingdifferentnumbersof pizzas(Marshall,1993).Thetasksusedtoexaminetheoperatornotionoffractions askedstudentstospecifytheoutputquantityofanoperatormachinegiventheinput quantity and a fraction operator (tasks 1112). The remaining three tasks required studentstodecidethefactorbywhichthenumber9shouldbemultipliedtobecome equalto15(task8),useafractiontodescribeacompositeoperation(task18),and specifythefactorbywhichapicturereducedby3/4shouldbeenlargedtorestoreitto itsoriginalsize(task,44Lamon,1999).Threeofthetasksusedtomeasurethequotient subconstruct(tasks29,40,and41)examinedstudents’abilitytolinkafractiontothe divisionoftwonumbersandidentifytheroleofthe dividend and the divisor; the remaining two tasks of this category were related to the partitive and quotitive interpretation of division (tasks 7 and 43, respectively). Consistent with previous studies(Hannula,2003;Lamon,1999;Stafylidou&Vosniadou,2004),thetasksofthe measure subconstruct examined students’ performance in identifying fractions as numbers(tasks21,and3234)andlocatingthemonnumberlines(tasks1617,and 3537).Task19requiredstudentstofindafractionthatwouldbelocatedbetweentwo given fractions; in task 42 students were required to identify among a number of

PME31―2007 2107 Charalambous fractionstheonethatisclosertothenumberone. ItisalsoimportanttonotethatinCyprusthereisanationalcurriculumusedinall elementaryschools.Likecurriculainothereducationalsettings(Amato,2005;Lamon, 1999),theCypriotcurriculumplacesmoreemphasisonthepartwholeinterpretation offractions.Theremainingsubconstructsaremainlytaughtinfifthandsixthgrades. METHODS Thetasksincludedinthetestswerecontentvalidatedbythreeexperiencedelementary teachersandtwouniversitytutorsofMathematicsEducation.Basedontheircomments, minorrevisionsweremadetothetest.Thefinalversionofthetestwasadministeredto 351fifthgradersand321sixthgraders(316boysand356girls).Toavoidasingletest period of undue length, the test tasks were split into two subtests, which were administered to students over two consecutive schooldays. Students had eighty minutestoworkoneachsubtest.Toexaminewhetherthetasksusedinthetestscould form a scale for measuring students’ understanding of fractions an Item Response Theory(IRT)modelwasfittothedata.InthescalesdevelopedusingIRTmodels,the taskparameters( β :difficultyofthetaskand α :itemdiscrimination)donotdependon the ability distribution of the examinees and the parameter that characterizes the examinees ( θ : ability) does not depend on the set of the test tasks (Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991). The data were analyzed by using BILOGMG (Zimowski,etal.,1996).First,thefittingofthedatatoasingleparametermodelwas comparedtothatofatwoparametermodel.Whereasinasingleparametermodelall taskscontributeequallytothedevelopmentofthescale,atwoparametermodelallows the tasks to differ in their discrimination parameter. Tasks with higher values of discriminationaremoreusefulfordevelopingameasurementscale,sincetheyare betteratseparatingexamineesintodifferentabilitylevels(Embretson&Reise,2000). Finally,hierarchicalclusteranalysiswasusedtoclusterthetasksintodifferentgroups, accordingtotheirlevelofdifficulty. FINDINGS Theanalysisofthedatarevealedthatbothasingleparameterandatwoparameter modelfitthedatawell(reliabilityindices=.88,and.91,fortheoneandtwoparameter models,respectively).However,sincethedifferenceofthe -2loglikelihood indexof the two models was statistically significant (x2=641.35, df=43, p<.001), the twoparameterwaspreferredasabetterfittingmodel.Thismeantthatthetaskshad differentdiscrimination,andtherefore,differentcontributiontothedevelopmentofthe scale. The analysis pursued henceforth was based on a twoparameter model. The psychometricpropertiesofthescaledevelopedbyfittingatwoparametermodelwere

2108 PME31―2007 Charalambous further examinedusing the test information curve and by examining the extent to whichthetaskshaddifferentparametersfordifferentgroupsofstudents(Differential ItemFunctioning,DIF)(Embretson&Reise,2000).Bothcriteriarevealedthatthe scalehadrelativelygoodpsychometricproperties.Inparticular,thescaledescribedthe construct under examination satisfactorily well (i.e., students’ understanding of fractions)withvaluesrangingfrom θ = –3to θ =+3.Moreover,onlyfiveitemshad DIFforstudentsofdifferentgradelevelsordifferentgender. TheestimatesofthetwoparametermodelthatemergedarepresentedinTable2in ascending order, according to the difficulty level of each task. In particular, the estimatesforthedifficultyanddiscriminationofeachtask,alongsidetheirstandard errorvaluesareillustratedinTable2.ThelastcolumnofTable2presentsthegrouping ofthe44tasksofthetestintodifferentclusters,accordingtotheirlevelofdifficulty. Theuseofhierarchicalclusteranalysissuggestedthatthetasksbegroupedintothree levels [i.e., the largest decrease in the value of the distance measure of the Agglomeration schedule occurred from moving from a twocluster (37.63) to a threeclustersolution(17.55)]. Task Construct β SE ( β ) α SE ( α ) Level 23 Partwhole 3.57 0.62 0.36 0.07 1 26 Partwhole 2.82 0.44 0.38 0.06 1 1 Partwhole 2.52 0.32 0.52 0.08 1 6 Partwhole 2.48 0.29 0.63 0.09 1 5 Partwhole 2.35 0.22 1.03 0.16 1 4 Partwhole 2.12 0.16 1.33 0.19 1 25 Ratio 1.73 0.27 0.35 0.05 2 40 Quotient 1.73 0.30 0.30 0.05 2 28 Partwhole 1.63 0.16 0.67 0.08 2 13 Ratio 1.49 0.12 0.8 0.09 2 9 Ratio 1.21 0.24 0.29 0.05 2 15 Ratio 1.09 0.18 0.37 0.05 2 30 Ratio 1.07 0.13 0.56 0.06 2 10 Ratio 1.04 0.21 0.31 0.05 2 14 Ratio 1.00 0.09 0.82 0.08 2 2 Partwhole 0.78 0.09 0.73 0.07 2 11 Operator 0.60 0.07 0.85 0.07 2 41 Quotient 0.59 0.15 0.37 0.05 2 22 Partwhole 0.43 0.09 0.59 0.06 2 16 Measure 0.34 0.05 1.21 0.09 2 3 Partwhole 0.27 0.08 0.62 0.06 2 31 Ratio 0.20 0.11 0.44 0.05 2 43 Quotient 0.19 0.06 0.94 0.08 2 17 Measure 0.14 0.05 1.08 0.09 2 24 Partwhole 0.11 0.17 0.27 0.04 2 12 Operator 0.05 0.06 0.89 0.07 2 29 Quotient 0.03 0.19 0.25 0.04 2 27 Partwhole 0.04 0.07 0.75 0.07 2

PME31―2007 2109 Charalambous

42 Measure 0.09 0.07 0.71 0.06 2 20 Partwhole 0.13 0.06 0.90 0.07 2 39 Partwhole 0.31 0.07 0.87 0.07 2 38 Ratio 0.80 0.08 0.80 0.07 3 35 Measure 0.81 0.07 0.95 0.08 3 36 Measure 1.06 0.06 1.47 0.13 3 37 Measure 1.07 0.05 1.98 0.19 3 34 Measure 1.11 0.16 0.45 0.05 3 32 Measure 1.16 0.16 0.47 0.05 3 33 Measure 1.24 0.18 0.42 0.05 3 7 Quotient 1.35 0.15 0.56 0.06 3 18 Operator 1.48 0.13 0.70 0.07 3 19 Measure 1.67 0.12 0.93 0.09 3 8 Operator 2.06 0.23 0.51 0.06 3 21 Measure 2.87 0.53 0.25 0.05 3 44 Operator 3.19 0.39 0.72 0.12 3 Table2:TwoParametermodelestimatesforstudents’understandingoffractions Three observations mainly arise from Table 1. First, the third column of Table 3 revealsthatthetaskdifficultylevelrangesfromβ =–3.57to β =+3.19.Takinginto considerationthatthestudents’abilitiesalsorangedfrom θ =–3to θ =+3,onecould inferthatthe44tasksofthetestarerelativelywelltargetedagainstthestudents’ability measures,somethingthatprovidesfurthersupporttothepsychologicalpropertiesof thescale. Second,columnstwo,three,andsevensuggestthatthetasksofthefirstlevel(the easiesttasksofthescale)areallrelatedtothepartwhole“personality”offractions. Thesecondlevel(tasksofmediumlevelofdifficulty)consistsofavarietyoftasks associatedmainlywiththeratioandthequotientsubconstructsoffractions.Thetasks examining students’ unitizing and reunitizing abilities, as well as those related to commonmisconceptionsonthepartwholenotionoffractionswerealsoclusteredin the second level. The third level (the most difficult tasks of the scale) is mainly comprisedoftasksexaminingstudents’constructionoftheoperatorandthemeasure subconstructsoffractions.Inparticular,thethirdlevelconsistsofallitemsexamining students’understandingoffractionsasnumbers,aswellastasksrelatedtolocating numbersonnumberlines.Itisalsonotablethatallthreetasksrelatedtodescribinga compositefunctionasafractionordecidingthefactorbywhichanumberorafigure shouldbetransformedtogetaspecificquantityorsizeofagivenshapewererank orderedamongthemostdifficulttasksofthescale. Third,thetasksusedinthetestcontributedunevenlytothedevelopmentofthescale. Given that tasks with higher values can better discriminate students into different abilitylevels,thefifthcolumnofTable2showsthatalltasksrelatedtonumberlines (tasks1617and3537)wereamongthemosthighlydiscriminatingtasks(taskswith valuesclosetoorhigherthan1).Tasks4and5,whichwereassociatedwithidentifying

2110 PME31―2007 Charalambous

afractiondepictedinacontinuousmodel(rectangularandcircular,respectively)also hadhighdiscriminatingvalues.Thetasksonthequotientsubconstructhadthelowest discriminatingvalues. DISCUSSION Thefindingsofthepresentstudysuggestthatthecriteriaproposedinpreviousstudies toexaminestudents’understandingofthemultiplefacetsoffractionscanformabasis fordevelopingascaleformeasuringstudents’constructionofrationalnumbers.The scaledevelopedinthisstudyhadgoodpsychometricproperties,asindicatedbyseveral criteria,aresultthatrendersthescalesuitablebothforteachingandassessingfractions. Therankingofthe44tasksofthetestaccordingtotheirlevelofdifficultyindicatesthat tasks related to recognizing fractions depicted in continuous area or discrete set representationsarefundamentalforconstructingthenotionoffractions.Althoughone mightcounterarguethatthisresultwasduetothefactthatCypriotstudentsareoffered ample opportunities to practice this skill, it is important to recall that the relative difficultyoftasksincludedinscalesdevelopedusingIRTmodelsdoesnotdependon theexaminees’abilitiesand,consequently,ontheirlearningexperiences.Thefactthat tasks4and5hadhighdiscriminatingvalues,aswellasthattasksexaminingstudents’ unitizing and reunitizing abilities and common misconceptions associated with the partwhole interpretation of fractions were ranked in the second level further substantiatetheargumentthatsomenotionsofthepartwholeinterpretationaremore fundamentalfordevelopingtheconceptoffractions.Thishypothesisisalsosupported byarecentstudy(Charalambous&PittaPantazi,inpress)showingthatthepartwhole subconstructoffractionsiscriticalformasteringtheconceptoffractions. Thestudyalsorevealedthatmostoftheitemsrelatedtothemeasuresubconstructwere rankedamongthemostdifficultitemsofthescale.Thisfindinglendsitselftosupport the claim that students need to make a qualitative leap in their number conceptualization to develop a full understanding of fractions (Lamon, 1999; Stafylidou & Vosniadou, 2004). The tasks related to the operator interpretation of fractions were also ranked among the most difficult items. This result could be attributed to the fact that the operator notion is closely related to the idea of functiontransformationwhichisrelativelydifficultforelementaryschoolstudentsto comprehend(Behretal.,1993).Finally,itisimportanttonotethatalltasksassociated withlocatingnumbersonanumberlinewereamongthehighlydiscriminatingitems,a findingthatprovidesfurthersupporttotheargumentregardingthecentralrolethat numberlinesshouldhaveinteachingandassessingfractions(Hannula,2003,p.17). Overall,thepresentstudysuggeststhatinstructionshouldnotunderestimatestudents’ difficultiesinconstructingthemeasureandtheoperatorsubcontractsoffractions.At the same time, it also indicates that capitalizing on the affordances that several representationalmodelsoffer,suchasthenumberline,teachersmightbetterscaffold students’constructionoftheconceptoffractions.Futureresearchconductedinother

PME31―2007 2111 Charalambous educationalsettingscouldprovidefurthersupporttothisargument.Furtherworkis alsoneededincrossvalidatingthescaleconsideredinthepresentstudyanddeveloping moretasksonthequotientsubconstructthatappearstohavethelowestdiscriminating values. REFERENCES Amato, S. A. (2005). Developing students’ understanding of the concept of fractions as numbers.InH.L.Chick&J.L.Vincent(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29 th PME Conference, vol. 2 (pp.4956),Melbourne:UniversityofMelbourne. Baturo, A. R. (2004). Empowering Andrea to help year5 students construct fraction understanding. In M. J. Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28 th PME Conference, vol. 2 (pp.95102),Bergen:BergenUniversity. Behr,M.J., Harel,G., Post,T.& Lesh,R. (1993).Rationalnumbers:Toward asemantic analysisemphasis on the operator construct. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, T. A. Romberg(Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research ,(pp.1347) . NJ:Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. Boulet,G.(1999).Largehalves,smallhalves:Accountingforchildren’sorderingoffractions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21 (3),4866. Charalambous,C.&PittaPantazi,D.(inpress).Drawingonatheoreticalmodeltostudy students’understandingsoffractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics . Embretson,S.E.&Reise,S.P.(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. NJ:Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates. Hambleton,R.K.,Swaminathan,H.,&Rogers,H.J.(1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. California:SAGEPublications. Hannula,M.S.(2003).Locatingfractiononanumberline.InN.A.Pateman,B.J.Dougherty andJ.Zilliox(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of the PME and PMENA, 3 (pp. 1724).Hawaii:CRDG,CollegeofEducation,UniversityofHawaii. Kieren, T. E. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional foundations of rationalnumbers.InR.Lesh(Ed.), Number and measurement: Papers from a research workshop (pp.101144).Columbus,OH:ERIC/SMEAC. Lamon,S.J.(1999). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Marshall, S. P. (1993). Assessment of rational number understanding: A schemabased approach.InT.P.Carpenter,E.Fennema,T.A.Romberg(Eds.),Rational numbers: An integration of research ,(pp.261288) . NewNJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Noelting,G.(1980).ThedevelopmentofproportionalreasoningandtheratioconceptPartI Differentiationofstages. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11 (2),217253. Stafylidou,S.,&Vosniadou,S.(2004).Thedevelopmentofstudents’understandingofthe numericalvalueoffraction. Learning and Instruction , 14 (5),503518. Zimowski, M.F., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R.J., & Bock, R.D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary tasks.Chicago,IL:Scientific Software.

2112 PME31―2007 THE EFFECTIVENESS AND LIMITATION OF READING AND COLORING STRATEGY IN LEARNING GEOMETRY PROOF YingHaoCheng andFouLaiLin ChinaUniversityofTechnology/NationalTaiwanNormalUniversity The reading and coloring (RC) strategy has been verified that it can enhanced incomplete provers’ performance to Taiwan junior high students while they had learnt the multi-steps formal geometry proof. In this study, we transfer the RC strategy into whole class regular teaching and explore its effectiveness and limitation. The results show that the learning effectiveness of RC strategy is better significantly than traditional labelling strategy, it enhance the proof quality distribution of multi-steps geometry proof, and it is less-effective to non-hypothetical bridging students .

INTRODUCTION The learning and teaching of multi-steps geometry proof in Taiwan The learning content concerning geometric shapes and solids in Taiwan is considerablyabundantintheelementaryandjuniorhighschool.Thegeometrylessons mainlyfocusesonfindingtheinvariantpropertiesofkindsofgeometricfiguresand applythesepropertiestosolveorproveproblems.Theformaldeductiveapproachof argumentation is introduced and become the only acceptable way in the second semester of grade 8, after introducing the congruent conditions of two triangles. Althoughthemanipulativeapproachisallowedinfindinggeometryproperties,the wayofverifyingageometrypropertyisbasicallydeductive.Thetaskofgeometry proofinformallessonscanbedividedintotwophases.Inthebeginning,thestudents learnhowtoapply one propertytoshowageometrypropositioniscorrect,thatis,to inferthewantedconclusionbyoneacceptablepropertyunderthegivencondition.We namethisisasinglestepproof.Inthisphase,iftwoormorepropertiesarenecessaryin aproofquestion,thetextbookthendividethewholequestionintostepbystepofsingle prooftask.Thesecondphasestartinthefinalchapterofgeometrylessonsinthefirst semesterofgrade9.Thestudentslearnhowtoconstructaformaldeductiveproofwith 2ormoregeometryproperties.Fromchainingthestepbystepofsingleproofintoa sequenceofprooftoprovinganopenendedquestionwhich2ormorepropertiesare necessary.Thatisthesocalledmultistepsgeometryproofquestion.Itspendabout fiveweeksofregularlessons. TheteachingstyleinTaiwanjuniorhighschoolisbasicallylecturing.Mostofthe teachersteachgeometrylessonsbyexpositiontoabout30studentsinoneclassroom. Andthegeometryprooftaskisbasicallytreatedaswritingthereasonofaproposition byapplyinglearntproperties.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.113120.Seoul:PME. 2113 Cheng & Lin

The Reading and coloring strategy Thereadingandcoloring(RC)strategyisinitiallydevelopedforenhancingincomplete provers’performanceingeometryproof.Theincompleteproversaregrade9students thosewhohadlearntthechapterofformalmultistepsproofandwasabletorecognize somecrucialelementstoprovebutmissedsomedeductiveprocessin2stepsprooftest. TheRCstrategyaskstudentstoreadthequestion,labeloutthemeaningfulterms,and thendrawingorconstructinggivenconditionsandintermediaryconclusionsonthe givenfigurebycolouredpens,wherethecongruentconfigurationsinsamecolour.The RCstrategyismodifiedfromatypicalteachingstrategyusedinTaiwanjuniorhigh geometrylessonswhichnamed‘labelling’.Theteachersusuallyusetheshortsegments, arcsorsignstolabelouttheequalsidesoranglesbetweensubfigures.TheRCstrategy wasdevelopedbasedontwoprinciples:oneisitshouldprovideanoperativetoolto students for highlight necessary information, and the other one is it should keep teachers’regularteachingstyle(Cheng,Y.H.andLin,F.L.,2006). Thefunctionofcolourandvisualtoolformathematical reasoning is supported by manyliteratures.SuchthatByrne(1847)usedcoloureddiagramsandsymbolsinstead ofletterstopresenttheformalgeometryproofin‘Elements’.Heproposedthatthe coloureddiagramsareeasiertounderstandtheformaldeductiveprocessofEuclidean proof.ThefunctionofthiskindofvisualaidswasmentionedinMousavi,Low& Sweller(1995)theyshowedthatasuitablevisualpresentation mayintegrateallthe informationnecessaryinproblemsolvingtask,reducethecognitiveloadandincrease memory capacity. Stylianou & Silver(2004) find out that the difference between expertsandnoviceswhensolvingadvancedmathematicalproblemistheuseofvisual representation.Theexpertsalwaysconstructanelaboratediagramtoincludeallthe literalinformationandthinkingonthisdiagram. Fromourpreviousstudies(Cheng,Y.H.andLin,F.L.,2005,2006),theRCstrategyis an effective strategy to incomplete provers. Cheng and Lin(2005) showed that the colouringtheknowninformationwaseffectiveinahighlyinteractiveinstruction.This studyshowedthattheinterventionofcolouringenhance12/20ofnotacceptableproof in three different unfamiliar 2steps items to be acceptable. Furthermore, the RC strategy enhance 14/14 of notacceptable proof items to be acceptable in the nonvisualdisturbed multisteps questions after about 10 minutes of teacher’s demonstratingand23/24oftheitemsinthedelayposttestareacceptable(Chengand Lin,2006). The aim of the study TheeffectivenessoftheRCstrategywasverifiedinourpreviousstudieswhichfocus on incomplete provers. They are all students who had learnt formal multisteps geometryproof.Andtheseteachingexperimentsareconductedaftertheschoollesson. WecannotconcludethattheRCstrategyisaneffectivelearningandteachingstrategy toallstudentsinregularteaching.Themainpurposeofthisstudyistoexplorethe effectivenessandlimitationoftheRCstrategyinregularTaiwanjuniorhighteaching.

2114 PME31―2007 Cheng & Lin

THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING A MULTI-STEPS PROOF Astandardgeometryproofquestioninjuniorhighgeometrylessonsandtestsisofthe form‘GivenX,showthatY’withafigurewhichthefiguralmeaningofXandYare embedded in (fig(X,Y). When a student face to a proof question, the information includeX,Y,fig(X,Y),andthestatus(Duval,2002)ofX(asthepremise)andY(asthe conclusion).TheproofprocessistoconstructasequenceofargumentationfromXto Ywithsupportivereasons.Thisprocesscanbeseenasatransformationprocessfrom initial information to new information with reasoning operators such as induction, deduction,visualjudgment…(Tabachneck&Simon,1996).Theacceptablereasonin thejuniorhighgeometryprooflessonsisdeductionwithacceptableproperties.So,we may say that to prove is to bridge the given condition to wanted conclusion by acceptablemathematicalproperties. Healy&Hoyles(1998)proposethattheprocessofconstructingavalidproofinvolves severalcentralmentalprocesses:(1)studentsmightsortoutwhatisgivenproperties alreadyknownorbeassumedandwhatistobededuced;(2)studentsmightorganizethe transformation necessary to infer the second set of properties from the first into coherentandcompletesequence.Duval(2002)proposeatwolevelcognitivefeatures ofconstructingproofinamultistepsquestion.Thefirstlevelistoprocessonestepof deductionaccordingtothestatusofpremise,conclusion,andtheoremstobeused.The secondlevelistochangeintermediaryconclusionintopremisesuccessivelyforthe nextstepofdeductionandtoorganizethesedeductivestepsintoaproof. Inasinglestepproofquestion,theprocessisrelativelysimple.Thestudent might retrieveaproperty‘IFPthenQ’whichconditionPcontainthepremiseXandresultQ containedin Y andfinishthe proof. We may say this kind of bridging is simple bridging. Theproofprocessinamultistepsproofquestionismuchmorecomplex.Sincethereis noonepropertycanbeappliedtobridgeXandY.Thestudenthastoconstructan intermediarycondition(IC)firstlyforthenextreasoning.TheICmightbereasoneda stepforwardlyfromX.Itisanintermediaryconclusion(Duval,2002)inferredfromX asanewpremisetobridgeY.Or,itmightbereasonedastepbackwardlyfromY.Itis aintermediarypremisereasonedfromYasthewantedconclusiontobridgeX.So,the firststepinamultistepproofisquitedifferenttothestepinasinglestepproof.The firststepinamultistepproofmaybeagoallessinferringfromXandconcludingmany reasonableintermediaryconclusions.Thenextstepistogoonthebridgingprocessto Ybyselectinganewpremisefromtheintermediary conclusions. Or, it may be a backwardreasoningfromYandfindingmanyreasonableintermediarypremisesand thenextstepistosetupanewconclusionfromtheintermediarypremisesandgoingon thebridgingprocessfromX.Infact,thiskindofreasoningislastingbeforethefinal stepofcompletingaproof.Nomatterthiskindofreasoningisconstructedbyforward orbackwardreasoning,constructingtheintermediaryconditioninamultistepsproof isessentiallyaprocessofconjecturingandselecting/testing.Wemaysaythiskindof reasoningprocessishypotheticalbridging.

PME31―2007 2115 Cheng & Lin

Insummary,constructinganacceptablegeometryproofcanbeseenasabridging processfromgivenconditiontowantedconclusionwithinferringrules.Thenecessary process includes (1) to understand the given information and the status of these information,(2)torecognizethecrucialelementswhichassociatetothenecessary propertiesfordeduction,(3)especiallyinmultistepsproof,toconstructintermediary conditionforthenextstepofdeductionbyhypotheticalbridging,and(4)tocoordinate thewholeprocessandorganizethediscourseintoanacceptablesequence.

STUDY DESIGN Transferring the RC strategy into regular teaching OurpreviousstudiesappliedRCstrategytoenhanceincompleteprovers’performance ingeometryproof.Thistypeofstudentshavelearnttheformalmultistepsgeometry proof and are able to recognize some crucial elements and construct meaningful intermediary condition. And in our experiments, these students are grouped into individualintervieworsmallgrouplearning.Theaboveconditionsarequitedifferent torealclassroomteaching. WedesignthewholeclassteachingwithRCstrategybasedontwoprinciples.Thefirst isitshouldbeeasilytoapplybytheteacher.Sinceitisnoteasyforthemtoapplya completelynewmethodinregularteaching,thestrategyshouldbeeasytofitinto teachers’typicalteachingapproaches(lecturing).TheRCstrategyismodifiedfroma typicalteachingstrategyusedinTaiwanjuniorhighgeometrylessonswhichnamed ‘labelling’:usingtheshortsegments,arcsorsignstolabelouttheequalsidesorangles betweensubfigures.Inthisstudy,weasktheteacherusedifferentcolouredchalkpen to show the process of proving in the RC strategy on the blackboard: drawing or constructing given conditions and intermediary conclusions on the given figure by colouredchalkpens,wherethecongruentconfigurationsinsamecolour. Thesecondprincipleisithastobepracticableusetostudentsinallprovingtask, includingtakingnotes,exercises,homework.Inthisstudy,weprovideeverystudenta 8colorpenandaskthemtouseitinallprooftaskmentionedabove. The samples Aquestionnairewithfouritemsaredevelopedandtestedaspretestin4classesof grade9studentsbeforetheylearnthechapterofformalmultistepsgeometryproof. Twooftheitemsaresinglestepandtwoaremultisteps.Thestudents’performancein theseitemsarecodedintoacceptable,incomplete,improper,intuitiveresponse,andno response five types according to the coding framework developed in the national survey(Lin,Chengandlinflteam,2003).Theaveragescoreofthesefourclassesinthe schooltestsofgeometrylessonsareconsidered.Twoofthesefourclassesareselected, onefortheRCstrategyandtheotherforthetraditionallabellingstrategy,forthisstudy becausetheirperformanceinthepretestandscoreofschooltestsarenotdifferent significantly.

2116 PME31―2007 Cheng & Lin

The mathematics teachers of these two classes are both experienced teachers. We dividethemintotwodifferentteachinggroupsbecausetheteacherofRCclass(T1) acceptsoursuggestionofapplyingtheRCstrategyintoherregularteachingandthe teacheroflabellingclass(T2)refuses. The process In the beginning, we show a demo of the RC strategy by video type and the effectivenessoftheRCstrategyfromourpreviousstudytobothteachers.Wediscuss thefunctionandpossibleprocedureforusingthisstrategyinthefiveweeks,whole classteaching.SincetheteacherT2refusestoapplytheRCstrategyinhisteaching,we thengoonourstudywithonlyteacherT1. Duringthe5weeksofteachingthechapterofformalmultistepsgeometryproof,T1 uses different coloured chalk pen to show the process of proving: she draws or constructs given conditions and intermediary conclusions on the given figure by colouredchalkpensandusesthesamecolourinthecongruentconfigurations.Atthe sametime,sheasksherstudentsimitateherwayinallprovingtask:takingnotes,doing exercisesandhomework.Shechecksstudents’workcarefullyandaskherstudents strictlytousethisstrategy.WeprovideeverystudentinRCclassa8colorpen.The classroomactivitiesarevideotypedandstudents’manuscriptsarephotographed. Justaftertheschooltestofthechapterofformalmultistepsgeometryproof,aposttest isconductedforboththeRCclassandtheLabellingclass.Wecomparetheleaning effectivenessoftheRCstrategyinbothqualitytypeofprooffromtheposttestandthe score from the formal schooltest. The items ofpost test are composed with four multistepsgeometryproofquestions.Theseitemsareusedinourpreviousstudies (Cheng,Y.H.andLin,F.L.,2006).Fig1istheitemusedbothinthepretest(item4) andposttest(item1).Weusethisitemtoexplorewhathappensfromthebeginningto theendoftheteaching.

Fig1.The2stepsitemforcomparison

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The learning effectiveness of RC is better significantly than traditional Labelling Thescoreofschooltestaftertheteachingandtheperformanceintheposttestare showninTable1.Table1showthatthescoreofschool test after the multisteps

PME31―2007 2117 Cheng & Lin lessonsandthequalitydistributionoftheposttestofRCclassissignificantlybetter thanLabellingclass.Thescoreofschooltestissignificantlybetterandthepercentage ofacceptabletypeinallitemsistoo.ThisresultshowsthattheRCstrategycanbe appliedinwholeclassregularteaching.Anditseffectivenessissignificantlybetter thantraditionallabellingstrategyinbothproofqualityandformalschooltest. class RCclass Labellingclass Scoreof Average 49.21 43.73 Schooltests Standarddeviation 24.54 19.50 item 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 performance Noresponse 0.0 39.4 12.1 6.1 18.2 21.2 9.1 9.1 inthe Intuitiveresponse 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.1 3.0 6.1 0.0 Posttest Improper 15.2 15.2 39.4 36.4 9.1 33.3 60.6 39.4 (percentage) Incomplete 12.1 6.1 6.1 15.2 30.3 24.2 15.2 24.2 Acceptable 60.6 39.4 42.4 42.4 30.3 18.2 9.1 27.3

Table1:Theperformanceofthesamplesinthepretest The RC strategy enhance the quality distribution of multi-steps geometry proof AccordingtoLin,F.L.;Cheng,Y.H.&linflteam(2003),thereisaboutonequarterof Taiwanjuniorhighstudents,whiletheyfinishtheformalmultistepsgeometryproof lessons,canconstructacceptableproofinanunfamiliar2stepsquestion.Morethan onethirdofthemdonothaveanyresponse.Andapproximatelyonethirdofthemare incomplete.Weusethisitemofthenationalsurveybothinpretest(item4)andpost test(item1).Comparingthedistributionofqualitytypefromthisstudyandtheresult ofthenationalsurvey(showninTable2),wecanfindout thatthepercentage of incompletetypeintheRCclassissignificantlylessthaninthenationalsurvey.And thereisnomoreperformanceoftypeofnoresponse.ThisresultshowthattheRC strategy may help many of the ‘potential’ incomplete provers to overcome their learning difficulties when learning multisteps geometry proof in the traditional teaching. Furthermore,thereisnomoreperformanceoftypeofnoresponseismeaningful.It shows that the RC strategy may help some ‘potential’ no response students to recognizesomemeaningfulinformationandstarttoprove.Manystudentscannotstart to prove because they can not find out any information associate to a suitable mathematicalproperty.Thecolouredsubfiguremayprovidemoreinformationwhich isimplicitintraditionalteaching. In conclusion, the RC strategy shows the subfigure which associate to a geometry and keeps all information visible and operative. It is helpful to retrieve suitabletheoremforreasoningandalsohelpfultoreducethememoryloadingwhen

2118 PME31―2007 Cheng & Lin organizingseveralstepsintoaproofsequence.Duval(2002)proposedthatretrieving thesuitabletheoremisoneofthekeyprocessesingeometryproofandthisprocessis highlydependonthetheoremmapping.Thisstudyshowsthatthetheoremiseasierto retrievewhenthecorrespondentsubfigureishighlightbycolouring. Intuitive No acceptable Incomplete Improper response response Nationalsample 24.6 35.0 0.3 2.8 37.4 RCclass 60.6 12.1 15.2 12.1 0.0 intheposttest

Table2:ThedistributionofproofqualityinthenationalsurveyandRCclass RC is less-effective to non-hypothetical bridging students Even the results in this study show that the RC strategy is more effective than traditionallabellingstrategyinwholeclassregularteaching,therearenearly40%of studentscannotconstructanacceptableproof.Inordertoinvestigatethelimitationof theRCstrategy,weconductapostanalysis.Werecodethemanuscriptsofthepretest byconsideringtheperformanceof hypothetical bridging .Thehypotheticalbridgingis anecessaryprocesswhenprovingamultistepsgeometryproof.Thisprocessconstruct theintermediarycondition(IC)andmotivatethesecondlevel(Duval,2002)ofproving. Wecategorizestudents’performanceofthetwomultistepsquestionsinthepretestin to three type: (1)hypothetical bridging, it means that the students construct some intermediaryconditionsforthenextstepofreasoning,nomattertheICisusefulornot in that question; (2)simple bridging, it means that the students finish the proof by applying only one mathematical property, and it is of course not correct; (3)no reasoning,suchthatnoresponse,transcribingtheitem.Theperformanceofthesethree typesofstudentsintheposttestisshowninTable3.Table3showsthatallthe acceptableproofcomesfromthestudentswhoareabletoproveamultistepsquestion by hypothetical bridging. There are 19/23 of hypothetical bridging students can constructanacceptableproofandnooneofnonhypotheticalbridgingstudentscandi it.ItisobviouslythattheRCstrategycannothelp the nonhypothetical bridging studentstoenhancetheirproofqualitymore.SincethemainfunctionofRCstrategyis showing the subfigure which associate to a geometry theorem and keeping all information visible and operative, it is more useful in the information processing processthanovercomethecognitivegap.Itmayhelp students to retrieve suitable theoremforreasoningandalsohelpfultoreducethememoryloadingwhenorganizing severalstepsintoaproofsequencebutifthestudentsunderstandingofgeometryproof is only restricted in the first level (Duval, 2002) of proving, that is applying one theoremtobridgethepremiseandconclusion,thenthecolouredfiguremayonlyhelp thestudenttofindoutthefirststep(andonlyonesteptohim/her)toprove.

PME31―2007 2119 Cheng & Lin

Intuitive Improper Incomplete Acceptable response Noreasoning 1 1 Simplebridging 3 4 1 Hypotheticalbridging 1 3 19

Table3:Theperformanceofthreereasoningtypeintheposttest References Byrne,O.(1847): The First Six Books of The Elements of Euclid .WilliamPickering. London. Cheng,Y.H.&Lin,F.L(2005)Onemoresteptowardacceptableproofingeometry. SymposiumProposalEARLI2005,Cyprus. Cheng,Y.H.&Lin,F.L(2006)UsingReadingandcoloringtoenhanceincomplete prover’sperformanceingeometryproof.ResearchReportinPME30.Pague. Duval, R. (2002). Proof understanding in MATHEMATICS: What ways for STUDENTS? Proceedings of 2002 International Conference on Mathematics: UnderstandingProvingandProvingtoUnderstand,pp.6177. Healy,L.&Hoyles,C.(1998): Justifying and proving in school mathematics .Summary oftheresultsfromasurveyoftheproofconceptionsofstudentsintheUK.Research ReportMathematicalSciences,InstituteofEducation,UniversityofLondon. Lin,F.L.;Cheng,Y.H.&linflteam(2003) :The Competence of Geometric Argument in Taiwan Adolescents. International Conference on Science & Mathematics Learning.2003.12.1618 。 Lin, F. L. (2005) : Modeling Students’ Learning on and Refutation. PME29plenaryspeech. Mousavi,S.Y.,Low,R.&Sweller,J.(1995): Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes .JournalofEducationalPsychology.Vol. 87,No.2,319334. Stylianou, D. A. & Silver, E. A.(2004): The Role of Visual Representations in Advanced Mathematical Problem Solving: An Examination of Expert-Novice Similarities and Differences .MathematicalThinkingandLearning,6(4),353387. Tabachneck,H.&Simon,H.A.(1996).Alternativerepresentationsofinstructional material . InD.Peterson(ed.), Forms of representation. UK:IntellectBooksLtd.

2120 PME31―2007 GRADE 5/6 TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ALGEBRA IN THE PRIMARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM HelenL.Chick andKiriHarris UniversityofMelbourne Although there has been a recent push towards having an active “early algebra” curriculum in primary school mathematics classrooms, many curricula still leave formal consideration of algebra until secondary school. Nevertheless, there are many aspects of mathematics in the primary school that prepare students for later algebra study. This research used a questionnaire and interview with 14 Grade 5 and 6 teachers to determine their views and knowledge about algebraic aspects of the primary curriculum. As a group, the teachers had only a limited sense of how the mathematical activities they utilise in the classroom build a foundation for later work in algebra. Furthermore, although they were generally good at recognising the correctness of students’ solutions, they did not seem to engage deeply in the students’ reasoning, and varied in the views of the value to be placed on some responses.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Thepastdecadeorsohasseenanincreasedinterestintheplaceofalgebraicactivities intheprimary(elementary)school.Thisispartlybecauseoftheimportancetoalgebra ofgeneralisablestructuralarithmeticalunderstanding(e.g.,thedistributivelaw,the quasivariablesofFujii&Stephens,2001),togetherwiththeresultsofstudies(e.g., Blanton&Kaput,2004;Warren,2005)suggestingthat“youngchildrencandomore thanweexpectedbefore”(Lins&Kaput,2004,p.64). Bednarz,KieranandLee(1996)highlightthatthreeofthebasicingredientsofschool algebra are the generalisation of patterns (such as number patterns or geometric patterns),thegeneralisationofnumericallaws,andfunctionalsituations.Kieran(1996, 2004)groupsthesetogetherundertheheading generational activities ,becauseeach involvestheproductionofsomeobjectofalgebra:anequationrelatingquantities,a descriptionorrelationcapturingthegeneralityofapattern,orarulethatdescribes somegeneralnumericalbehaviour(seeKieran,2004,pp.2224).Shepointsoutthat whiletherehasbeenafocusondevelopingfacilitywithmanipulation(somethingthat mostadultsrecognisefromtheirownsecondaryschoolalgebraexperiences,andwhich many might characterise as being algebra), she also emphasises the need for a conceptual understanding of the objects of algebra, and suggests that “noticing structure,justifyingandprovinghavebeensorelyneglectedinschoolalgebra”(p.31). More recently, she has stressed the importance to “early algebra” of analysing relationships, generalising, noticing structure, andpredicting,as these are ways of thinking that are foundational for conventional “lettersymbolic algebra” (Kieran, 2006,p.27).

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.121128.Seoul:PME. 2121 Chick & Harris

Oneclassofgenerationalactivitysometimesconductedwithprimaryschoolstudents involvespatternrecognition,oftenbasedonavisualdesignthat“grows”iterativelyin a sequence. Blanton and Kaput (2004) looked at very young children’s ability to describefunctionalrelationshipsandfoundevidenceforcovariationalreasoning,or keepingtrackofhowonevariablechangeswithrespecttoanother.Warren(2005) foundthatGrade4childrenarecapableofthinkingfunctionally,andcandescribe—at leastinvisualterms—howapatternisgenerated.Notsurprisingly,describingadesign accordingtoitspositioninthesequenceisharderthandescribingtheprogressionfrom one design to the next. Rossi Becker and Rivera (2006) found similar results with Grade6children,andexaminedhowfigurativereasoningusuallyresultsingreater successthanreasoningwithnumericalquantitiesalone. InAustralia,wherethepreparationofprimaryteachers through university courses usuallyinvolvesthecontentandpedagogyoftheprimaryschoolandlittleformalstudy ofsecondarymathematics,mostprimaryteachershavelittleexpertiseinalgebraapart fromthatencounteredintheirownsecondaryschooling.Withthisinmind,andwith thebeliefthatprimaryschoolstudentsshouldbeengagedinactivitiesthatprepare themforalgebraicthinking(inallthesensesidentifiedbyKieran),wewillexamine,to asmalldegree,thealgebraicbeliefsandknowledgeofprimaryschoolteachers.The present research looks at two questions: first, what aspects of primary school mathematics do teachers think serve as preparation for high school algebra; and, second,whatfeaturesdotheyfocusoninstudents’responsestoapatternrecognition question?

METHOD This investigation was part of a larger study investigating the pedagogical content knowledgeofGrade5and6teachersinanAustralianstate.The14participantswere volunteers,whoseteachingexperiencerangedfrom2to22years.Thestudyinvolveda questionnaire,interviews,andtheobservationandvideotapingofafewlessons.The dataconsideredherecamefromthequestionnaireandfollowupinterviewconducted at the beginning of the study. The 17item questionnaire covered a range of mathematicalcontentandpedagogicalissues.Teachersrespondedtothequestionnaire in their own time, with no restriction on accessing resources, and the followup interview allowed the researchers to probe for elaboration and clarification. The interviewquestionsthusvariedfromteachertoteacher,dependingontheirwritten questionnaireresponsesandthetimeavailablefortheinterview. Two questions from the questionnaire are the focus of this investigation. The first askedteachers“Whataspectsoftheprimaryschoolmathematicscurriculumdoyou thinkpreparesstudentsforAlgebrainsecondaryschool?”Theseconditem,shownin Figure 1, immediately followed the first and provided teachers with an algebraic patterningitem,togetherwithsamplecorrectandincorrectstudentresponses.They wereaskedtoindicatehowtheymightrespondtothestudents,andtodiscusstherole ofsuchitemsintheprimaryschool.

2122 PME31―2007 Chick & Harris

Datafromboththewrittenquestionnaireresponsesandtheteachers’interviewshave beencombined,andarenotdistinguishedexceptwherechangesinresponseoccurred. The first question and the last part of the second provide information about the teachers’understandingofalgebra’splaceinthecurriculum.Responsestothefirstpart ofthepatterningquestionprovideinsightsintotheteachers’understandingofalgebra itself,andhowtheyrecogniseandaddresstheirstudents’understanding.

Yourstudentsaredoingthefollowingexerciseonpatterns: Usethematchstickshapestoassistyoutocompleteandextendthegrid,thenfindarulethat willmatchthegrid. NumberofTriangles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NumberofMatchsticks 3 5 Herearesomeexamplesofrulesthatstudentshaveproduced: StudentA: (numberofmatches)=(numberoftriangles) ×2+1 StudentB: (numberofmatches)=(numberoftriangles) ×3+1(numberoftriangles) StudentC: (numberofmatches)=(numberoftriangles) ×3(numberoftriangles1) StudentD: (numberofmatches)=(numberoftriangles)+2 StudentE: Addtwomoreeachtime Whatwouldbeyourresponsetoeachofthesestudents? Whydoyouthinkthesekindsofpatternactivitiesareincludedintheprimaryschool mathematicscurriculum?

Figure1:Patterningitemaspresentedonthequestionnaire.

RESULTS The primary school curriculum as a preparation for secondary school algebra The aspectsof the primary school curriculum that prepare students for algebra in secondaryschoolthatwerementionedbytheteachersareshowninTable1,together withthenumberofteachersmentioningeachone.Insomecasesitisnotclearwhat teachersmeantbycertainsuggestions,andtheinterviewdidnotpursuethisduetotime constraintsorafocusonotheritems.Itisconceivablethatteachersmayhavemeant “patterningactivities”by“problemsolving”,sincethatkindofactivityoftenarises undertheguiseofproblemsolving,althoughthreeteachersspecifically mentioned both.“Magicsquares”arepossiblyaparticularkindofmissingnumberactivity,in whichstudentsdeterminethenumbersthatbelongintheemptyspacesofamagic squarehavingconstantrowandcolumntotals.

PME31―2007 2123 Chick & Harris

Topicarea Numberof teachers Missingnumber/emptybox/clozeproblems 7 Patterns(generationalactivities) 6 Orderofoperations/propertiesofoperations 6 Problemsolving(e.g.,withtables/lists) 5 Realisingletterscanstandforanumber 5 Substitutingintoaformula(e.g.,A=LxW) 3 Ratioproblems;Understandingofequalssign;Magicsquares 2 “Numbersense”;Negativenumbers;Findingcommondenominators; 1 Multiplicationanddivision*;Unitsforareaandvolume*;Congruent shapes*;Formulatingrules

Table1:Numberofteachersindicatingdifferentprimaryschooltopicsas preparatoryforsecondaryschoolalgebra.[Inresponsesmarkedwitha* itisnotclearwhatalgebraicaspectmighthavebeenmeant.] Manyofthetopicsmentionedwerewhatmightbeexpected,althoughascanbeseen notopicwasmentionedbymorethanhalfoftheteachers.Themostcommonresponse was “missing number” problems, an activity with an “unknown” symbol. Such problems resemble the “solve” symbolic manipulation tasks that many regard as typicalofhighschoolalgebra,despitethefactthatsuchproblemsareoftensolvedby arithmetic approaches rather than algebraic ones (see Filloy & Rojano, 1989). Teachers also mentioned pattern generation activities and order of operations as important, with two teachers, who may have experienced similar professional developmentinprealgebraideas,makingspecificmentionofthedistributivelaw. Allbutthreeoftheteachersmentionedtwoormoretopics,althoughonlyfourcould listfiveormore.Oneoftheteachersmadenosuggestions,writing“Ihonestlydon’t knowasIdidn’treallydosecondaryschoolmathsandneverhadanysuccessatmaths insecondaryschool”.Anotheroftheteacherswithalimitedresponseindicatedthat shefeltthecurriculumintroducesalgebrainsecondaryschoolandsoverylittleisdone atprimaryschoollevel.Inherinterview,however,sheexpandedontheimportanceof functions and number patterns as a transition to secondary schooling. She also commented about a question we had included on a student quiz, which involved generalisingapatterninordertopredictthe100 th term.Shesaid“ProbablyIwouldn’t gotowhat’sahundredofthat.Imightgotofiveorsomething,sotheycanworkitout, but not necessarily that generating patterns, which I think is something I’d like to explore.” This suggests she may have a limited awareness that asking for bignumberedtermscanforcestudentstogeneraliseproperly,ratherthanjustiterating throughthefirstfewterms.

2124 PME31―2007 Chick & Harris

Responsestothesecondpartofthepatterningquestionprovidedfurtherinsightinto teachers’perceptionsofthepurposeofthiskindofactivity.Nineofthe14teachers explicitlystatedthatsuchactivitiesleadtoalgebra,withoneofthesesuggestingthatit canhelpwiththeintroductionofsymbols.Twooftheseninealsoemphasisedaffective issues,indicatingthatifstudentsencountersuchactivitiesinprimaryschooltheywill notbeas“fearful”aboutalgebrainhighschool.Nineoftheteachers(sixofwhomhad mentioned algebra) viewed pattern recognition and description as important for mathematicsorreallifeingeneral,listingoneormoreofgenerating,creating,seeing, ordevelopingrulesforpatternsassignificantskillsforstudents.Sixoftheteachers also emphasised the thinking skills that such activities develop, with another three mentioningthattheactivitycandevelopproblemsolvingskills. Although the teachers were not asked about the extent to which they conducted patterningactivitiesintheirownclassrooms,mostoftheteachers’commentsimplied orexplicitlystatedthattheyusedsuchtasks.OneoftheGrade5teachers,however, saidthatalthoughshehadseenthiskindofquestionshehadnotusedthem.Some teachers also commented on their students’ engagement and facility with these activities.Onewrote“Idon’tthinkitisaparticularlyeasyconcepttodevelopand childrenneedtime to ‘play’ withideas and understandings”.Threeoftheteachers madespecificreferencetohigherabilitychildren,withonesaying BecauseIthinkthatthat’swhatmakesthebrainykids.That’swhatmakesthekidswhoare verygoodatmaths,Ibelievethatthey’reactuallyfantasticallyfastatpickingupthepattern, usingpatternsthey’veusedpreviously,andapplyingthem. Algebraic understanding evident in responses to the patterning item We now examine the understanding of algebra and student reasoning evident in teachers’responsestothefirstpartofthepatterning item. From the questionnaire results,eightoftheteacherscorrectlyrecognisedtheerroneousresponsefromStudent D,withafurtherthreerealisingtheerrorintheinterview,inonecasepromptedbythe interviewer. Two of the teachers did not comment on correctness, and the final teacher—whohadnotlistedanyprealgebraicaspectsofprimaryschoolmathematics inresponsetothefirstquestion—indicatedthathethought“allofthesestudentsare correctintheirownway”.HesaidthathelikedD,butaddedthat“withallofthemthey needtoexplainthemtome”. Theteacherwhohadcommentedaboutstudentsneedingtimetodevelopfacilitywith patternactivitieswasoneoftheveryfewwhogaveadetaileddescriptionofhowshe wouldrespondtothestudents,whichshedidinsuchawaythatsheclearlyrevealed howwellsheunderstoodtheirreasoning.Herresponseswerewrittenasifshewas talkingtothestudentconcerned: A: Yes,thisformulaappearstowork.Welldone!Howdidyoucomeupwithit? B: Yes,thisformuladoeswork.Isthereaneasierwayofwritingit?Ifyouaremultiplying by3andthenlatersubtractingthenumberoftriangles,isn’titthesameassaying (numberoftriangles)x2+1?

PME31―2007 2125 Chick & Harris

C: Yes,thisformuladoeswork.Therearequiteafewstepstoit.Isthereaneasierwayof writingit? D: Whilethisformula worksforthefirsttriangleitdoesnotworkfortherestofthe pattern.Let’stestitout.Ithinkyouhavecreatedthisformulabecauseaddinganew triangletothepatternrequirestwomorematchsticks.So,intheoryitsoundslikeit shouldwork.Howcouldweusemultiplicationinourformula? E: Yes,thatwillworkifyouknowwhattheprecedingnumberis.However,whatifwe wanttoworkouthowmanymatchsticksareusedtomake23triangles?Ithinkweneed tofindaquickerformulathatdoesnotmeanwehavetoworkoutthepreceding22 triangles. Onlyoneotherteacherreallyindicatedanunderstandingofthethinkingthatmight haveledtoStudentD’sresponse.Nobodyelseshowedseriousengagementwiththe detailsorpossiblederivationsoftheformulaeproduced by the students—with the exception of E—despite most stating that A, B, C and E work. Presumably they checkedtheoutputsoftheformulaeagainsttheirowndata.Alloftheteachersgave someindicationofwhichresponsestheythoughtwere“better”thanothers,although theyvariedinwhattheymeantby“better”.Nineofthemcommentedaboutresponses BandCbeing“complicated”or“lessefficient”incomparisontoA,andexpresseda hopethatstudents—oratleasttheirmoreablestudents—wouldbe ableto find an “easierway”.Oneofthem,however,actuallyratedBandCmorehighly because of thecomplexity.Onlyoneteachersaidthatshevaluedhavingmultiplesolutionsand that“youneedtobeabletoseethatthey’reallvalid, logical paths”. Shedid not, however,suggestthatexploringthe equivalence ofsuchsolutionsmightbesignificant (seealsoAPPAGroup,2004). SixoftheteacherscommentedthattheylikedthefactthatStudentD,thoughincorrect, hadtriedtoexpressaruleinarelationalway,withsomeofthemevenpreferringthisto Student E’s correct, but nonequational, response. In fact, reactions to Student E’s solutionwerepolarised,withsomeregardingitasgoodandothersaspoor.Theeight teacherswhoseemedtoregarditnegativelycommentedthatitwas“toosimplistic”, that the student “can identify a pattern, but they’re not necessarily patterns within relationships[…],theyneedtorelateittothenumberoftriangles”,orthatthestudent “hasn’ttakentimetofindarulethatismoredetailed”.Oneoftheteacherssuggested thatStudentEwouldstrugglewithmoredifficultproblems,althoughhehas“gotthe basics”.Incontrast,otherteachersfeltitwasgoodthatEhadspottedthepatternso quickly,andthatitwas“niceandsimple”.Infact,atleastoneoftheteachersactually seemedtostruggleherselfwiththecovariationalideasexpressedinresponsesA,Band C,aneappearedmuchmorecomfortablewithStudentE’ssolution.Onlyfourofthe teachersactuallyexplainedthelimitationsofStudentE’sresponseintermsofthe relationshipbeinggiveniteratively.Theypointedoutthatyoucannotworkoutthe answerforagivennumberoftriangleswithoutknowingtheprecedingterm.

2126 PME31―2007 Chick & Harris

Finally,inlightoftheworkofRossiBeckerandRivera(2006),wenotethatnoneof the teachers’ comments suggested an appreciation of the fact that a formula or descriptionofarelationshipusuallydependsonthewaythepatternisperceived.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Beforediscussingtheresults,wemustnotethereweremanyotherquestionsonthe questionnaireandinterview,andthattheseitemswerelateinthequestionnaire.This mayhaveaffectedthequalityoftheteachers’responses.Furthermore,theitemsand questionsdidnotspecificallytargetsomeoftheaspectswehavediscussed,suchasthe effectofperceptiononpatterndescription.Theresultsshouldbeviewedwiththese limitationsinmind,althoughwecanstilldrawsomeimportantconclusions. Amongtheseteachers,atleast,thereissomeawarenessofthekindsofalgebraicideas thatcanbefosteredintheprimaryschool.Unfortunatelyalthoughallbutonecould contribute at least one reasonably strong prealgebraic concept (missing number problems,patternswork,orderofoperations,importanceoftheequalssign,realising letterscanstandforanumber,orformulasubstitution),onlysixcouldlistthree,and thefactthatnomorethanhalfofthemlistedanyoneofthetopicsisalsoofconcern. Theonlytimeteachersexplained how agivenaspectcontributedtoalgebralearning wasinthefairlyobviouscaseofthemissingnumberproblems. Forsometeachers,thislimitedperspectivemaybeduetotheirowneducationalhistory, asevidentintheexplanationfromtheteacherwhocouldnotlistanycontentareas.One oftheolderteachers,whoexplainedthathermathematicsteachinghadundergonea transformationaspartofprofessionaldevelopmentshehadundertaken,explainedthat asfarasthepatterningitemwasconcernedthat“I’venothadalotofexperiencewith thatsortofthing,butIthinkit’ssomethingthatwereallyneedtogetthekidsdoing… Ididn’tgetthatsortofthingwhenIwasatschool”. There are positives and negatives to note in the teachers’ engagement with the patterningitem,too.Mostwereabletorecognisethecorrectnessorotherwiseofthe students’responses,andcouldofferreasonsfortheirjudgementsofwhichresponses werebetter.Whatwasmissing,though,wasadeepengagementinthemathematical and algebraic underpinnings of the activity. Again, this may be a consequence of educationalbackground,andtheexperienceandtrainingtheteachersmayhavehad(or, morelikely,may not havehad)inconductingthiskindoftask. Given the power of pattern recognition and similar generational activities for developingfacilitywithalgebraicconcepts—whethernoticingstructure,generalising, developing functional reasoning, using symbols, or even manipulating symbols—it seemsthatmoreneedstobedonetohelpteachersunderstandwhatthekeyaspectsare and how they contribute to the understanding that needs to be developed in the secondaryschool.Itisalsoevidentthatteachersmayneedmoreguidancetohelpthem usegenerationalactivitiesinaneffectivewayintheclassroom.Thiswouldallowthem tomakebetterjudgementsaboutthecorrectness,derivation,value,andproblematic

PME31―2007 2127 Chick & Harris aspectsofdifferentapproachesthatstudentsmighttake,andprovidebetterassistance tostudentsastheyengagewiththetask. Acknowledgements This research was supported by Australian Research Council grant DP0344229. MonicaBakerconductedtheinterviews,usuallywiththefirstauthor,andprovided inputintothedesignofthequestions. References APPAGroup.(2004).Atoolkitforanalysingapproachestoalgebra.InK.Stacey,H.Chick, &M.Kendal(Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp.7396).Boston, MA:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Bednarz,N.,Kieran,C.,&Lee,L.(Eds.)(1996). Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching .Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Blanton,M.L.,&Kaput,J.(2004).Elementarystudents’capacityforfunctionalthinking.In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proc. 28 th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.2,pp.135142).Bergen,Norway:PME. Filloy,E.,&Rojano,T,(1989).Solvingequations:Thetransitionfromarithmetictoalgebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9 (2),1925. Fujii, T., & Stephens, M. (2001). Fostering an understanding of algebraic generalisation through numerical expressions: The role of quasivariables. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent,&J.Vincent(Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (Proc.12 th ICMIStudyConference,pp.258264).Melbourne:TheUniversityofMelbourne Kieran,C.(1996).Thechangingfaceofschoolalgebra.InC.Alsina,J.Alvarez,B.Hodgson, C.Laborde,&A.Pérez(Eds.), Eighth International Congress on Mathematics Education: Selected lectures (pp.271290).Sevilla,Spain:SAEMThales. Kieran,C.(2004).Thecoreofalgebra:Reflectionsonitsmainactivities.InK.Stacey,H. Chick,&M.Kendal(Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp.2133). Boston,MA:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Kieran,C.(2006).Researchonthelearningandteachingofalgebra.InA.Gutiérrez&P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 1149).Rotterdam,TheNetherlands:SensePublishers. Lins,R.,&Kaput,J.(2004).Theearlydevelopmentofalgebraicreasoning:Thecurrentstate ofthefield.InK.Stacey,H.Chick,&M.Kendal(Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp.4770).Boston,MA:KluwerAcademicPublishers. RossiBecker,J.,&Rivera,F.(2006).Establishingandjustifyingalgebraicgeneralisationat thesixthgradelevel.InJ.Novotná,H.Moraová,M.Krátká,&N.Stehlíková(Eds.), Proc. 30 th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4,pp. 465472).Prague:PME. Warren,E.(2005).Youngchildren’sabilitytogeneralisethepatternruleforgrowingpatterns . InH.L.Chick&J.L.Vincent(Eds.) Proc. 29 th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.4,pp.305312).Melbourne:PME.

2128 PME31―2007

THE INFLUENCE OF INQUIRY-BASED MATHEMATICS TEACHING ON 11th GRADE HIGH ACHIEVERS: FOCUSING ON METACOGNITION ErhTsungChin,YungChiLin ,ChihWeiChuang,&HsiaoLinTuan GraduateInstituteofScienceEducation NationalChanghuaUniversityofEducation TAIWAN,R.O.C.

This study investigates the influence of inquiry-based mathematics teaching on high achievers’ metacognitive abilities. The research subjects were 28 eleventh graders high performance in learning mathematics. A mixed methodology combing qualitative and quantitative approaches was used to investigate students’ metacognition in an inquiry-based classroom environment. The main research instrument for collecting quantitative data was the Metacognition Inventory questionnaire which was conducted before and after the inquiry-based lessons. The qualitative data, such as interviews with students, videotaped classroom teaching, students’ work sheets and feedback sheets, and teacher’s journals, were also collected and analysed. Results indicated that there was weak but no significant correlation between student’s mathematics achievement and their metacognition. Besides, students could develop significantly better metacognitive capacities after receiving the three-month inquiry-based mathematics teaching. Moreover, we also discussed how inquiry cycle is related to metacognitive components. INTRODUCTION Howteacherscanhelpstudentsparticipateintheprocessofknowledgeconstruction hasbeenacentralissueinthedebateonmathematicseducation(e.g.,BenChaim,Fey, Fitzgerald, Benedetto & Miller, 1998; Inagaki, Hatano & Morita, 1998; Lampert, 1990).Withinthecontributiontothisdebate,educatorsandresearchersareconvinced thatstudentsneedtohaveampleopportunitiestoprogressfromconcretetoabstract ideas,rethinktheirhypothesesandadaptandretrytheirinvestigationsandproblem solvingefforts(Hinrichsen&Jarrett,1999).Teachersoughttoprovidecertainkindsof experiencesinwhichstudentsareabletoworkasyoungmathematiciansorresearchers. Inshort,studentsshoulddeveloptheirmathematicalknowledgethroughinquirybased teaching.Theinquiryteachingmethodologyisbuiltonthe Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000) and the report of Project 2061 ’sbenchmarks(AmericanAssociationforthe Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993). They both assert that inquiry as a highquality teaching to engage students in the processes of learning and creating mathematicsandalsorecommendthatstudentsshouldhavetheampleopportunitiesto utilise inquiry cycle in carrying out their own mathematical investigations when learningmathematics.Theessentialtraitsofinquirythatcanbegeneratedfromsome reports (e.g. AAAS, 1993; Hinrichsen & Jarrett, 1999) are concluded as follows:

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.129136.Seoul:PME. 2129 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan connecting former knowledge and experiences with the problem as learners have, designing procedures (plans) to find an answer to the problem, investigating phenomena through conjecture, constructing meaning through use of logic and evidenceandreflection. Metacognition takes on importance in mathematical classroom because research evidence has shown that enhancing students’ metacognition could lead to correspondingimprovementsinlearningoutcomes(e.g.,Baird&Northfield,1992). Theconceptof“metacognition”isdefinedasone’sknowledgeconcerningone’sown cognitive processes and awareness of a mathematical problem that involves the processofplanning,monitoringandevaluationofaspecificproblemsolution(Flavell, 1976, 1992). Following Flavell’s studies, researchers investigated many aspects of metacognitioninmathematicseducation,suchasSchoenfeld’swork(1987,1992)on comprehensive analysis of metacognitive processes in problem solving, which put more emphasis on mathematical thinking and problem solving processes. Recent studies appeared some major common elements which can characterise good instructionsthatenhancestudents’metacognition(e.g.Kramarski,Mevarech&Arami, 2002; Mevarech & Fridkin, 2006). These instructions should focus on: (a) comprehendingtheproblem;(b)constructingconnectionsbetweenpreviousandnew knowledge; (c) considering strategies appropriate for solving the problem; (d) reflectingontheprocessesandsolution.Bymeansofanalysingtheessentialtraitsof inquiry compared with these suggested instruction focuses, it seems reasonable to hypothesisethatinquirybasedteachingmaypromotestudents’metacognition. Aswementionedabove,researchhasprovenhighmetacognitioncouldproducehigh achievement. However, Alexander, Carr and Schwaneflugel’s (1995) indicate that researchdoesnotsupporttheviewpointthathighachievershavevastlybetterormore advancedmetacognitiveabilitiesinallareasofmetacognition,butitappearsthathigh andlowachievementchildrenareequallycapableofusingsomemetacognition.The result of International Assessment of Educational Progress [IAEP], a largescale international achievement survey, reveals that Taiwanese students were with high performanceinmathematicsbutweaknessinhigherorderthinkingskills.Themain reasonmightbemostschoolsinTaiwantendtoremainaconservativepedagogywith behaviourist paradigms to teach mathematics. Therefore, this study is designed to explore how the inquirybased mathematics teaching influences on high achievers’ metacognitiondeveloping. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Inquiry-based mathematics teaching Theinquirybasedteachingcouldbesupportedbytheuseofinquirycycle(Siegel, Borasi & Fonzi, 1998). Lawson, Abraham, and Renner (1989) proposed an EIE (Exploration, Invention, and Expansion) inquiry cycle which has long term been consideredwithininquiryteachingandmodifiedorrefinedintovariousframeworks. InExplorationphase,itshouldprovidestudentswiththeopportunitytobringoutprior

2130PME31―2007 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan knowledge, explore a range of phenomena for themselves, and experience a confrontationtotheirownwayofthinking.InInventionphase,itshouldhelpstudents organisetheirinformationfromtheExplorationphase. Besides, the teacher should considerhowtheideaorskillismodelledordemonstrated.InExpansionphase,the goalistohelpstudentsfinishrestructuringoldbeliefs,oldknowledgestructuresandit isalsoimportanttohelpstudentsapplyandtransferthenewideatonewsituations. Althoughtherearesomelaterframeworksofinquirycycleusingdifferenttermsto elaboratetheirstructures,thebasictheoreticalbackingsstillseemtofitunderthecore ideas of the EIE model. Therefore, for simplifying and effectively applying the inquirycycle,wedonotconsiderthelaterframeworksbutadoptEIEmodelasthe mainapproachtoaddressourinquirybasedteaching. Metacognition Flavell (1979) defines metacognition as “thinking about thinking”, and elaborates metacognitionas(i)awarenessofhowonelearns;(ii)awarenessofwhenonedoesand doesnotunderstand;(iii)knowledgeofhowtouseavailableinformationtoachievea goal;abilitytojudgethecognitivedemandsofaparticulartask;(iv)knowledgeof what strategies to use for what purposes. He also distinguishes between two componentsofmetacognition:(a)knowledgeofcognitiveprocessesandproducts;and (b)abilitytocontrol,monitor,andevaluatecognitiveprocesses.Flavellarguesthat knowledge of cognition depends on the following interrelated components: metacognitiveknowledgeaboutself,thetaskandstrategies;knowledgeabouthowto usethestrategies;andmetacognitiveexperience.Thelaterreferstoone’sfeelingabout beingsuccessful(orunsuccessful)inperformingthetask.Accordingtothismodel,the metacognitiveknowledgeleadstostrategyusewhichinturnsaffectsthemetacognitive experience that affects the acquisition of metacognitive knowledge and so on. Corresponding to Flavell’s focusing on metacognitive knowledge, Brown (1987) outlinesmetacognitionas(i)anawarenessofone’sowncognitiveactivity;(ii)the methodsemployedtoregulateone’sowncognitiveprocessand(iii)acommandof how one directs, plans and monitors cognitive activity. Stating differently, metacognitionismadeupofactivechecking,planning,monitoring,testing,revising, evaluating,andthinkingaboutone’scognitiveperformance. METHODOLOGY Subjects Theresearchsubjectsofthisstudyweretwentyeight11thgraders(allgirls)whowere selectedfromthewholegradewiththebestperformanceinmathematicsinafamous girl’s senior high school in Taiwan. These students were graded within 93% in mathematicsinthenationalhighschoolentranceexamination. Data collection Forthequantitativedata,wecollectedstudents’averagemathematicsscoresinlast academicyear(10thgrade)andstudent’sperformanceonMetacognitionInventory

PME31―2007 2131 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan questionnaire [MI] (adopted from Chang, 1994) which was administered at the beginning (pretest) and end (posttest) of the three month inquirybased teaching practice.Theinstrument,MIwasdesignedtoassessstudent’smetacongitionwithsix subscales:(i)SelectiveAttention(SA):decidingtoattendtospecificaspectsofinput; (ii)Organising(O):theactofrearrangingtheinformationwhichonegetsfromSA;(iii) Strategising(S):planingorusingappropriatestrategiesinsolvingtheproblem;(iv) SelfTesting (ST): assessing how much one understands by selfquestioning; (v) SelfMonitoring(SM):theactivitiesthatmoderatethecurrentprogressoflearning;(vi) SelfCorrection (SC): correcting errors and implementing remedial or changing strategies. TheMIcomprised48itemsdistributedacrossthesixsubscales(8itemsper subscale)ona4pointLikertscalereflectingstudent’smetacognitivebehavioursas “1” means strongly disagree, whilst “4” means strongly agree. Furthermore, this questionnairewaspilotedwith138alternativehighachieversfromthesameschool andobtainedacceptableCronbach’sαcoefficientsasfollows:SA,0.665;O,0.797;S, 0.736;ST,0.723;SM,0.732;SC,0.771;totalscale,0.927. Ontheotherhand,forthequalitativedata,wecollectedvideotapedclassroomteaching, teacher’sjournal,students’semistructuredinterviewresults,andfeedbacksheetsafter eachclass.Thesequalitativedatawereanalysedtoexplainorelaboratethequantitative resultsforinterpretingtherelationshipbetweeninquirybasedteachingandstudent’s metacognitiongrowth.Inparticular,thesemistructuredinterviewswereconducted individuallytothesubjectswhowereconsideredasworthoffurtherinvestigationfor 1530 minutes after each inquirybased lesson (totally five) and also after they completedMIinthebeginningandtheendofthisstudy. Procedures Strictlyspeaking,thisstudyspentalmosttwoyearswhichwasfromJanuary2005to December2006.Thewholeresearchcanbecategorisedintothreeperiods:(a)thefirst period(January2005~February2006)servesasawarmupandpreparationforthe participant teacher implementing inquirybased teaching. The teacher joined a universitybased professional development project which was funded by National ScienceCouncilinTaiwan.Thisprojectaimedtoenableinserviceteacherstoapply inquirybased mathematics teaching in their classrooms. After over one year of participation, the participant teacher was recognised having enough skills to teach throughinquiry.(b)Inthesecondperiod(February~August2006),theparticipant teachercollaboratedwithamathematicseducatorandagroupofmathematicsteachers to design curricula that are suitable for inquirybased teaching. Meanwhile the participantteacheralsostartedtointroducecollaborativelearninginhisclassroomfor encouragingstudentstoengageinsensemakinganddiscussions.Becauseliterature indicatesthatinquirymethodishighcorrelatedwithcollaborativelearningstrategies, takingplacecollaborativeleaningcouldenhanceinquirybasedteaching.(c)Inthe finalperiod(September~December2006),inquirybasedteachingwasconductedin thesubjectclass.ThestudentsansweredtheMIaspretestandposttestbeforeand

2132PME31―2007 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan afterthisperiod.Allthequalitativeandquantitativedatawerealsocollectedduring thisperiod. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table1reportstherelationshipbetweenstudents’mathematicsaveragescoresinlast academicyearandthescoresinthepretestoftheMI.Analysisofthedatashowedthat there was weak but no significant correlation (r=.201, p=0.15) between student’s mathematicsachievementandtheirmetacognition.Theonlysignificanceappearedin SelectiveAttention(r=.334,p<0.05)anditremainedweak.Theseresultsmayimply thatthelinearrelationshipbetweenmathematicsachievementandmetacognitiondid not occur with these high achievers. It seems reasonable to claim that these high achievement students did not correspond to high metacognition capabilities. This claimmightbeconsistentwiththetypicalTaiwanesehighachievers’performanceas mentionedearlierinthispaper.Inaddition,basedupontheirinitialMIscores(M=2.66 inpretest,seeTable2)andthequalitativedatawecollected,ourclaimseemstobe confirmed: T:Althoughmystudentscouldobtainhighmathematicstestscores,theydidnotperform wellindealingwithopentasks; moststudentscouldonlyapply straightforwardand limitedstrategies.Theyweaklyshowedmetacognitiveawareness.(20060910teacher’s journal) S12:IthoughtIamlackofthiskindofability(metacognition).Iamnotgoodatorganising theprobleminformationandpursuingmythinkingapproaches.Ithinkitisbetterthat theteachercandirectlytalkaboutwhatIdon’tknow.(20060901interview) SA O S ST SM SC Total MA(N=28) .334* .162 .069 .216 .021 .209 .201 1. MA: Mathematics Achievement, SA: Selective Attention, O: Organising, S: Strategising,ST:SelfTesting,SM:SelfMonitoring,SC:SelfCorrection 2.*,p<0.05 Table1:Correlationsbetweenmathematicsachievementandmetacognitionsubscales Table2exhibitsmeansandstandarddeviationsonMI(includingsubscales)ofboth pretest and posttest. The difference of total scale between the pretest and the posttest was highly statistically significant (t=4.56, p< 0.001). In other words, studentsperformedbettermetacognitionincludingallcomponentsintheposttestthan inthepretest.Subsequentanalysisofsubscalescoresalsorevealedhighlysignificant changingformpretesttoposttest.Thisresultappearstosuggestthatinquirybased teachingwaseffectiveinhelpingstudents’developmentofmetacognitiveabilities. S23:IfeelI’mbetteronunderstandingtheproblembecausethenewteachingmethodisnot onlyinterestingtomebutalsohelpfultothinkmoredeeply.(20060915feedbacksheet) S10:Iwasusedtowaitingforteacher’ssolutionbutnowIfindmorechancestoexplore andanalysetheproblembymyselfandourteam.(20061109interview)

PME31―2007 2133 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan

S1:Ininquiryteaching,Ihavemoreopportunitiestotrydifferentapproachestoaproblem anddiscussionwhichcanalsoinspiremewithnewideas .(20061109interview) Pretest Posttest (N=28) T p Mean(SD) Mean(SD) A 2.91(.35) 3.12(.28) 3.35 .002** O 2.64(.41) 2.89(.39) 3.04 .005** S 2.89(.42) 3.17(.41) 3.17 .004** ST 2.25(.50) 2.61(.40) 4.60 .000*** SM 2.56(.43) 2.97(.45) 4.43 .000*** SC 2.73(.52) 2.94(.44) 2.56 .016* Total 2.66(.36) 2.95(.32) 4.56 .000*** *,p<0.05;**,p<0.01;***,p<0.001 Table2:Meansandstandarddeviationsofpretestandposttest Comparingallsubscale’sscoresinthepretest,SelfTestingappearsthelowestscores (M=2.25)withinthesesixsubscales.Althoughitsignificantlyincreasedinposttest (t=4.60, p< .001), it still remains as the lowest over all subscales in the posttest (M=2.61).Itseemsthatstudentswerelesslikelytoexaminehowmuchtheyalready knowortodeterminewhethertheytrulyunderstand.Thisfindingwasalsoparallelto theresearchwhichindicatesthatthiskindofregulatedabilitydevelopsslowlyandis quitepoorinchildrenandevenadults(Pressley&Ghatala,1990).Infurtheranalysis oftheitemswithinthissubscale(Table3),wefoundthattheitems2and5showlower mean scores in pretest (Mitem2 =1.25; Mitem5 =1.50) and posttest (Mitem2 =1.82; Mitem5 =1.96).Thisresultmightindicatestudentswerelesslikelytoassesswhatthey know by questioning themselves. The following quotation of the teacher’s journal couldbeanote: T: Students are used to solving given problems but have fewer experiences to pose problemsbythemselves.IthinkthisisthereasonwhytheyobtainlowerSTscores. However,ininquirybasedteaching,theycouldhavemoreopportunitiestogenerate newproblems.Thismayencouragethemtoaskproblemsforcheckingwhattheyhave learned.( 20061211teacher’sjournal) Moreover,theposttestscoreofitem4(M=2.00)isslightlylowerthanthepretest (M=1.96). Unexpectedly, it seems that students were less likely to examine their understandingbyextramathematicsproblems,bothbeforeandaftertheinquirybased teaching.Thereasonmightbethattheywouldratherfocusonfewerproblemswhich seem worth undertaking than practice too many routine problems. The following responseofastudentcouldoffersomeevidence: S6:It’sgreatwhenweworktogethertoinvestigateaworthundertakingproblem.Icantake advantagefromdiscussingwithmyteammembers.Isuggestnottoworkontoomany problems but to have more time on thinking or discussing with others. (20061031 feedbacksheet)

2134PME31―2007 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan

ItemswithinSelfTesting Pretest Posttest (Totalitem=8;N=28) Mean(SD) Mean(SD) t p 2.Iquizmyselfaboutmathsproblemsin ordertocheckhowmuchIunderstand 1.25(.44) 1.82(.72) 4.08 .000*** 4.Isolveadditionalmathsproblemsafter 2.00(.94) 1.96(.64) 0.21 .832 completingtheexercisesinthetextbook 5.Ipractiseproblemstosimulatethe 1.50(.64) 1.96(.58) 3.10 .004** schooltestbeforeitcomes *,p<0.05;**,p<0.01;***,p<0.001 Table3.MeansandstandarddeviationsonSelfTestingofpretestandposttest Inaddition,afteranalysingallthequalitativedata,wealsotriedtoidentifyhowthe inquirybasedteachingwasrelatedtometacognitionsubscaleswhichoccurredinthis study. Some results might be concluded as follows: “Selective Attention”, and “Organising”seemedtotakeplaceduringtheExplorationphaseoftheinquirycycle; “Strategising”and“SelfTesting”appearedintheInventionandExpansionphases; and “SelfMonitoring” and “SelfCorrection” happened across all the phases. For example,whenstudentsengagedinthelesson“CircleandSphere”,theyneededto recalltheirpriorknowledgeaboutcircle(ExplorationO),focusingonhowcirclecan be defined and their properties (ExplorationSA), discussing and modeling their thinking(InventionS&ST),applyingtheirconclusiontoSphere(ExpansionO&S). CONCLUSION Enhancingstudents’metacognitionisnotastraightforwardprocessbyanymeans.A keyfactorinfluencingstudents’propensitytoenacttheirmatacognitivecapacitiesis theirperceptionoftheclassroomenvironment,includinghowtheyaretaughtandalso the broader culture within the classroom. In this study, we constructed an inquirybased learning environment for the students who were asked to personally construct their own understanding by posing questions and considering how investigations will proceed and how findings are analysed and communicated (Hinrichsen & Jarrett, 1999). The results support that these arrangements are meaningfulinstimulatingstudent’smetacognitiongrowth.Althoughthereseemsno enough direct evidence to prove that the inquirybased mathematics teaching is a warranty for student metacognition development, it still canbe a useful guide for helpingteacherstomakethemostofmetacognitivelearningexperiencesforstudents. Therefore,wemightbeabletoarguethattheinquirybased mathematics teaching methodmayserveasacatalyticmetacognitiveexperiencethatinformedstudentsabout whatwasforsomeanalternativeconceptionoflearning. References American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy .NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. Alexander,J.M.,M.Carr,&P.J.Schwanenflugel.(1995).“Developmentofmetacognition ingiftedchildren:Directionsforfutureresearch.” Developmental Review ,15,l37.

PME31―2007 2135 Chin, Lin, Chuang & Tuan

Baird, J.R., & Northfield, J.R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience . Melbourne: MonashUniversity. BenChaim,D.,Fey,J.T.,Fitzgerald,W.M.,Benedetto,C.andMiller,J.:1998,‘Proportional reasoningamong7thgradestudentswithdifferentcurricularexperiences’, Educational Studies in Mathematics ,36,247–273. Chang, CY. (1994). The verification of an integrative model of mathematical learning process. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 27 ,141174.(inChinese) Flavell,J.H.(1976).Metacognitiveaspectsofproblemsolving.InL.B.Resnick(ed.), The nature of intelligence ,L.E.A.Hilsdale,NJ. Flavell,J.H.(1992).Metacognitiveandcognitivemonitoring:Anewareaofcognitivedevelop mentalinquiry.InT.Nelson(ed.), Metacognition – core readings, library of congress ,pp.3–8. Hinrichsen,J.&Jarrett,D.(1999) Science inquiry for the classroom: A literature review . Oregon:NorthwestRegionalEducationalLaboratory. Inagaki,K., Hatano, G.andMoritas,E.:1998,‘Constructionofmathematicalknowledge throughwholeclassdiscussion’,LearningandInstruction,8,503–526. Kramarski,B.,Mevarech,Z.R.,&Arami,M.(2002).Theeffectsofmetacognitivetraining onsolvingmathematicalauthentictasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,49 ,225–250. Lampert,M.(1990).Whentheproblemisnotthequestionandthesolutionisnottheanswer: Mathematicalknowingandteaching.American Educational Research Journal , 27 ,29–63. Lawson,A.E.,Abraham,M.R.,&Renner,J.W.(1989).Atheoryofinstruction:Usingthe learningcycletoteachscienceconceptsandthinkingskills. Monographs of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 1 ,157. Mevarech,Z.&Fridkin,S.(2006).TheeffectsofIMPROVEonmathematicalknowledge, mathematicalreasoningandmetacognition.Metacognition Learning , 1,85–97. NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics.(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics: An overview .Reston,VA:Author. Pintrich,P.R.&DeGroot,E.(1990).Motivationalandselfregulatedlearningcomponentsof classroomacademicperformance. Journal of Educational Psychology ,82 ,33–40. Pressley,M.&Ghatala,E.S.(1990).Selfregulatelearning:Monitoringlearningformtext. Educational Psychologist, 25 (1),1933. Schoenfeld,A.H.(1987).What’sallthefussaboutmetacognition?Ch.8inA.H.Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education .Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum. SchoenfeldA.H.(1992).Learningtothinkmathematically:Problemsolving,metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.334–370).NewYork:Macmillan. SiegelM.,Borasi,R.&Fonzi,J.(1998).Supportingstudents'mathematicalinquiriesthrough reading.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (4),378413.

2136PME31―2007 THE EFFECTS OF “SPATIAL GEOMETRY CURRICULM WITH 3D DGS” IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CHINOKimiho ,MOROZUMITatsuo,ARAIHitoshi,OGIHARAFumihiro, OGUCHIYuichiandMIYAZAKIMikio UniversityofTsukuba(Japan)/ShizuokaUniversity(Japan)/YanagimachiJunior HighSchool(Japan)/SakuChoseiJunior&Seniorhighschool(Japan)/ MoriokaUniversity(Japan)/ShinshuUniversity(Japan) This research explores the effects of spatial geometry curriculum utilizing 3D dynamic geometry software (3D DGS) in lower secondary school mathematics. The analysis was done by comparing the results of experimental groups with that of control groups in a school (Japan), as well as results of the national survey of Japan. In conclusion, positive effects were identified regarding the construction of spatial figures by moving a plane figure and the explanation for a spatial figure represented on a plane, along with multiplier effects recognized in the relationship between cognitive and affective aspects.

INTRODUCTION Dynamically manipulable interactive graphical representation of technology contributestotheteachingandlearningofgeometry.Dragmodeisakeyelementof DynamicGeometryEnvironments(DGEs).Forexample,researchersstressedthekey roleofdragginginformingmathematicalconjecturesandcategorizeddifferentkinds ofdragging(Healy,2000etc.). Untilnow,2DimensionalDGEshavebeenthetargetofresearch,andresearchershave suggestedthatthedynamicfunctionofcomputersoftwaremakesitsuseespecially powerful(Cuoco&Goldenberg,1997;deVilliers,1998;Goldenberg&Cuoco,1998, etc.)However,researchershaveclaimedthatstudentslookedatdiagramsdifferently fromthewaytheirteachersintendedthemto(YerushalmyandChazan,1990,etc.).We need to take into account that students often “walk around” their own world in a mathematicalsituation whenwedesignstudentcenteredlearningenvironments. On the other hand, Laborde et al. (2006) pointed out the following with regard to overalltechnologyutilization,“Inmostcountriestechnologyisnotyetfullyadopted by teachers. As a consequence there is very little research that has been done on geometrycurriculathatstartfromscratchwithtechnology”(p.290).Toimprovethis situation,environmentsthattheteachercanmoreeasilyadapthavealsobeenprovided. Forexample,inJapan,Iijimahasdevelopedawebsite 1) whereinterestingproblems and situations using 2D DGS “Geometric Constructor” for students are presented. Someofthatcontentwasdevelopedthroughdiscussionswithusers. In addition, regarding DGE generally, it remains unsettled questions such as “The designofadequatetasks”and“Howdoesteachermanagetheuseoftechnologyin

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.137144.Seoul:PME. 2137 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki takingintoaccountthecurriculum”(Labordeetal.,2006,p.296).Particularlywith 3Dimensional DGEs, although 3D DGS have been developed, curriculum developmentconsidering“epistemologicalimpact”(Balacheff&Kaput,1996,p.469 ) hasnotbeenconducted,northeeffectofthedevelopedcurriculumbeenverified. Thepurposeofthispaperistoexploretherelationshipbetweencognitiveandaffective impactofspatialfiguresina“SPATIALGEOMETRY”curriculumthatutilizes3D DGS.

METHODS “SPATIAL GEOMETRY” Curriculum “SPATIAL GEOMETORY” curriculum 2) is composed of “Construction of 3D figures” (six lessons in total), “Cutting of 3D figures” (five lessons in total), and “Surface Area and Volume of 3D figures” (three lessons in total). It is supported throughthecontextof“Let'smakestampscuttingavailablematerials”.First,students lookatvarioustypesofstampsandgetmotivatedbythinking“Iwanttomakeoneall bymyself”.Thenhe/shediscoversandverifiesthecharacteristicsofspatialfigures whichthestampsarecomposedof.Inaddition,thestudentsdoallkindsofthingsto figureoutwhatkindsofspatialfiguresareadequatetomakevariouskindsofstamps by cutting. In this way, the curriculum has the intended contents and activities embeddedwithinitandtakesintoconsiderationthecomplementationofverticaland horizontalmathematization. “SPATIALGEOMETRY”curriculumischaracterizedasfollowsfromthe(a)learning environment,(b)learningcontent,and(c)learningactivitypoints:(a)Studentscanuse therealthings(suchas“Polydron”andsolidmodels,etc.),sketches,and3DDGS interactivelywhilecomparingtheresultsofthem.Inaddition,onecomputerperpairof studentsispreparedforthem.(b)Connectionsbetweenthemathematical contentsand dailylifeorotherareasofschoolmathematicsareenhanced.(c)Activitieswith“the concept formation of spatial figures”, “logical thinking”, and “representations of spatialfigures”areembeddedrespectively.Fortheseactivities,theuseofthe3DDGS willfacilitatethethreefollowingpossibilities. • Thepossibilityofexploringspatialfiguresthosearephysicallydifficultto constructoroperate. • The possibility of multilaterally observing the process of construction or operationof3Dfiguresinthedragging. • The possibility of cultivating logical thinking about spatial geometry with dynamictransformationsandmultilateralobservations. Questionnaire The questionnaires are composed of questions regarding students’ recognition and consciousnessofspatialgeometryanditslearning.

2138 PME31―2007 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki

Tocollectquantitativedataonstudents’competencies(cognitiveaspects)regarding spatial geometry, we used questionnaires which were designed for comprehensive surveysontheimplementationoftheJapanesenationalcurriculum.Thesesurveysare knownas“Kyoikukateizishijyokyochosa”(2001&2003)inJapanese.Fromhereon in, these surveys will be referred to as “National survey 2001 (or 2003)”. In the nationalsurvey2001or2003,targetclasseswererandomlyselectedwithstratified sampling from all over Japan. In addition, each of the surveys was conducted in Februaryofthoseyears.Morespecifically,amongthequestionsregardingstudents’ recognition, this paper covers two questions. One is the question describing that a spatialfigureiscomposedofthemovementofafigureintheplane(2003:No.1A13 (1))andtheotheristhequestionthatcapturesthelengthofalinesegmentinasketchof andstatesthereasonsforthat(2001:No.1B12,and2003:No.1B12). On the other hand ,to collect quantitative data on students' emotional experiences (emotionalaspects)regardingthelearningofspatialgeometry,wedesignedaspecific questionnaire.Andmorespecifically,ofthequestionsregardingconsciousness,this papercoversthepartthatstudentsreflectstheconstructionandthecuttingofspatial figuresrespectivelyfromthreepointsofview(“understanding”,“interestlevel”,and “usability”). Participants and Procedure TargetedclassesbelongedtotheseventhgradeatapublicjuniorhighschoolinJapan, andatthepointofbeforeconductingthecurriculumtherearenosignificantdifference statisticallyregardingscoresonregularexaminationsbetweenclassesthatfolloweda “SPATIALGEOMETRY”curriculumusing3DDGS(Experimentalgroup:n=66)and aclassthatwascompliantwiththeJapanesenationalcurriculumannouncedin1998 (1998CS)(Controlledgroup:n=32).The“With3DDGS”and“1998CScompliant” classes were compared using the questionnaire method. In addition, survey results fromthe3DDGSclassesandthenationalsurveyarecompared. LessonswereimplementedfromJan23toMar6,2006(16lessonsintotal),anda survey via questionnaire was conducted on Feb 28, 2006 after the Lesson 12 in “SPATIALGEOMETRY”wasimplemented(onFeb24).Moreover,inthe3DDGS classes,variousqualitativedatawerecollectedbasedonresearchfieldnotes,VTRs, andworksheets.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Construction of a Spatial Figure by Moving a Plane Survey Question 1 (2003:No.1A13(1))“Youwanttomakeacylinder bymovingaplanefigure.Whatkindofplanefiguredoyouuseandhow canyoumoveit?Explainhowinthecolumn □.Ifnecessary,youcan alsousediagrams.”

PME31―2007 2139 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki

Table1:Constructionofacylinderwithdifferentgroups Group Pass Fail Total ClassesinasameSchool With3DDGS(n=66) 86.4% 13.6% 100 1998CSCompliant(n=32) 56.3% 43.8% 100 Nationalsurvey2003(n=3617) 56.2% 43.8% 100 Table1showsresultsofthe Survey Question 1 .Thepasspercentageof“With3D DGS”(86.4%)was30.1pointshigherthanthatof“With 3D DGS” (56.3%). The Pass/Failnumberofdifferentgroupsregardingthisquestionwassignificant,χ 2(1, N=98)=10.881, p<.01.Similarly,passpercentageof“With3DDGS”(56.2%)was 30.2 point higher than that of the national survey 2003 (56.2%), and the Pass/Fail numberwassignificant,χ2(1,N=3683)=24.057, p<.01.Therefore,itcanbeseenthat the curriculum with 3D DGS heightens the pass percentage compared to that was compliantwiththe1998CS. Ifattentionisfocusedonresponsestatustotheanswers,thepercentagesofstudents whoshowadevelopmentorexplainusingadevelopmentofcylinder(type4)was0% for“With3DDGS”,whichisnotablylowwhencomparedto“With3DDGS”(28.1%) orthenationalsurvey2003(11.7%). Inthecurriculumwith3DDGS,itwasalsosignificantthatmultipliereffectscanbe recognizedintherelationshipbetweencognitiveandaffectiveaspects.Forexample, thepercentageofstudentswhopassedthisquestionandpositivelyanswered“Didyou understandspatialfiguresconstructedbymovinglinesegmentsorplanes?”was84.8% (n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”.Ontheotherhand,inthe“1998CScompliant”itwas 53.1% (n=32). Similarly, the percentage of the students passed this question and positivelyanswered“Didyoulikestudyingspatialfiguresconstructedbymovingline segmentsorplanes?”was86.4%(n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”.Ontheotherhand,in the“1998CScompliant”itwas40.6%(n=32).Inaddition,thepercentageofstudents who passed and positively answered “Do you think the fact that spatial figures constructedbymovinglinesegmentsorplanefigureswillbeusefulindailylifeorin thebusinessworld?”was69.7%(n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”.Ontheotherhand,in the“1998CScompliant”itwas37.5%(n=32). It seems reasonable to conclude that these effects were generated by activities embeddedwithinthecurriculum.Inthecurriculum,forexample,thestudentsmoved planefiguresinparallelusing3DDGStoconstructprismsandcylinders,andthen observedtheprocessandresultofthoseconstructionfromvariousangles(Fifthlesson: on Jan 31). Next, the students referred to the real things along with dynamic transformations in 3D DGS and drew a sketch of various prisms and cylinders correspondingwiththeconstructionofthembymovingaplanefigureinparallel(Sixth lesson:onFeb1).Thestudentsalsoused3DDGStoconstructatorusorsolidsof revolutionwhichareconstructedwhenaplanefigurerotatesaroundaaxiswhichdoes notexistontheplane,andthenobservedthoseoperationsfromvariousperspectives

2140 PME31―2007 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki

(Seventh lesson: on Feb 2). Moreover, using 3D DGS, the students compared the constructionofaconebyrotatingarighttriangleandthesideofconebymovingaline segment(eighthlesson:onFeb3).Itseemsthatthestudentsbegantounderstandthe constructionofspatialfiguresthroughtheseactivities.Inaddition,astheactivities relatetotherepresentationofspatialfigures,studentsexplainedsimilaritiesbetween prismsandcylindersbymovingaplaneinparallelbasedonpositionalrelationshipsof thesidesorfaces(Fifthlesson),describedthenecessaryingenuityorprecautionstaken when they drew a sketch of prisms and cylinders (Sixth lesson), and explained similaritiesbetweensolidsofrevolution(Seventhlesson).Itseemsthattheseactivities helpedtoincreasetheabilitiesofstudentstoverbalizeconstructionsofspatialfigures.

Figure 1: A student’s description on similarities between prisms and cylindersbymovingaplaneinparallel(Fifthlesson) “Theplanesonthetopandbottomareparallelandauniformshape.Theshapesof the top and bottom do not change when any figure is moved in parallel. The longitudinalsidesareverticaltothetopandbottomplane.”

Figure2:Astudent’sdescriptiononthenecessaryingenuityorprecautions takenwhentheydrewasketchofprismsandcylinders(Sixthlesson) “Drawthebaseplane,drawaverticalside,anddrawthe topplane”

Representation of a Spatial Figure on the Plane Survey Question 3 (2001:No.1B12,or2003:No.1B12)“In thecubedescribedinthesketchontheright,wearegoingto comparethelengthoftwolinesegmentsindicatedwithbold lines( ).Selectthecorrectanswersfrom(a),(b),or(c)below. Also, explain the reasons why in the column □. (a) Line

PME31―2007 2141 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki segmentBDisthelongest;(b)LinesegmentCFisthelongest;(c)Thelengthofline segmentsBDandCFareequal” Table2:Theactuallengthofthelinesegmentinthesketchwithdifferentgroups Group Pass Fail Total ClassesinasameSchool With3DDGS(n=66) 83.3% 16.7% 100 1998CSCompliant(n=32) 62.5% 37.5% 100 Nationalsurvey2003(n=6822) 44.2% 55.8% 100 Table2showsresultsofthe Survey Question 3 .Thepasspercentageofthe“With3D DGS”(83.3%)was20pointsormorehigherthanthatof“1998CScompliant”(62.5%). ThePass/Failnumberofdifferentgroupsregardingthisquestionwassignificant,χ 2(1, N=98)=5.208, p<.05.Similarly,thepasspercentageof“With3DDGS”wasabout40 points higher than the percentage of the national survey 2003 (44.2%), and the Pass/Failnumberwassignificant,χ2(1,N=6888)=40.464, p<.01.Therefore,itcanbe seenthatthecurriculumwith3DDGSheightensthepasspercentageregardingthis questioncomparingtothatbeencompliantwith1998CS. Ifattentionisfocusedontheresponsestatustotheanswer,thepercentagesofstudents whocanunderstandthatthediagonallinelengthsareequal(answertype5,6,and7) was84.8%(n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”and22.2pointshigherthantheoneinthe nationalsurvey2003(62.6%,n=6822).Therelevant/notrelevantnumberregarding thisanswertypewassignificant,χ 2(1,N=6888)=13.862,p<.01. If attention is focused on relationship between cognitive andaffective aspects, the percentageofstudentswhopassedandpositivelyansweredtothequestion“Didyou understandthemeaningofcuttingaspatialfigurewithaplaneanddidyouthinkabout theshapeofthecutsurface?”was81.8%(n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”.Ontheother hand,inthe“1998CScompliant”itwas40.6%(n=32).Similarly,thepercentageof students who passed and positively answered the question “Did you like studying cuttingaspatialfigurewithaplaneandthinkingabouttheshapeofthecutsurface?” was 77.3% (n=66) in the “With 3D DGS”. On the other hand, in the “1998CS compliant”itwas38.8%(n=32).Inaddition,thepercentageofstudentswhopassed andpositivelyansweredthequestion“Doyouthinkthatcuttingaspatialfigurewitha planeandthinkingabouttheshapeofthecutsurfacewillbeusefulindailylifeorinthe businessworld?”was63.6%(n=66)inthe“With3DDGS”.Ontheotherhand,inthe “1998CScompliant”itwas24.8%(n=32). Inthe“SPATIALGEOMETRY”curriculum,3DDGSinducedtheelaboratenessand accuracy of observations and manipulating spatial figures. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that students explored spatial figures based on their characteristics and relationships were enriched and the quality of findings and verificationswereimproved.Forexample,thestudentsused3DDGStomultilaterally observethechangesintheshapeofcutsurfaces(ex.aequilateraltriangle,asquare,a regular hexagon) by continuously moving the plane which cut a cube (9th & 10 th

2142 PME31―2007 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki lessons:onFeb8&9).Inaddition,inthisprocessstudentscouldobservethatitisnot actuallyaregularpentagonwhentheyoperatedandobserveditfromvariousangles eveniftheshapeofthecuttingsurfacelookslikearegularpentagonfromanangle. Moreover, through activities related to the concept formation of spatial figures in describedpreviouslythefifthandseventhlessons,studentscultivatedtheirabilityto understandordrawsketches.Therefore,itcanbeconsideredthatthestudentscould recognizethatplanesofacubeshowninthesketchwerecongruent.Moreover,asthe activities relate to logical thinking, the students discovered and explained the characteristicsofdevelopmentsofacubecomparingdevelopmentswhichbecomea cubetothosewhichdonotbecomeacube(Second&Thirdlessons:onJan24&26). Andinthediscussionofthecharacteristicsofadevelopmentwhichwillbecomeacube orthediscussionofthereasonsthatthecutsurfacesofacubedonotbecomearight pentagon (11 th lesson: on Feb 15), the activities included representing what they discussedandthought.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The effects of the spatial geometry curriculum utilizing 3D DGS were found by comparingtheresultofexperimentalgroupwiththatofcontrolgroupinthesame schoolinJapan,aswellasresultsofthenationalsurveyofJapan.Intheresult,as cognitiveeffectsofthe“SPATIALGEOMETRY”curriculum,positiveeffectswere identifiedregardingtheconstructionofspatialfiguresbymovingaplanefigure,and theexplanationforaspatialfigurerepresentedonaplane.Moreover,multipliereffects wererecognizedintherelationshipbetweencognitiveandaffectiveaspectsbasedon thestudents’reflectionsontheirlearningabouttheconstructionandcuttingofspatial figuresrespectivelyfromthreepointsofview(“understanding”,“interestlevel”,and “usability”). Thefollowingtwopointscouldbeconsideredasfactorswhichledtothoseeffects: • In the “SPATIAL GEOMETRY” curriculum, the following qualitatively different activities were embedded respectively: Activities with concept formationofspatialfigures,logicalthinking,andrepresentationsofspatial figures • The use of 3D DGS will facilitate the three possibilities in the above mentionedactivitiesasfollows:Thepossibilityofexploringspatialfigures thosearephysicallydifficulttoconstructoroperate,multilaterallyobserving theprocessoftheconstructionoroperationof3Dfiguresinthedragging,and cultivating logical thinking about spatial geometry with dynamic transformationsandmultilateralobservations. Asfutureresearch,thefollowingchallengescouldbesuggested:(a)Inthelearningof spatialgeometry,toconfirmeffectsofaspectsnotcoveredinthisresearch.(b)To concretelyspecifyfactorsthatimprovedstudents’learningtoimprovethecurriculum aswellastocompensateforthetendencycapturedbythequantitativeanalysiswith qualitativeanalysis.

PME31―2007 2143 Chino, Morozumi, Arai, Ogihara, Oguchi & Miyazaki

Note 1)ThiswebsitewastranslatedintoEnglish(http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/gc/). 2)Theterm“curriculum”isusednotinthesenseofanationalJapanesecurriculumin butratherinthesenseof“acurriculumattheclassroomlevel”.Foreachlessonplan, pleasereferto“http://www.schoolmath3d.org/”. Acknowledgements : This research was funded by GrantinAid for Scientific Research,Nos.17011031,17530653,18330187,and18730538. References Balacheff,N.&Kaput,J.(1996).Computerbasedlearningenvironmentinmathematics.InA. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp.469501).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Kluwer Academic. Cuoco,A.A.,&Goldenberg,E.P.(1997).DynamicgeometryasabridgefromEuclidean geometrytoanalysis.InJ.R.King&D.Schattschneider(Eds.), Geometry Turned On!: Dynamic Software in Learning, Teaching, and Research (pp.3344).Washington,D.C.: TheMathematicalAssociationofAmerica. deVilliers,M.(1998).Analternativeapproachtoproofindynamicgeometry.InR.Lehrer& D.Chazan(Eds.), Designing Learning Environments for Developing Understanding of Geometry and Space (pp.369394).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Goldenberg,E.P.,&Cuoco,A.A.(1998).Whatisdynamicgeometry?InR.Lehrer&D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing Learning Environments for Developing Understanding of Geometry and Space (pp.351368).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Healy, L. (2000). Identifying and explaining geometrical relationship: Interactions with robustandsoftCabriconstructions.InT.Nakahara&M.Koyama(Eds.), Proceedings 24th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) ,1,103117. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabrigeometry. International Journal of Computer for Mathematical Learning , 6, 283317. Laborde, C., Kynigos, C., Hollebrands, K., & Strasser, R. (2006). Teaching and learning geometrywithtechnologyInA.Gutierrez,&P.Boero(eds.), Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 275304). Rotterdam:SensePublishers. Miyazaki, M., Arai, H., Chino, K., Ogihara, F., Oguchi, Y., & Morozumi, T. (2006). Developmentofwebenvironmentforlowersecondaryschoolmathematicsteacherswith 3Ddynamicgeometrysoftware.InNovotna,,J.,Moraova,H.,Kratka,,M.,&Stehlikova, N.(Eds.). Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) ,Vol.1,p.409.Prague:PME. Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (1990). Overcoming visual obstacles with the aid of the Supposer. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,21,199219.

2144 PME31―2007 MATHEMATICS AS MOTHER/BASIS OF SCIENCE IN AFFECT: ANALYSIS OF TIMSS 2003 DATA MeiShiuChiu ∗ NationalChengchiUniversity,Taiwan

Mathematics is the mother/basis of science as revealed by the structure of our brain and the design of school subjects for most cultures. Does our motivational structure reflect this structure and in turn influence students’ achievement? The results from a series of LISREL, correlation, and cluster analyses on TIMSS 2003 data showed that the pattern of roles of mathematics motivations in mathematics achievement is very similar to that in science achievement. However, science motivations play comparatively different roles between mathematics and science achievement. The results lend support to the claim that we establish the structure of our affective world as a reflection of the structure of our knowledge of the world and that mathematics is the mother/basis of science in terms of affect.

INTRODUCTION Mathematicsisthescienceofpatternandlogicandcanbeapowerfultooltomodela widerangeofdomainsofworldknowledge(e.g.,science)andmathematicsbecomes anessentialschoolsubject,asrevealedbythenational curricula of most cultures. MathematicsorquantityisalsooneindispensablepartinmostIQtests,e.g.,WISCfor both children and adults. Research on cognitive neuroscience also identifies a biologicallydeterminedpartinhumanbrainforthedomainofquantity(Dehaeneetal., 2003).Mathematicsisthereforewidelyperceivedasthemother/basisofscience.Will ouraffectiveormotivationalresponsesshowareflectionofthisknowledgestructure? The exploration of crossdomain motivations in relation to crossdomain achievements can deepen our understanding of the structure of affect in learning mathematicsandothersubjects,e.g.,science.UsingstudentresponsestotheTIMSS 2003 study, we can examine this issue from a perspective of crosscultural commonalities and diversity (e.g., Chiu, 2006). These examinations are likely to facilitate a sound design of teaching materials and classroom dialogue that takes accountofthecognitiveandaffectivestructuresofthelearningofdifferentdomainsof knowledge.

∗ThisresearchwassupportedbytheNationalScienceCouncil,Taiwan(NSC952522S004–001). Statementsdonotreflectthepositionorpolicyoftheagency.Correspondingauthor:MeiShiuChiu, DepartmentofEducation,NationalChengchiUniversity.64,Sec.2,ZhinanRd.,Taipei11605, Taiwan.Email:[email protected] 2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.145152.Seoul:PME. 2145

Chiu

Educators of different school subjects have long examined motivational/affective issues for their respective domains, e.g., McLeod (1994) and Hannula (2002) for mathematicsandTuanetal.(2005)forscience,becausethesemotivationalconstructs are significant predictors of achievement. The most significant construct is selfefficacy,whichisthebestaffectivepredictorofstudentachievementespecially whenitisdefinedforspecifictasksordomainsofknowledge(Bandura,1997;Pietsch, Walker,&Chapman,2003).WigfieldandEccles(2000)proposeanexpectancyvalue theory of motivation, which comprises two factors: expectancy (i.e., ability/confidence and expectancy beliefs) and value (i.e., attainment importance, intrinsicvalue,utilityvalue,andcost)andthesedistinctconstructsarealsoevidenced domainspecific.Further,selfconceptortheseabilityrelatedbeliefsareviewedasa hierarchicalormultidimensionalconstruct(Marsh&Hau,2004),i.e.,theconstructon the general level and the domainspecific level. There is however a limited understandingoftherelationshipbetweendifferentdomainsofaffectinrelationto achievement. Insum,accordingtotheessenceofmathematicsandthedesignofourbrain,IQtests, andmostnationalcurricula,mathematicsisthemother/basisofscienceandscience includesmorediversedomainsofknowledge.Ifourmotivational/affectivesystemis areflectionofthisdesign,wecanexpecttoseethatmathematicsmotivationisnot only the basis of mathematics achievement but also science achievement, while science motivation will plays a less consistent role in mathematics and science achievements.Theremaybesomeminorinconsistentfindingsfordifferentculturesas someculturesmayplacelittleemphasisonthebeliefthat‘mathematicsisthemother ofscience’andmaynotdesigntheirschoolsystemaccordingly.

METHOD Participants FortysevencountriesparticipatedintheTIMSS2003study.However,thedatafor only 87,913 students from 19 countries (Table 1) were analyzed after excluding countrieswithoutmotivationvariablesandwithoutfittotheanalyticalprocedureof LISREL(e.g.,listwisedeletionandnondefinableparameters). Indicators FourkindsofindicatorsweretakenfromtheTIMSS2003study: (1) Mathematics motivations , referring to students’ motivations about learning mathematics.Thefirstpartisselfconfidence inlearningmathematics(4items,labeled mc1-mc4 inthepresentstudy).Theitemsare: Iusuallydowellinmath.( mc1 ;TIMSSvariableBSBMTWEL). Mathematicsismoredifficultformethanformanyofmyclassmates(reversed, mc2 ; TIMSSvariableBSBMTCLM).

2146 PME31―2007 Chiu

Mathematicsisnotoneofmystrength( mc3 ,TIMSSvariableBSBMTSTR). Ilearnthingsquicklyinmathematics( mc4 ,TIMSSvariableBSBMTQKY). Thesecondpartisstudents’ valuing mathematics(7items,labeled mv1-mv7). The itemsare: Ithinklearningmathematicswillhelpmeinmydaily life ( mv1 , TIMSSvariable BSBMAHDL). I need mathematics to learn other school subjects (mv2 , TIMSSvariable BSBMAOSS). I need to do well in mathematics to get into the university of my choice ( mv3 , TIMSSvariableBSBMAUNI). I would like a job that involved using mathematics ( mv4 , TIMSSvariable BSBMAJOB). I need to do well in mathematics to get the job I want ( mv5 , TIMSSvariable BSBMAGET). I would like to take more mathematics in school ( mv6 , TIMSSvariable BSBMTMOR). Ienjoylearningmath( mv7 ,TIMSSvariableBSBMTENJ). Alltheitemsusea4pointratingscalerangingfrom1( agree a lot )to4( disagree a lot ). (2) Science motivations ,including confidence (4items,labeled sc1-sc4 )and value (7 items,labeled sv1-sv7 ),withthesameitemcontentandscalingmethodasforthose mathematicsmotivations,exceptfor‘science’astheschoolsubject. (3) Mathematics achievement , including achievements in algebra, data, fractions/numbers,geometry,andmeasurement. (4) Science achievement ,includingachievementinearthscience,lifescience,physics, chemistryandenvironment/resources.

RESULTS Measurement model LISRELanalysisrevealsthata3factormodelofmathematicsmotivationandscience motivationismoreacceptablethana2factormodelforall19respectivecountries afteradeletionandrecombinationofthe11items.Thethreefactorsare confidence (3 items), utility (2 items), and interest (2 items) for mathematics and science respectively(Fig.1).The3factormodelalsorevealsabetterfit(RMSEA=.084)than the2factormodel(RMSEA=.093)inthemultigroupinvarianttestsusingLISREL. Themeasurementmodelforthemathematicsandscienceachievementrevealsaslight fit(RMSEA=.109;CFI=.97)inthemultigroupinvarianttests.

PME31―2007 2147 Chiu

Path model A structural equation model of the role of mathematics/science motivation in mathematics/scienceachievement(Fig.1)wasproposedinordertoexaminethedata fromthe19countries,respectively.Thismodelisfittoallthe19countriesasrevealed bythevaluesofRMSEA(Table1).

Figure1:Astructuralequationmodelofmathematics/sciencemotivationand achievement Patterns of the roles Thedegreesofsignificanceofthepathparameters(G1G12)forthe19countrieswere indicated by 3 as positive significance, 2 as nonsignificance, and 1 as negative significance . BivariatecorrelationsbetweenthepairsofsignificanceofG1vs.G7,G2 vs.G8,G3vs.G9,G4vs.G10,G5vs.G11,andG6vs.G12were.85,.83,.78,.38,.71, and.61,allsignificantat.01levelexceptforthatofG4vs.G10(r=.38).These correlations reveal that mathematics motivations play similar roles in both mathematics and science achievement, while the roles of science motivations in mathematicsandscienceachievementarequitedifferent,especiallyforconfidencein science. Cluster analysis was utilized to identify the nonlinear relationship between the degreesofsignificanceofthepathparametersofG1G12.Thisanalysiscategorized the19countriesinto3clusters.OnesampleTtests were performed to determine whether the degrees of significance of G1G12 were significant from ‘nonsignificance’(i.e.,‘2’).Table2showsthatmotivationsinmathematicsplaythe same pattern of roles in both mathematics and science achievement for the three clusters,whilemotivationsinsciencearelessstableinrelationtobothmathematics

2148 PME31―2007 Chiu

RMSC Country G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 EA M DCC New Zealand 1.02 *.10 .70 * .42 * .07 .56 * .71 * .17 .76 * .06 .05 .45 .068 1 .85 Chile .95 * .03 .71 * .24 * .00 .19 .73 * .01 .61 * .01 .01 .11 .059 1 1.10 Australi a.79 * .07 .42 * .33 * .02 .42 * .49 * .04 .29 * .05 .19 * .11 .065 1 1.49 Norway.93 * .10 * .25 * .27 * .04 .23 * .65 * .00 .34 * .03 .05 .21 * .061 1 1.57 Morocco.73 * .11 .53 * .27 .44 * .63 * .16 .15 .03 .27 .17 * .07 .060 1 1.65 Botswan a .66 * .11 .45 .61 .21 1.18 *.03 .01 .02 .04 .00 .46 * .064 1 1.72 Japan .80 * .18 * .40 * .25 * .08 .36 * .18 * .38 * .18 * .37 * .23 * .05 .071 1 1.79 South Africa .46 1.50 *1.55 * .22 1.12 * .91 .31 1.61 *1.61 * .24 1.25 * 1.16 .057 1 2.17 England.49 * .04 .24 * .09 .07 .04 .31 * .06 .33 * .31 * .10 .04 .063 2 1.27 Italy .79 * .06 .38 * .05 .04 .06 .51 * .08 .24 .2 .18 * .13 .061 2 1.42 Korea .82 * .21 .07 .14 * .3 * .04 .33 * .17 .17 .34 * .01 .00 .059 2 1.56 Jordan .26 1.12 .52 .96 * .63 .41 .20 .98 .61 .92 * .68 .16 .060 2 1.62 Syrian .52 .12 .11 .51 * .06 .55 .08 .18 .04 .68 * .00 .56 .051 2 1.62 Palestini an .27 * .00 .04 .57 * .15 .55 * .2 *5 .05 .18 .61 * .18 .45 * .057 2 1.68 United States .58 * .02 .24 * .18 * .15 * .15 .49 * .08 .44 * .2 * .14 * .00 .064 2 1.68 Iran .69 * .20 * .18 .22 .07 .13 .42 * .02 .30 * .33 * .15 * .03 .057 2 1.79 Bahrain.55* .36 * .20 .47 .63 * 1.03 * .64 * .51 * .01 .24 .45 * .48 .064 2 1.85 Chinese Taipei 1.77 *1.51 * .04 1.24 * 1.24 *.41 1.21 *1.32 * .17 .66 1.08 *.14 .074 2 2.05 Philippin es .39 * .08 .54 * .02 .26 * .21 .33 * .09 .38 * .23 * .41 * .13 .060 3 .00 G1:mathconfidence mathach;G2: math utility math ach; G3: math interest math ach; G4: scienceconfidence mathach;G5:scienceutility mathach;G6:scienceinterest mathach;G7: mathconfidence scienceach;G8:mathutility scienceach;G9:mathinterest scienceach;G10: scienceconfidence scienceach;G11:scienceutility scienceach;G12:scienceinterest science ach;RMSEA=RootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation(<.08,asreasonablefitinLISREL); CM=clustermembership;DCC=distancefromclustercenter. *Significantat.05level Table1:AchievementsbytestresultsusingLISREL,cluster,andKmeansanalysis andscienceachievement.ForCluster1andCluster2,confidenceinmathematicsplay apositiveroleandutilityofmathematicsfailedtoplayasignificantroleineither mathematics or science achievement. Interest in mathematics has a negative relationshipwithbothmathematicsandscienceachievementforCluster1,butfor Cluster2nosignificantrelationship.ForCluster1,scienceconfidencehasanegative relationship with mathematics achievement, but no relationship with science achievement. For Cluster 2, science confidence has a positive relationship with scienceachievement,butnosignificantrelationshipwithmathematicsachievement. For Cluster 1, science utility failed to predict both mathematics and science achievement, but for Cluster 2 science utility has a positive relationship with mathematicsachievementbutnorelationshipwithscienceachievement.ForCluster1, science interest has a positive relationship with mathematics achievement, but no significantrelationshipwithscienceachievement.ForCluster2,scienceinteresthas

PME31―2007 2149 Chiu no significant relationship with either mathematics or science achievement. In summary, for Cluster 1, science confidence is negatively and science interest is positivelyrelatedtomathematicsachievement,butnottoscienceachievement.For Cluster2,scienceconfidenceispositivelyrelatedtoscienceachievement,andscience utility is related to mathematics achievement. For Clusters 1 and 2, mathematics motivationsmakemoresignificantpredictions(6cases)thansciencemotivations(4 cases). Kmeansanalysisobtainedthedistancesfromtherespectiveclustercenterforeachof thecountries(thelasttwocolumnsinTable1)andrevealsthatNewZealandisthe mosttypicalamongstthecountriesinCluster1,Englandisthemosttypicalofthosein Cluster2,andthePhilippinesistheonlycaseinCluster3.Thesignificancepatternof G1G12forNewZealandiscompletelythesameasthatofCluster1,asrevealedin Table2,whilethepatternofG1G12forEnglandisslightlydifferentfromthatof Cluster2.TheresultsforthePhilippinesalsoshowthatmathematicsmotivationsplay thesamerolesinbothmathematicsandscienceachievement. However, while the resultsforClusters12showthatmathematicsconfidenceplaysapositiveroleand mathematics interest negative or neutral, the Philippines is a mirror image, with mathematicsconfidenceplayanegativeroleandmathematicsinterestpositive.There is the same pattern of relationship between science motivations and mathematics achievement for both Cluster 2 countries and the Philippines, with a positive relationshipbetweenscienceutilityandmathematicsachievementandnosignificant relationshipbetweenscienceconfidence/interestandmathematicsachievement.Inthe Philippines, science utility is also positively related to science achievement, but scienceconfidencenegatively. G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 Cluster 1 Mean 1.13 1.88 2.88 2.63 2.25 1.25 1.38 1.75 2.75 1.88 2.25 1.75 SD .35 .64 .35 .52 .46 .46 .52 .46 .46 .35 .71 .46 T 7.00 *.55 7.00 * 3.42 * 1.53 4.58 * 3.42 *1.53 4.58 * 1.00 1.00 1.53 Cluster 2 Mean 1.20 2.30 2.30 1.80 1.60 2.20 1.20 2.20 2.30 1.30 1.70 2.10 SD .42 .48 .48 .79 .52 .42 .42 .42 .48 .48 .67 .32 T 6.00 *1.96 1.96 .80 2.45 *1.50 6.00 *1.50 1.96 4.58 *1.41 1.00 Cluster3: Philippines .39 * .08 .54 * .02 .26 * .21 .33 * .09 .38 * .23 * .41 * .13 *Significantat.05level Numbersingrayindicatethesamepatternsofsignificanceintheroleofmathematics(orscience) motivationsinbothmathematicsandscienceachievement,i.e.,comparingG1vs.G7,G2vs.G8,G3 vs.G9,G4vs.G10,G5vs.G11,andG6vs.G12 Table2:OnesampleTtestresultsforthedegreesofsignificanceinpathparametersof Clusters1and2,cf.Cluster3

2150 PME31―2007 Chiu

DISCUSSION As human beings, we all have some shared meanings, commonalities, and understandingof‘truth’,whilediversitymakesdifferentpeopleandculturesunique. Thepresentstudyidentifiesthreecommonalitiesthataresharedbypeopleofdifferent cultures. First, using a series of LISREL analysis, a threefactor model of mathematics/sciencemotivationswasconfirmed.The three factors are confidence, utility,andinterest,whichisacombinationoftheoriesofexpectancyvalue(Wigfield &Eccles,2000)andintrinsicextrinsicmotivations(Ryan&Deci,2000).Second,the role of the threefactor model of mathematics/science motivations in mathematics/science achievement was confirmed by LISREL analyses for the 19 countriesgiventheTIMSS2003database.Third,correlationtestsforthedegreesof significance of roles of mathematics/science motivations in mathematics/science achievement reveal that the pattern of roles of mathematics motivations in mathematicsachievementisverysimilartothatinscienceachievement.However, sciencemotivations,especiallyscienceconfidence,playcomparativelydifferentroles between mathematics and science achievement. Based on the above three commonalities,aclaimthatmaybepositedisthatmathematicsisthemother/basisof science in terms of motivations/affects. We can use mathematics motivations to predict not only mathematics achievement but also science achievement, but we cannotusesciencemotivationsinthesameway. Thereisdiversitybetweenculturesintheirpatternsofrolesofmathematics/science motivationsinmathematics/scienceachievements,whichmayaddresstheissueofthe influenceofexperiencederivedfromspecificcultures.Eachcultureisuniqueinits patternsandeachofthepatternsshouldbeexplainedbasedontheuniquenessofeach culture.Clusteranalysisisonlyamethodtofindculturesofsimilarpatternsofroles formathematics/sciencemotivationsinmathematics/scienceachievements.Exceptfor the Philippines, the results for most countries reveal that mathematics confidence plays a positive role in both mathematics and science achievements and that mathematics utility is not significantly related to either mathematics or science achievements.Basedonthisfinding,amoreprecise,supplementaryclaimthatmaybe positedisthatmathematicsconfidenceisthemother/basisofbothmathematicsand science achievements. This claim broadens our understanding of domainspecific selfefficacy(Bandura,1997):Weestablishthestructureofourconfidenceworldasa reflectionofthestructureofourworldknowledge.Mathematicsisthemother/basisof sciencenotonlyinthecognitiveaspectbutalsointheaffectiveaspect.Foreducational practice,weneedtointroducetostudentsapositiveaffectsetnotonlyforthedomain (e.g., science) but also for its basic, essential domainrelated subjects (e.g., mathematics).

PME31―2007 2151 Chiu

References Bandura,A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control .NewYork:W.H.Freeman. Chiu, M. S. (2006). Routine and novel mathematical solutions: centralcognitive or peripheralaffectiveparticipationinmathematicslearning.InJ.Novotna,H.Moraova,M. Kratka,&N.Stehlikova(Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2 ,313320.Prague,CzechRepublic:PME. Dehaene,S.,Piazza,M.,Pinel,P.,&Cohen,L.(2003).Threeparietalcircuitsfornumber processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20 (3/4/5/6),484506. Hannula,M.S.(2002).Attitudetowardsmathematics:emotions,expectationsandvalues. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49 ,2546. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Explaining paradoxical relations between academic selfconcepts and achievements: Crosscultural generalizability of the Internal/External frameofreferencepredictionsacross26countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (1),5667. McLeod,D.B.(1994).ResearchonaffectandmathematicslearningintheJRME:1970tothe present. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (6),637647. Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among selfconcept, selfefficacy and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (3),589603. Ryan.R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Selfdeterminationtheoryandthefacilitationof intrinsic motivation, social development and wellbeing. American Psychologist , 55 (1),6878 Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measurestudents’motivationtowardssciencelearning. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (6),639654. Wigfield,A.,&Eccles,J.S.(2000).Expectancyvaluetheoryofachievementmotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 ,6881.

2152 PME31―2007 MEDIATING MODEL BETWEEN LOGO AND DGS FOR PLANAR CURVES HanHyukCho*,MinHoSong*andHwaKyungKim** *SeoulNationalUniversity/**KoreaInstituteofCurriculum&Evaluation

Recent educational studies in planar curves tend to approach with tools, such as Logo and DGS, which emphasize action perspective and relation perspective, respectively. In this article, we consider the concept of vector as a powerful idea for integrating both action and relation perspectives. Also we discuss a mediating model connecting action and relation perspectives by designing an integrated microworld environment, and its implication in mathematics education.

INTRODUCTION Recentdevelopmentinscienceandtechnologyhasmadethevalidityofinformation shorter.Knowinghowtocreateinformationcametotakepriorityoverowningasetof knowledge. Accordingly, knowledge creator, not a knowledge consumer is needed now.Thismeansthatlearnersareaskedtotakeanactiveroleofexploringthemeaning of self through experiences. Recent learning environment emphasizes on activities suchasconjecture,experiment,andobservationthroughwhichlearnerscanconstruct one'sownlanguageonamathematicalobject,ratherthanfocusingthemonasetof givendefinitions. Developmentinscienceandtechnologyhasalsomadeitpossibletocreateteaching and learning environment never witnessed before. Especially, new technology can provideuswithdynamicandmanipulativeexperimentalenvironmentwithregardto rate of change such as graph and movement. In the same vein, recent studies on teachingandlearningplanarcurvestendtoexploreitsqualitativecharacteristicswhile traditional research had focused on the concept of correspondence in relation to functional thought. The qualitative calculus (Stroup, 2002) approaches the understandingoffunctionnotascorrespondence,whichisthekeytodefiningwhat functionisinmodernmathematics,butascovariation,whichismoreintuitive.The Computerbased Ranger (Berry et al., 2003), Motion Detector (Nemirovsky et al., 1998) and MathWorlds (Kaput, 1998) are the tools for the qualitative approach to functionanditsgraph. ThislineofresearchhasbeendonefrequentlyintheenvironmentlikeLogo,putting importanceonprocedural,activecommand,aswellasinDGS(DynamicGeometry Software)withemphasisonmanipulative,relativecommand.Eisenberg(1995)argues thatitisnecessarytointegratethesetwoenvironments.Abelson&diSessa(1980)also discussestheadvantagesoftranslationbetweentwoenvironments.Wefurtherargue

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.). Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of theInternationalGroupforthePsychologyofMathematicsEducation,Vol.2,pp.153160.Seoul:PME. 2153 Cho, Song & Kim that a mediating model be established to enhance translation between two environmentsinoneintegratedenvironment. Thisarticleaimstoreviewplanarcurvesfromtheperspectivesofrelationandaction and looks into characteristics of environments based on each perspective. It also proposesanenvironmentintegratingtwomodelswhileexemplifyingonemodelcase interconnectingthem.Finally,itdiscussesmathematicalimplicationsofrealizingthe integratedmodelinamicroworld. THEORETIC BACKGROUND AND MICROWORLDS Constructionismisbothatheoryoflearningandastrategyforeducation.Itbuildsonthe “constructivist”theoriesofJeanPiaget,assertingthatknowledgeisnotsimplytransmitted fromteachertostudent,butactivelyconstructedbythemindofthelearner.Childrendon't get ideas; they make ideas. Moreover, constructionism suggests that learners are particularlylikelytomakenewideaswhentheyareactivelyengagedinmakingsometype ofexternalartefactbeitarobot,apoem,asandcastle,oracomputerprogramwhichthey canreflectuponandsharewithothers.Thus,constructionisminvolvestwointertwined types of construction: the construction of knowledge in the context of building personallymeaningfulartifacts(Kafai&Resnick,1996,p.1). Computers and mathematics education (Cho, 2004), a field of study connecting mathematicseducationwithcomputer,istheoreticallybasedonconstructionismwhich places stress on mental construction of concepts and knowledge through physical construction.Naturally,educationbasedonconstructionismneedsaspaceforphysical constructionforitseffectiveimplementation.Amicroworldrealizesthisspaceina computer.Itemphasizesonlearningratherthanteaching,structureoftheenvironment forknowledgeconstructionratherthanfunctionalfeaturesofsoftwareforimproving theeffectivenessofknowledgedelivery.Thisstructureiscloselyrelatedto‘powerful ideas’, suggested by Bers (2001). He states that a microworld is a constructivist environmentdesignedtogeneratepowerfulideasinaspacelikeablackbox. Papert(1980)discussestheneedofpowerfulideasasamediatingthoughtwhilegiving ‘feedback’or‘ideasonmediatingcases’asexamplesofpowerfulideas.Indesigninga computerbased environment for constructivist learning, it is necessary to consider whattoolsandideasshouldbegiventolearnersinordertoenhancetheirmeaningful construction of knowledge. This article aims to suggest different presentations and further‘compositionanddecompositionofvector’.Abelson&diSessa(1999)talks aboutadvantagesofemployingdifferentperspectivesonaphenomenon.Freudenthal (1993), while describing the characteristics of vector, emphasizes its mathematical meaning. Researchhasbeenconductedonvariouswaystoencouragelearnerstoengageinthe constructivist learning with their sense of planar curves rather than focusing on correspondence, sets, calculationofthem. What we particularlytakenoteofisthe researchonplanarcurvesintheLogoandDGSenvironment.Also,therehavebeen

2154PME31―2007 Cho, Song & Kim studiesonhowtoapproachplanarcurvesusingaturtle’smovement.Armon(1999) andKynigos(2000)explorethecurvesusingintrinsicequation 1.Specifically,Armon (1999)attemptstofindintrinsicprocedurethroughintrinsicequationandappliesitto turtlealgorithm. Theessenceofthesestudiesliesinthetransformationofintrinsic equation,towhichturtlealgorithmisapplicable,toturtleaction.Eisenberg(2000)aim togivepracticalmeaningtocurveslikecycloidandcardioidbyofferingacommand representingtwoactionsofaturtleinoneconsequence. Cha&Noss(2002)explainstheimportanceofDGSdesignwithreferencetolocus problems in functions and graphs. Maor (2003) states that many tools have been developedtodrawdifferenttypesofcurvesandthatitisagreatpleasuretoseethose toolsmove,slowlydrawingdesignatedcurves.Spirographs,whichgainedpopularity in1970s,hadbeenusedasatooltodrawbeautifulfigureswithperiodicityandstudied in mathematics, especially in relation to astronomy (Ippolito, 1999; Adams et al., 2006).Thisshowstheimportanceofmanipulativeenvironmentindealingwithcurves.

Figure1:LogoandDGS LogoandDGSarenottotallydistinctfromeachother.Rather,thesetwodifferent environmentscanbeintegratedintoone;Cho(2006), Cho et al. (2004) 2. Figure 1 representshowasetofactionsandrelations,centralconceptsinDGSandLogo,can workinanintegrativeway. MEDIATING MODEL: ELLIPSE JavaMAL is a microworld integrating Logo and DGS. A turtle's actions in Logo influencebasicobjectsinDGSlikepointandlineandviceversa.IntegrationofLogo andDGSisnecessaryinthatitemphasizesonbothconstructionandmanipulationand theirinteraction.Sherin(2002)attemptstorealizeDGSfromtheperspectiveofturtle microworldlanguage.Abelson&diSessa(1980)alsodiscussthetranslationbetween twodifferentrepresentationslikethefollowing: Turtle geometry and vector geometry are two different representations for geometric phenomena,andwheneverwehavetwodifferentrepresentationsofthesamethingwecan 1Intrinsicequation,alsocallednaturalequation,referstoaformularepresentedbythreevariablesofarclength, radiusofcurvature,andtangentialangle. 2Thisreferstoanenvironmentinwhichlearnerscanobservehowtheturtlemovesbymanipulatingitsspeed bar,andcanexplorethepossibilityofgiftededucationbyusingturtleactiontocreate,manipulate,andmove diversetiles.

PME31―20072155 Cho, Song & Kim

learn a great deal by comparing representations and translating descriptions from one representationintotheother.Shiftingdescriptionsbackandforthbetweenrepresentations can often lead to insights that are not inherent in either of the representations alone (Abelson&diSessa,1980,p.105). Weunderstoodtheconceptofcurveas(1)staticonebasedoncorrespondence/setor (2) dynamic one based on parametric variables. However, it is difficult to relate, translatebetween,andcapturethemeaningoftworepresentations.Tofacilitatethe actions,weneedabridgebetweentworepresentations. In this article, we call the bridgeamediatingmodel.

Ellipse mediatingmodel withturtle moveCos(i),Sin(i)/2 Figure2.a Figure2.b Figure2.c Figure2.d

Figure2:ellipsewithDGSandLogo 3 Figure2.aandFigure2.dareDGSellipsescreatedbyellipsecreatecommandand turtleaction“move 4”.Figure2.b,drawnbytraceofPwhenAismanipulated,isthe mediatingmodel,whichcontainsbothofthecharacteristicsofDGSandLogoellipse. Inthisarticle,wedefineamediatingmodelasfollows.

Therearetwoconcentriccircles O1,O2 ,eachofwhichradiusisthearbitrarypositive real numbers r1,r2 . Here, points A, B exist on circle O1,O2 , respectively and for arbitrarynumber n , ∠AOX = n ⋅ ∠BOX and OP = OA + OB . AsinFigure2.b,thepointBmovesonthesmallercircleintheoppositedirectionofthe pointAmovingonthebiggercircleif r1 = 40, r2 = 20, n = −1.WhileAturnsonetime, sodoesB.HerethetraceofBmakesanellipse. ThismodelisexecutedintheDGSenvironment.Wheredoesaturtlehide?Wecan giveacommandwhichmakesaturtlecreatethesamecircleintheabovepicture,like Figure2.c.Tomakethispossible,wehavetocalculatethedistancetheturtlecovered anddothemathematicalactivitylikeseekingtherelationformulabetweenthedistance andtheperimeterofcircles. ThemovementofaturtleandthetraceofP,whicharerepresentedbytherelationship between two circlemaking points, are based on the same principle. It is the compositionofvectors,oneofpowerfulideas.

3http://www.javamath.com/class.cgi?343 4Formorediscussiononthemovecommand,seeChoetal.(2004).

2156PME31―2007 Cho, Song & Kim

↔ ↔

↔ ↔ Figure3.a Figure3.b Figure3.c Figure3:vectorapproachforellipse Figure3.arepresentsthepointAturningclockwisearoundthecircularcenterOand thepointBturninganticlockwiseasA’ssatellite.Atagivenmoment,A'sandB's revolvingmovementinfluencethesatelliteB,movingpointBinthedirectionoftwo movements’sum.Usingapowerfulideaofsumofvectors,Figure3.acanbetranslated into equivalent relations like Figure 3.b and Figure 3.c. Figure 3.c is an ellipse mediatingmodelinthiscase.Thislineofthoughtscanberepresentedbrieflyusingthe sumofvectorsasfollows. OA = AB + OB …① OA + OA + AB + AB = OB + OB … ② OA + AB = OB … ③ Formula ①representpointB’schangeoflocationbasedonthemanipulationofpoint AinDGSwhileformula ③ describestheinstantactionofB.Notably,formula ②uses expressionsinDGSandLogosimultaneously.Specifically,ithasitsownmeaning whileprovidingmeaningstobothDGSandLogo.Thisiswhywearguethatthiskind ofmediatingmodelcanbridgeDGSandLogo.

Wecangetvariousplanarcurvesbyadjustingthevaluesof r1,r2 ,n .Figure4shows planarcurvesobtainedbyrepresentingdifferentvaluesof r1,r2 ,n intocorresponding

( r1,r2 ,n ).

(40,20,2) (30,30,3) (30,30,3) (50,10,5) Figure4:planarcurveswiththemodel 5

5Planarcurvesbymediatingmodel.http://www.javamath.com/class.cgi?344

PME31―20072157 Cho, Song & Kim

PLANAR CURVES Wehavelookedatthemodel,whichconstructsanellipsewith movementsoftwo circles,anditsrelationshipwithDGSandLogoenvironments.Nowwearetoapply ourmediatingmodeltomorediversetypesofplanarcurve. ThestudyofepicycloidsgoesbacktotheGreeks,whousedthemtoexplainapuzzling celestialphenomenon:theoccasionalretrogrademotionoftheplanetsasviewedfromthe earth(Maor,1998,p.102). Epicycloid refers to the trace curve based on the relation between two circles. Originallydevelopedintheendeavourtoexplainthecelestialmovementinastronomy. Oneofthemainissuesinepicycloidisthetypeofcurvedeterminedbytheratiooftwo circles’radii.Figure5representsacardioid,thetypicalexampleofepicycloid,inDGS, ourmediatingmodel,andLogo,inturn.

Figure5:Cardioidwithdifferentrepresentations 6 Extension and generalization are important for students’ creative and divergent thinking.Therearedifferentwaystosecureextensionandgeneralization.Forexample, wecanusemorethantwocircles,multiplepointsoneachcircleorincreasethenumber ofpoints,whichdetermineanangularvelocity.Inthefollowingwereviewthestrategy tousemultiplecircles. PointsA,B,C,Dareonfourconcentriccircleswithradiusof 65,20,25,45,respectively.Here, ∠AOX = −2∠BOX = −3∠COX = 2∠DOX and OP = OA + OB + OC + OD .Giventheseconditions,thetraceofP makesafishcurvelikefigure6. Figure6:tropicalfish 7

6http://www.javamath.com/class.cgi?340 7Tropicalfishshapedcurveusingfourcircles.http://www.javamath.com/class.cgi?341

2158PME31―2007 Cho, Song & Kim

CLOSING REMARKS In this article, one planar curve is drawn in a dynamic microworld and turtle microworld.Itisalsodrawnusinga‘powerfulidea’,whichviewsthecurveassumof twovectors.TurtleMicroworldofferstheenvironmentinwhichvariouscurvesare created, explored, and manipulated with turtle commands and composition / decompositionofvectorsfromtheperspectiveof‘whatif’. Wecanfindtheeducationalmeaningofthisenvironmentinthatitoffersthevenuein which various actions are created. Further, those created actions can give birth to manipulableobjectslikeTile.Thesefeaturescanfosterlearners’creativethinkingand explorative activities. Further, the integrated environment can help introduce the dynamicconceptofplanarcurveandvectortomathematicseducationearlierandmore naturallythannow. Specifically, the environment suggested in this article is distinct from traditional software,whichfocusesondeliveryofinformationforthequantitativeandnumeric understandingofplanarcurve,inthatitgivesthepossibilityforlearnerstounderstand naturalphenomena,functionalgraphs,andvariouscurvesinanideaandconstruct,and manipulatetheminamicroworld.Italsoemphasizesintrinsicandlocalprocedurein approaching geometric phenomena, which may help learners grasping a central conceptfromdifferentperspectives,explorethedifferentaspectsofvariateincalculus, andunderstandtrigonometricfunctionmoreeasilybyusingitasatool. Finally,thisarticlereviewswhatisrequiredtoconnectdifferentmathematicalideasin theintegratedenvironmentandwhatexamplescanbeutilized.Italsodealswiththe issues in applying the integrated environment to education. This has significant implication in the current curriculum which places stresses on integrative thinking ability.Furtherresearchisneededonthemeaningofthisenvironmentinmathematics curriculumsothatitcanhelpreorganizeandenhancethesubjectmatter. References Abelson,H.&diSessa,A.(1980).Turtle geometry .Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Adams,F.C.&Bloch,A.M.(2006).Orbitsinextendedmassdistributions:Generalresults and the spirographic approximation. American Astronomical Society division on dynamical 37th astronomy annual meeting ,4.02. Armon,U.(1999).Analgorithmthattranslatesintrinsicequationsofcurvesintointrinsic procedures of these. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 30 (6),833854. Bers,M.U.(2001).Identity construction environments: The design of computational tools for exploring a sense of self and moral values .ThesisofdoctorofphilosophyattheMIT. Eisenberg, M. (2000). Superposed turtle walks. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 5,6583.

PME31―20072159 Cho, Song & Kim

Eisenberg, M. (1995). Creating software application for children: some thoughts about design . In A. A. disessa, C. Hoyles, R. Noss & L. Edwards(Eds.) Computers and exploratorylearning,Berlin:Springer. Freudenthal,H.(1993).Thoughtsonteachingmechanicsdidacticalphenomenologyofthe conceptofforce. Educational studies in mathematics , 25 ,7187. Cha,S.&Noss,R.(2002).Designingtoexploitdynamicgeometricintuitionstomakesense offunctionsandgraphs. Proceedings of the 26th Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference . Cho, H. H. (2003). Computers and Mathematics Education. Journal of Korea Society Mathematics Education Series A: The Mathematical Education . 42 (2),177191 Cho,H.,Kim,S.,Han,H.,Jin,M.Kim,H.,&Song,M.(2004).DesigningaMicroworldfor MathematicalCreativeandGiftedStudents. Proceeding of 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education . Cho,H.,Kim,H.,&Song,M.(2006).TheQualitativeApproachtoGraphsofFunctionsina Microworld. The SNU Journal of Education Research ,15 . Ippolito,D.(1999).Themathematicsofthespirograph. The Mathematics Teacher , 92 (4), 354358. Kynigos, C. (2000). Meanings around intrinsic curves with a medium for symbolic expression and dynamic manipulation. Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education ,Group9. Maor,E.(1998).Trigonometric Delights .PrincetonUniversityPress. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas . Cambridge, Massachusetts:PerseusPublishing. Papert,S.(1993). The Children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer . BasicBooks. Sherin,B.(2002).Representinggeometricconstructionsasprograms:abriefexploration. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning ,7(1),101115.

2160PME31―2007 COMPARING KOREAN AND U.S. THIRD GRADE ELEMENTARY STUDENT CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC MULTIPLICATION FACTS InsookChung andHeeChanLew SaintMary’sCollege,NotreDame,IN,USA/ KoreaNationalUniversityofEducation,Korea Elementary students who were currently third graders in Korea and the U.S.A. were asked to complete the Researcher-made Multiplication Questionnaire (RMQ) that contained four open-ended questions in order to examine their conceptual understanding of multiplication. The U.S. third graders provided better and more divergent definitions of multiplication than Korean students. However, Korean students created a multiplication word problem and represented it with a number sentence better than U.S. students did. Also, Korean students better identified the situations when multiplication was used in their real lives. But, Korean students lacked understanding of the different meanings of multiplication for all questions compared to the U.S. students’ understanding.

INTRODUCTION Anagendaforthereformofschoolmathematicsinthefieldofeducationhasbeenthe topic of considerable research, resulting in a new teaching approach based on the currentlearningtheory“Constructivism.”Theteachingandlearningofmathematics hasmovedworldwidefrommemorizingsetsofestablishedfacts,skills,andalgorithms to focusing on children’s active construction of meaning and mathematics as sensemakingandmeaningfullearning. IntheU.S.A.,thismovementhasbeenarticulatedwithconsistencybypublicationsof theNationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics(NCTM)suchasthe Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) and the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000).Thesepublicationscallforreforminschool mathematicsbyplacingemphasisontheimportanceforallstudentsingradesK12to studyacommoncoreofbroadlyusefulmathematicsthroughtheiractiveparticipation inthelearningprocessinordertobecomeintellectuallyautonomouslearners. Korean schools use a national curriculum. This mathematics curriculum has been developed and revised by a committee of educational leaders among classroom teachers in different grade levels, mathematics educators, and researchers from academicinstitutesundertheauthorizationoftheMinistryofEducationandHuman Resources Development (MEHRD). The current Korean mathematics curriculum, whichisthe7 th nationalcurriculum,distinguishedas“learnercentered,”wasrevisedin 1998(Lew,2004)andhasbeenimplementedsince2000(Paik,2004,p.12).This curriculumdevelopmentreflectedthecurrentmathematicsreformmovementwithin

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.161168.Seoul:PME. 2161 Chung & Lew theinternationalcontextandwaseasilynoticedinthehistoryofKoreanmathematics education(Paik,2004). Internationalcomparativestudiesinstudentacademicachievement,suchastheTrends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 1999 & 2003) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA, 2003), reported that Asian studentsachievedhighscoresinthesubjectofmathematicsandoutperformedtheir western counterparts. Particularly in 2003, Korean 8 th graders ranked 2 nd (M=589) while the U.S. students ranked 15 th (M=504) in mathematics among 46 countries participatinginTIMSS.Afterthesefindings,thereisagrowingresearchinterestin AsianmathematicseducationwithintheU.S.A.Variousresearchstudieshavebeen carriedouttocontrastthecurriculumandinstructionalmethodstoexaminedifferences betweenAsiancountriesandwesterncountries(e.g.,Chung,2005;Hiebert&Stigler, 2000; Li, 2000; Watanabe, 2001; Yong, 2005). However, few research studies contributedtocomparingstudents’conceptualunderstandingofmathematics,whichis oneofthemostimportantcurrentissuesintheteachingandlearningofmathematics. Multiplicationhasbeenmuchmoredifficultforchildrentoperformthanadditionand subtractioningeneral(Oliver,2005).Earlierstudieshaveshownthatyoungchildren candevelopmultiplicationconceptsinkindergartenorfirstgrade(Carpenter,etal, 1993;Clark&Kamii,1996).However,teachingmultiplicationfactsisabasicpartof the primary grade (K3) mathematics curriculum. Students are introduced to multiplicationconceptsinsecondgradeandarerequiredtomemorizetheirfactsin thirdgrade(Chung,2005;Wallance&Gurganus,2005).Someresearchers(e.g.,Behr etal.,1994;Belletal.,1989;Confrey&Smith,1995)claimedthatoncechildrenreach theprimarygradestheyareunabletosolveproblemsinvolvingmultiplicationorapply multiplicative number facts with meaning. When students reach grades 45, they experience difficulty in using multiplicative reasoning in a range of contexts and integratingtheirunderstandingofrationalnumberswithmultiplicationanddivision. Thissuggestedthatdifficultiesfacedbyolderstudentscanbeattributed,atleastinpart, to the lack of development of conceptual understanding of multiplication in early primary grades (Mulligan & Watson, 1998). With the results of the international comparativestudiesandconcernsaboutteachingandlearningmathematicalconcepts, especially multiplication concepts in primary grades, researchers investigated how studentsfromKoreaandtheU.S.A.differintheirconceptualunderstandingofbasic multiplicationfacts. Purpose This study was established to compare the conceptual understanding of basic multiplication facts between Korean and U.S. 3 rd grade elementary students. The specific objectives of this study were to investigate the following: 1) Define multiplication;2)Representtheirunderstandingofmultiplicationatthesymboliclevel (such as numbers and words, and number sentences); 3) Communicate their

2162 PME31―2007 Chung & Lew understandingofbasicmultiplicationfactswithothers;and4)Relatetheirconceptual understandingofmultiplicationtotheirreallifesituations. METHODOLOGY Participants Participantsforthisstudyincluded129maleand111female,(total240)thirdgrade students of Korean (n=120) and American (n=120) heritage who were currently enrolledattwopublicschoolsinthesuburbanareasofthestatesofIndianaandIllinois intheU.S.A.andthreeschoolsinthesuburbanareasofSeoulandPusaninKorea.The meanagesoftheparticipantswere111.25months(SD3.48)forKoreanschoolsand 106.35months(SD4.16)fortheU.S.schools.Koreanstudentsweretaughtwiththe national elementary school mathematics curriculum which was developed by a mathematics curriculum committee under the authorization of the Ministry of EducationandHumanResourcesDevelopment(MEHRD,2001).TheU.S.students whoparticipatedinthisstudyweretaughtwiththemathematicscurriculum,“ Everyday Mathematics ” published by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (2001). Instrument TheResearchermadeMultiplicationQuestionnaire(RMQ),entitled“HowMuchDoI Know about Multiplication?” was used to examine the 3 rd graders’ conceptual understandingofbasicmultiplicationfacts.Itconsistedof4openendedquestions. Studentswereaskedtodefinemultiplication,createamultiplicationwordproblemand constructanumbersentencefortheproblem,explaintheirunderstandingofabasic fact(e.g.7x6)usingtheirownwords,anddescribehowtheyutilizemultiplication skillsintheirreallifesituations. ThequestionnairewasdevelopedinEnglishandreviewedbytwoprofessors.Thefirst isauniversityprofessorwithexpertiseineducationalmeasurementandstatisticsand thesecondisamathematicseducationprofessor.Thequestionnairewastranslatedinto Koreanbytheresearcher.Thisinstrumentwasalsousedinapreviousresearchstudy donebyKim,Anderson,andChungin2002.Forthecurrentstudy,theRMQwas reviewedandrevisedbytwoclassroomteachersfromeachcountrypriortodistribution totheparticipants. Procedure and Data Analysis The researcher in each country distributed a letter containing the information explaining the objectives of the study, a copy of the parent consent form, student consentform,andthequestionnairetotheprincipalsofthreeparticipatingschoolsat thebeginningofthefall2006semester.OneschoolintheU.S.A.droppedoutfromthe study.Asaresult,onlyfivepublicschoolsparticipatedinthisstudy.Twoschoolswere locatedinSeoulandoneinthePusanareainKorea.OneschoolwaslocatedinChicago, IllinoisandoneschoolwaslocatedinGranger,IndianaintheU.S.A.

PME31―2007 2163 Chung & Lew

ThestudentquestionnaireswerecollectedbytheresearchersinearlySeptemberfrom KoreanschoolsandduringtheperiodofmidNovembertoearlyDecemberfromthe U.S.schools. Studentresponsesonthequestionnaireswerecategorizedfollowingtheguidelinesof thedatacodingsystemdevelopedbytheresearchersandinputonthecomputerusing SPSS 14.0 software. The four multiplicative structures (additive/equal group, array/area,multiplicativecomparisons,andcombinations)identifiedbyGreer(1992) were adopted to analyse student responses regarding multiplication stories. The codingsystemandinputdatawerecrossexaminedbybothresearchersandreviewed byaKoreanAmericansociologyprofessorwhoisanexpertinresearchmeasurement and statistics. Coded data were analysed usingdescriptivestatistics. Frequencies, percentages,andcrosstabulationwereusedtoanalysestudentresponsestoindividual itemsontheRMQ.CrosstabulationandtheChisquarestatisticswereemployedto determine differences in the third grade students’ conceptual understanding of multiplicationbetweenthetwogroups. RESULTS Whenstudentswererequestedtoprovideadefinitionofmultiplicationusingtheirown words,approximatelythreequartersoftheU.S.students(n=88,73.3%)provideda correctdefinitionwhereasonlyaboutonehalfoftheKoreanstudents(n=56,46.7%) coulddoso.ThePearsonChiSquarestatisticsindicatedthatmoreU.S.studentshad significantlyclearerdefinitionsofmultiplicationthanKoreanstudentsatp<.001(see Table1). Therearefourdistinctivemodelsinmultiplication.Theseareadditive/equalgroups, area/arrays, multiplicative comparisons, and combinations/Cartesian. The additive modeltellshowmanygroupsorsetsofequalsizearebeingconsidered.Thearea/array modelisarectangularregiondefinedastheunitsalongitslengthandwidthandan arrangementofobjectsorpicturesinrowsbycolumn.Themultiplicativecomparisons meanthattherearetwodifferentsetsthatneededtobematchedonetoonetodecide howmuchlargeroneisthantheother.Thecombination/Cartesianmodelstatesthat there are two factors representing the sizes of two different sets and the product indicateshowmanydifferentpairsofthingscanbeformed(Reysetal.,2004). Students from both groups provided definitions in five different ways: 1) Additive/equalgroups;2)area/array;3)multiplicativecomparisons;4)additiveand array;and5)additiveandmultiplicativecomparisons.Forthelattertwoways,students explainedtheproblemusingtwodifferentmodels.Approximatelyfortytwopercent (n=101)oftwohundredfortystudents(48Koreanstudents,53U.S.students)defined multiplication as additive/equal groups (see Table 2). For the task to create a multiplicationwordproblem,aboutseventyonepercentofKoreanstudents(n=85) andaboutfiftysixpercentofU.S.students(n=67)providedcorrectwordproblemsand represented the problems in a number sentence. Pearson ChiSquare showed significantstatisticaldifferencebetweenthetwo groups at p < 0.001 for the word

2164 PME31―2007 Chung & Lew problemandatp<.01forrepresentingtheproblembyanumbersentence(seeTable1). Approximatelyfiftyfivepercentofstudents(76Koreanstudents,55U.S.students) createdadditive/equalgroupmodelsofmultiplicationproblems(seeTable2). Studentswererequestedtoexplaintotheiryoungersiblingswhat7x6meansintheir ownwords.Forthisquestion,approximatelyseventythreepercentofKoreanstudents (n=88)andseventysixpercentofU.S.students(n=91)explainedthemeaningof7x6 correctly.Therewasnostatisticalsignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsatp > .05 for explaining the meaning of the problem (see Table 1). Approximately twentyeightpercentofU.S.students(n=33)explainedtheproblemwithwordsand about twentysix percent of students (n=31) used numbers and words in their explanation.ClosetoseventyfivepercentofKoreanstudents(n=85)describedthe probleminwordsandnumbers/numbersentences.Themostfrequentlyusedapproach forKoreanstudents(n=81,67.5%)wastodescribethemeaningoftheproblemwith theadditive/equalgroupmultiplicationmodel.FortheU.S.students,aboutfortyone percentofthestudents(n=49)approachedtheproblemusingadditive/equalgroupsand twentythreepercentofthestudents(n=28)explainedtheproblemusingthearray/area modelofmultiplication(seeTable2). Regardingthequestionofwhenstudentsusemultiplicationskillsintheirreallives, nearlyonehalfoftheKoreanstudents(n=56,46.7%)andslightlymorethanoneforth oftheU.S.students(n=33,27.5%)clearlyidentifiedasituation.PearsonChiSquare statisticsrevealedthattherewassignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsatp< 0.01foridentifyingsituations,butnodifferencesintermsofrelatinghowtousethe skillsintheirreallives(p>.05)(seeTable1).ThirtyfivepercentofKoreanstudents (n=42)andtwentypercentofU.S.studentssaidtheyhadusedmultiplicationskillsas theadditive/equalgroupmodelintheirreallives(seeTable2). Tables *p<.05,**p<.01,***p<.001 KOREA (n=120) USA (n=120) Correct Incorrect NoResp. Correct Incorrect NoResp. Definitionofmultiplication*** 46.7%52.5%0.8% 73.3%26.7%0% Creatingawordproblem*** 70.8%17.5%11.7% 55.8%43.3%0.8% Connectingawordproblem 70.8%29.2%0%54.6%45.4%0% toanumbersentence ** Explainingthemeaningoftheproblem 73.3%25.0%1.7% 75.8%23.3%0.8% Identifyingthesituations** 46.7%50.0%3.3% 27.5%69.2%3.3% Explainingreallifeapplications36.7%60.0%3.3%25.0%71.7%3.3% Table1:Thirdgraders’conceptualunderstandingofbasicmultiplicationfacts (N=240) *p<.05,**p<.01,***p<.001 Additive(A) Array(R) Multiplicative(M) A&R A&M Incorrect NoResp. Definitionofmultiplication*** KOREA 40.0% 0.8%5.8% 0%0%52.5%0.8% USA 44.2%20.8%4.2% 7.5%0%23.3%0%

PME31―2007 2165 Chung & Lew

Creatingawordproblem KOREA 63.3% 4.2%5.8% 0%0%25.0%1.7% USA 45.8%5.8%7.5% 0.8%0%39.2% 0.8% Explainingthemeaningofaproblem*** KOREA 67.5% 2.5%4.2% 0%0.8%23.3%1.7% USA 40.8%23.3%5.0% 11.7%0%18.3% 0.8% Identifyingthesituations KOREA 35.0% 5.0%2.5%0.8%0%53.3%3.3% USA 20.0%5.8%1.7% 0%0%69.2% 3.3% Table2:Modelsofmultiplicationsituations (N=240:120foreachcountry) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The analysed data of this study yielded results supporting previous international comparativestudies.KoreanthirdgradersoutperformedtheU.S.studentsincreating multiplicationwordproblems,constructinganumber sentence to represent a word problem,andidentifyingreallifesituationsinwhichtheyutilizemultiplicationskills. The Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM,2000)advocatesthata balance and connection between conceptual understanding and computational proficiencyarerequiredforstudentstodevelopfluencyinmathematics.Forexample, whenmultiplicationfactsaretaughtforconceptualunderstandingandconnectedto other mathematics concepts and realworld meaning, students perform better on standardizedtestsandinmorecomplexmathematicsapplications(Campbell&Robels, 1997). This study indicates that Korean students have good understanding of multiplicationconcepts. One of the interesting findings in this study was that U.S. students gave better definitionsofmultiplication,yettheywerenotabletoapplythisknowledgetocreating a multiplication word problem and a number sentence that corresponded with the problem.Inthemeantime,Koreanstudentswerebetterabletoexplainwordproblems andconstructthenumbersentences.However,theirabilitytoexplainthemeaningof thespecificproblem(7x6)wasnotsignificantlybetterthanthatoftheU.S.students. Korean students better identified the situations in which they needed to use multiplicationintheirreallives,eventhoughtheywerenotmorecapableofexplaining howmultiplicationskillswerespecificallyused.ThisimpliesthatKoreanteachers focus more on having students practice constructing word problems and number sentencesandunderstandingthewordproblemsratherthanlettingstudentsexplore andconnectrelationshipsamongsymbolicrepresentationsanddifferentconcepts. Another important finding in this study suggests that there is a major conceptual instructional challenge for classroom teachers of both groups. When teaching multiplication, teachers need to help children understand that multiplication has a variety of meanings, which are additive/equal group, array/area, multiplicative comparison, and combination/Cartesian. The models that were provided by third

2166 PME31―2007 Chung & Lew graders in this study were not diverse. The greatest number of students in both countriesusedtheadditive/equalgroupmodel,whichwasdefinedbythestudentsas repeatedaddition.Koreanstudents,inparticular,dominantlyusedtheadditive/equal groupmodel.Thearray/areamodelwasthesecondmostfrequentlyusedmodelbythe U.S. students to illustrate the multiplication problem. This indicates that the U.S. students possessed more various meanings of multiplication. Few students used multiplicative comparisons and no student provided multiplication meaning as the combination/Cartesianmodel. Finally,oneofthemostsignificantfindingsinthisstudywasthatstudentsfromboth countriesdidnotclearlyexplainhowmultiplicationskillswereusedintheirreallives. Morethanthreefifthofstudents(60.0%Koreanstudents,71.7%U.S.students)could notaccuratelyaddressthequestion,whichwastodiscusshowmultiplicationskillsare usedineverydaylifebyprovidingaspecificexample. Wallace and Gurganus (2005) recommended that the most effective sequence of instructiontohelpchildrenacquiretheconceptsofmultiplicationfactsistointroduce theconceptsthroughproblemsituationsandlinknewconceptstopriorknowledge. Withthisstrategy,studentsalsoshouldbeallowedtohaveconcreteexperiencesand semiconcreterepresentationsbeforepurelysymbolicnotations,explicitinstructionof rules,andmixedpracticeareintroduced. References Behr,M.,Harel,G.,Post,T.,&Lesh,R.(1994).Unitsofquantity:Aconceptualbasiscommonto additive and multiplicative structures. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 121176). Albany, NY: State UniversityofNewYorkPress. Bell,A.,Greer,B.,Grimison,L.,&Mangan,C.(1989).Children’sperformanceonmultiplicative word problems: Elements of a descriptive theory. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20 ,434449. Campbell,P.F.,Robles,J.(1997).ProjectIMPACT:Increasingmathematicalpowerofallchildren and teachers. In S. N. Friel, G. W. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancement in K-6 mathematics (pp.179186).Lanham,MD:UniversityPressofAmerica. Carpenter,T.P.,Ansell,E.,Franke,K.L.,Fennema,E.,&Weisbeck,L.(1993).Modelsofproblem solving:Astudyofkindergartenchildren’sproblemsolvingprocesses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24 (5),428441. Chung, I. (2005, November). Comparing Elementary Mathematics Curricula of Korea and the United States. Paper presented at the 1 st International Mathematics Curriculum Conference, CenterfortheStudyofMathematicsCurriculum,UniversityofChicago,Chicago,IL. Clark,F.B.,&Kamii,C.(1996).Identificationofmultiplicativethinkinginchildreningrades15. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (1),4151. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponentialfunctions.JournalofResearchinMathematicsEducation,26(1),6686.

PME31―2007 2167 Chung & Lew

Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276295). New York: Macmillan. Hiebert,J.,&Stigle,J.W.(2000).Aproposalforimprovingclassroomteaching:Lessonsfromthe TIMSSvideostudy. Elementary School Journal, 101 (1),320. Kim,S.,Anderson,H.,&Chung,I.(2002).Whatisareasonableexpectation? ComMuniCator, 26 (4),3233. Lew, H. (2004, July). Mathematics Education in Korea after TIMSS. In H. Lew (Chair), Development and characteristics of Korean elementary mathematics textbooks . The national presentation at the meeting of the 10 th International Conference of Mathematics Education, Copenhagen,Denmark. Li,Y.(2000).AcomparisonofproblemsthatfollowselectedcontentpresentationsinAmericanand Chinesemathematicstextbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 (2),23441. MinistryofEducationandHumanResourcesDevelopment(2001). Mathematics textbook: Grade 1-6(inKorean).Seoul,Korea:DaehanTextbooks. Mulligan,J.,&Watson,J.(1998).Adevelopmentalmultimodalformultiplicationanddivision. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10 (2),6186. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). C urriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston,VA:TheCouncil. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,VA:TheCouncil. Oliver, J. (2005). An early history of difficult multiplication and division. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 19 (1),5760. Paik,S.(2004,July).TheReportonmathematicseducationinKorea.InH.Lew(Chair), School mathematics curriculum of Korea . The national presentation at the meeting of the 10 th InternationalConferenceofMathematicsEducation,Copenhagen,Denmark. ProgramforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA).PISA2003summary.RetrievedSeptember5, 2006fromhttp://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf Reys,R.E.,Lindquist,M.M.,Lambdin,D.V.,Smith,N.L.,&Suydam,M.N.(2004). Helping children learn mathematics (7 th ed.).Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons,Inc. TheUniversityofChicagoSchoolMathematicsProject(2001). Everyday Mathematics: Grades 1 – 5. Chicago,IL.:SRA/McGrawHill. TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy(TIMSS),TIMSS 2003 International Reports . RetrievedSeptember5,2006,fromhttp://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/intl_reports.html TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy(TIMSS),TIMSS 1999 International Reports . RetrievedSeptember5,2006,fromhttp://timss.bc.edu/timss1999.html Wallace, A. H., & Gurganus, S. P. (2005). Teaching for mastery of multiplication. Teaching Children Mathematics,12 (1),2633. Watanabe, T. (2001). Content and organization of teacher’s manuals: An analysis of Japanese elementarymathematicsteacher’smanuals. School Science and Mathematics 101 (4),194205. Yong,Z.(2005).Increasingmathandscienceachievement:BestandworstoftheEastandWest. Phi Delta Kappan , 87 (3),219222.

2168 PME31―2007 SELF-MONITORING BY LESSON REPORTS FROM TEACHERS IN PROBLEM-SOLVING MATHS LESSONS ChristinaCollet ,ReginaBruderandEvelynKomorek TechnicalUniversityDarmstadt The following article presents chosen results from a teacher training on the learning of mathematical problem-solving in connection with self-regulation. The lessons documented during several weeks and the work products submitted by the teachers show specific further training effects.

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND In Germany education standards (KMK, 2003) have been developed which are implementedatthemoment.Problemsolvingplaysacentralroleinthesestandards, andspecialcompetenciesarerequiredfromtheteacherstoenhanceproblemsolvingin mathslessons.WithinthescopeofaprojectsupportedbytheDFG(GermanResearch Foundation) the Technical University Darmstadt pursues the aim to enhance this teaching competency on the basis of an approved, materialbased and dailylife adapted teaching concept for the learning of problemsolving in connection with selfregulation(Komoreketal.,2006).Theresultsofastudywithstudenttraining measuresonspecificproblemsolvingstrategiesandinterdisciplinaryselfregulation stategies reveal specific effects regarding the mathematical performance of the students(Perelsetal.,2005).Onthebasisofthesetrainingresultsateachingconcept for the enhancement of problemsolving in connection with selfregulation was establishedforteacherfurthertrainingcourses(Colletetal.,2006).Theteacherfurther trainingoftheschoolyear2004/2005wasfocussedonthefollowingaspects: • Ateachingconceptforthelearningofproblemsolving • Theenhancementoftheselfregulationofstudentsbyhomework Teacherswhoparticipatedinthestudyweretrainedonspecialresearchcontentslike problemsolving(PS),problemsolvingandselfregulation(PSR),selfregulation(SR) and the safeguarding of mathematical basis competencies (CG: “Quasicontrol group” 1).Inafurthertrainingatthebeginningoftheschoolyearandsupportedby supervision(curricularbased(CB),webbased(WB),nosupervision(NO))duringthe schoolyeartheteachershadtogothroughdefinedfieldsofcompetency,dependingon the further training content. Following a (moderate) constructivist approach and in ordertoreachcorrespondingeffectswiththeteachers,practicalexerciseswerepartof thefurthertrainingatthebeginningoftheschoolyearandofthesupervisionduringthe

1CGgroup is no control group in the proper meaning of the word as the teachers of the group underwent further educationformathematicalbasiccompetenciesandinternaldifferentiation.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.169176.Seoul:PME. 2169 Collet, Bruder & Komorek schoolyear,allowingtoexperienceproblemsolvingstrategiesortoconstructown problemsinthesenseoftheteachingconcept. Theoretical background and classification of the study Shulman (1986) describes six knowledge categories of teacher competencies. The presentstudyanalysesthePCK(pedagogicalcontentknowledge)inconnectionwith actionelementsforproblemsolvingincombinationwithselfregulation.Theproblem withthiskindofstudiesisthatthereisnoclearhorizonofexpectation(standards)in Germanysofar.IntheAmericanstandardsformathsteachers(NBPTS,2001)those competenciesarealreadyincluded,howevernotoperationalized.Thepurposeofthe presentstudyistocontributetothedevelopmentandtheuseofsuitableinstrumentsto describefurthertrainingeffects.Qualitativeinstrumentsandconventionalquantitative methodsaswellascrosssectionandprocesssurveysfortheanalysisofefficiencyare appliedinafieldworkwithbothteachersandstudents,especiallylessonreportsand work products. The work products are particular problems, longterm homework, learningcontrolsandteachingdrafts.Onthebasisofsubmittedworkproductsitis possibletoassessifateacherisabletoimplementdevelopedknowledgeofsubjects treatedinhisfurthertraining.Thelessonreportsoftheteachersallowtoevaluatetheir selfperceivedabilitywithregardtotheintegrationofthefurthertrainingconceptin regularmathslessons. Questions and hypothesis concerning the chosen tools Thepresentstudywantstoanalysethefollowingresearchquestions: • To what extentareselfdeveloped tasks reflecting furthertraining effects? (work products) • Whicheffectsontheselfperceivedimplementationofthe furthertraining content by the participating teachers has the intervention with the further trainingconcept? (lesson report) Positive trends concerning the implementation of the further training content are expected from the lesson reports for those further training groups which were supervisedthroughouttheschoolyear(CB,WB).Thetasksdevelopedbytheteachers were expected to show the individual implementation of the concept, following Galperin(1974)inthreegradesofprofessionalitylevelsdependingondifferentaction orientations(tryanderror,pattern,fieldorientation).Theaimofthefurthertraining istoacquireatleastone pattern orientation. Thismeansthatonlyexampleswithout variationareadopted.However,inthelongruntheaimistoachieve field orientation, allowingtheteachertogenerateownexampleswhichareinlinewiththeconcept.The qualityoftheworkproductsalonedoesnotguaranteethesuccessfulimplementationof theconceptinmathslessonsbutisconsideredasanessentialprerequisite.

2170 PME31―2007 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

STUDY DESIGN 48 teachers (Gymnasium teachers and teachers from other school types) from 9 schoolswithclassesoflevels7and8tookpartinthestudy.Atthebeginningofthe schoolyear2004/2005theteachersparticipatedinafurthertrainingwithfourtraining modules according to the aforementioned competencies (PS, PSR, SR, CG). Two groupsweresupervisedthroughouttheschoolyear,eitherbycurricularbasedtraining courses(CB)orbywebbasedcoaching(WB).Table1showsthedesignofthestudy withdifferentvariationsofthefurthertrainingcontentandcoaching. PS PSR SR CG CB 4 8 WB 11 8 4 NO 6 8 Table1:Designoffurthertrainingmethodandcontent:numberofteachers Instruments of data collection Four developed instruments were applied with the teachers to analyse the further trainingeffectsfromdifferentpointsofview( www.mathlearning.com ).A repertory grid survey (qualitative) and a teacher questionnaire (quantitative with qualitative elements)servedasbasisforapreandpostcomparison.Therepertorygridsurvey allowstorecordtheideasteachersmayhaveonmathsproblemsbyaskingthemto specifycharacteristicfeaturesofproblempairs(Colletetal.,2006;Lengninketal., 2003). The teacher questionnaire deals with teaching aims in connection with the enhancement of subjectrelated and multidisciplinary competencies, attitude and experiencewithrespecttotheintegrationofindividuallearningpossibilitiesinthe lessonsandcognitiverequirementsinthehomework.Moreovertheteachers’ideas aboutgoodmathslessonsarecollectedinconceptmaps. For theinternalizationof aspectsoftheteachingconceptandthedocumentationoftheconceptimplementationa selfmonitoringinstrument,the lesson report ,wasusedasprocessualinvestigationtool. Theteacherswereaskedtodocumenttheirmathslessonscontinuouslyoveraperiodof 10weeks.Thelessonreportconsistsof34itemsestablishedagainstthebackgroundof the teaching concept on the learning of problemsolving and selfregulation in connectionwithbasicstructuralelementsof“good”mathslessons.Inordertogain access to theirknowledge regarding the successful concept implementation and to maintaintheteacherfurthertrainingeffectsbyindividualexperience,theteachersare asked to submit at least one own work product at the end of the further training. Moreover a student performance test with problem-solving tasks was run to show possibleeffectsofthefurthertraining(Colletetal.,2006).A standardized student questionnaire was employed to determine, among others, the selfregulative competencyandtheperceptionofthelessons.Bothinstrumentswereadoptedinthe preandpostsurvey.

PME31―2007 2171 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

RESULTS OF THE STUDY Selected general results The repertory grid survey revealed quantitative and qualitative growth in the descriptionofproblemfeatures,allowingtodrawcorrespondingconclusionsfromthe further training effects (Komorek et al., 2006). The teacher questionnaire demonstrates the stability of the values allocated to subjectrelated and multidisciplinaryteachingaimsaswellastothecommitmentandselfperceptionof teachers.Thereisasignificantincreaseintheenhancementofindividuallearningand cognitive homework requirements. The students manifested in their student performance test significant increases in performance and a more frequent use of heuristics(Komoreketal.,2006). Results of the work products The work products submitted by the teachers at the end of the school year were evaluatedbymeansofacategorysystem,theresultswerereportedtotheteachers.17 teacherssubmitted38workproductsintotal(8workingsheets,5particularproblems, 4learningcontrols,8longtermhomeworks,13lessondesigns).Thefollowingaspects were taken into account for the evaluation of the work products: subject-related criteria, aspects of goal orientation (transparency of the goal for the students, clearnessofthegoal by the teacher), motivation potential, internal differentiation, cognitive activation (especiallyvariationofdegreeofdifficultyandtasktype), student activities and self-regulation .Theresultsofthesubmittedworkproductsprovethe successful concept implementation by the teachers (Komorek et al. 2006). An exemplaryworkproduct(shortenedversion)ofateacherfromtheproblemsolving group (PS) shows a specific implementation of the concept (in the sense of field orientation). The task, following an upgrading of requirements, starts with low requirementsandbecomesmorecomplexwitheverysubtask.Sourceofthetaskisa socalled“twominutetask”,takenfromaHungarianTVshowinthesixties. OriginaltaskfromaTVshow: “Thesemicirculardiscglidesalongtwolegsofaright P angle.WhichlinedescribespointPontheperimeterofthe half circle?” (Engel, 1998). The problem for students A modifiedbytheteacheris: • Makeaconstructionofbeercoastersorsimilar materialstovisualizetheproblem. • WhichlinedescribespointP? 0 B • Explaintheformofthecurve. A student who was working with a dynamic geometry softwareexplainedhersolutionofthetwolattersubtasksasfollows:

2172 PME31―2007 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

Eva: Ididn’tproduceacurvebutaline.Allpointsof Pareonthisline.Whenwemovethesegment AB and A'B' on the coordinates, line G is alwaysfollowingthemovementinawaythatit goesthroughpointPandP'.Idonothavean explanation for line G, but I believe that wheneverapointisattachedtoGandABor A'B'ismoved,itdescribesacurve. Theteacherreflectsupontheuseofthetaskasfollows: Teacher: Experimental homework is useful and arouses the cusiosity of many students.Thegoalwasreachedtomakeamaximumofstudentsdealwith thismostdemandinggeometricproblem.Thewrittendocumentationofthe problemsolving process revealed a multitude of individual perceptions, approachesandproceduresofthestudentsandalsoshowedthecausesof possibleproblems. Results of the lesson reports 1296lessonreportswerepresentedby38teacherswhohaddocumentedtheirlessons in15to41periods.Fromtheitemscollectedinafourstageanswerformat(3:“very true”to0:“nottrue”)thefollowingfivescaleswereestablished: • Innerandoutermathematicalproblemsolving(Cronbachsα=.89;6Items) • Useofstrategies–reflectiononaction(Cronbachsα=86;4Items) • Internaldifferentiation–individuallearning(Cronbachsα=.80;4Items) • Formationofexerciseprocesses(Cronbachsα=.73;6Items) • Accomplishmentoflessontarget(Cronbachsα=.86;4Items) Thefirstthreescalesweresubsumedinasuperordinatescale“problemsolvingand selfregulation“(Cronbachs α=.94; 14 Items). This scale includes elements for the enhancement of partial actions of problemsolving, the integration of heuristic and selfregulativeelementsinthelessonsandtheheterogenityinclass.Thefollowingis focussedonthisscale. Analyses of trends inconnectionwiththefurthertrainingmethod(CB,WB,NO)show that curricular coaching or webbased coaching are considered to be a cause for significantpositivetrendstowardstheimplementationoftheconcept.Ontheother handtheinputintheformofasinglecompactcoursedoesnotcreateapositivetrend,a certain starting level in the context of the enhancement of basic competencies notwithstanding.Figure1illustratesthetrendsofthecurricularfurthertraininggroup (CB)andofthefurthertraininggroupwhichwasnotsupervisedduringtheschoolyear (NO).

PME31―2007 2173 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

Fig1:Trendanalysis(scale:“useofstrategies–reflectiononaction“) As a processual instrument the lesson report reveals the effect of a concrete intervention,resultingofanadditionalfurthertrainingcourse.Coachingthroughout theschoolyearshouldinfluencethevariablesofthelessonreportinawaythatthe participation in this further training produces a significant difference between selfperceivedteacheractionafterthefurthertrainingcourseatthebeginningofthe schoolyear(firstinterventionphase)andaftertheintervention(secondintervention phase).Itwasnotpossibletorunaclassicalbaselinephasewithoutplacingexcessive burdenontheteachers.Theeffectoftheadditionaltrainingonthecurricularbased group (CB) was analysed with an intervention analysis (ARIMA (1 st order autoregressivemodel)).Onthe18 th dayofthestudyasignificanttrainingeffectcanbe observed(figure2). AsfortheintegrationofheuristicelementsitisstatedthatintheGymnasiumsheuristic toolsaswellasstrategiesandprinciplesareadopted.Theteachersofotherschooltypes areratherfocussingonheuristictools.Mostfrequentlyusedheuristictoolswerethe informativefigure(122),table(86),graph/diagram(64)andstrategieslikeforwardand backwardworking(121).Thefrequencyofmentionedheuristicsbytheteacherisput in.

2174 PME31―2007 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

Fig.2:Interventionanalysis(scale:“problemsolvingandselfregulation“) Conclusion and outlook Theresultsofallinstrumentsprovethesuccessfulimplementationoftheconcept.The workproductsofteachersaresuitabletoshowcompetenciesacquiredinthefurther training.Duetothepositiveresultsofthisstudythecollectionofworkproductsand their evaluation became part of the elearning training courses ( www.prolehre.de ), organizedbytheTechnicalUniversityDarmstadtsince 2005. The lesson report as processual instrument allows to draw conclusions from the selfperceived action competencewithrespecttotheimplementationoftheconcept.Theresultsshowthatin addition to a single compact course further coaching during the school year is necessarytoenhancetheintegrationoftheconceptideas.Themultiperspectivity of theappliedtoolsallowsaconnectionofteacherknowledgeandpracticalactionwith regardtothelearningofproblemsolvingandselfregulationaccordingtotheproposal ofdaPonteetal.(2006). Theresultsofafollowupstudy(oneyearafterthefurthertraining)with11project classesarecurrentlyevaluated.Theyareexpectedtorevealthelongtermeffectsofthe furthertrainingcoursesonthestudents.

PME31―2007 2175 Collet, Bruder & Komorek

Literature Collet,C. &Bruder, R.(2006).Evaluation ofateachingconcept forthedevelopment of problem solving competencies in connection with selfregulation. In: Novotná, J., Moraová, H., Krátká, M., Stehlíková, N. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 30th PME International Conference, 2 ,p.345352. Engel, A. (1998). Problem-Solving Strategies . SpringerVerlag: New York; Berlin; Heidelberg. Galperin,P.(1974).DiegeistigeHandlungalsGrundlagefürdieBildungvonGedankenund Vorstellungen.In:Galperin,P.,Leontjew,A.N.(Eds.): Probleme der Lerntheorie ,p. 3349. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2003). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz. Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. www.kmk.org/schul/Bildungsstandards/Mathematik_MSA_BS_04-12-2003.pdf (last call: 30.8.2006). Komorek, E., Bruder, R., Collet, C., Schmitz, B. (2006). Inhalte und Ergebnisse einer InterventionimMathematikunterrichtderSekundarstufeImiteinemUnterrichtskonzept zurFörderungmathematischenProblemlösensundvonSelbstregulationskompetenzen.In: Prenzel,M.&AllolioNäcke,L.(Eds.): Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule. Abschlussbericht des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms. Münster: Waxmann, S. 240267. (Englishversioninprint–published:April2007) Lengnink,K.&Prediger,S.(2003).Developmentofpersonalconstructsaboutmathematical tasks – a qualitative study using the repertory gird methodology. In: Pateman, N. A., Dougherty, B. J., Zilliox, J. T. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 27th PME International Conference, 4 ,p.3946. NationalBoardforProfessionalTeachingStandards(NBPTS)(2001).NBPTS Adolescence and Young Adulthood Mathematics STANDARDS (for teachers of students ages 14-18+) . SecondEdition. Perels,F.,Gürtler,T.&Schmitz,B.(2005).Trainingofselfregulationandproblemsolving competence . Learning and Instruction, 15 ,p.123139. Ponteda,J.P.,Chapman,O.(2006).Mathematicsteachers´knowledgeandpractices.In: Gutiérrez,A.,Boero,P.(Eds.): Handbook of Research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education .SensePublishers,Rotterdam,p.461494. Schoenfeld,A.H.(1985). Mathematical problem solving .Orlando,Florida:AcademicPress, Inc. Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounterstand:Knowledgegrowthinteaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2) ,p.414. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining selfregulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts,M.,Pintrich,P.R.,Zeidner,M.: Handbook of self-regulation .SanDiego,CA: AcademicPress,p.1341.

2176 PME31―2007 MATHEMATICS EDUCATION AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER BLOCKLAYING STUDENTS: THE POWER OF VOCATIONAL CONTEXT AND STRUCTURAL UNDERSTANDING 1 TomJCooper ,AnnetteRBaturo,BronwynEwing,ElizabethDuusandKaitlinMoore QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Brisbane,Australia Torres Strait Islanders (TSIs) are Australian Indigenous people whose lands comprise the Islands between Australia and Papua New Guinea. As a consequence of past government policies, they share with Aborigines social disadvantages (Fitzgerald, 2001) that lead to mathematics underperformance and limit education, employment and life chances. This paper reports on an action-research collaboration between our research team and a vocational teacher to enable mathematically-underachieving TSI adult students to meet the requirements of a blocklaying course. It discusses Indigenous vocational mathematics, describes the theories behind our VET Project and the findings of the blocklaying collaboration, and reinforces the importance of vocational contexts and structural understanding (Sfard, 1991) when teaching vocational mathematics. Demandforskilledtrades’workers,suchasblocklayers,hasincreasedinresponseto Australia’s economic growth in the past decade. The training of these workers is managedthroughanationalsystemofpostcompulsoryeducation(postYear10)called Vocational Education and Training (VET). Standardised national training packages, developedthroughconsultationwithindustrybodies,describetheskills,knowledgeand assessment needed to perform a trade. Most of this training is delivered by state governmentTechnicalandFurtherEducation(TAFE)institutes,althoughschoolsand private institutes are also involved. The training packages do not stipulate learning strategiesnortakeaccountofculturaldifference.ItisuptotheindividualTAFEteachers todeterminetheneedsoftheirstudentsandthe“how”oftheirteaching.Thismeansthat eachTAFEInstitutehasdifferentmethodsofcateringforlowachievingandIndigenous students,particularlyforstudentswhosemathematicsisinadequatefortheirtrade. Indigenous students and VET .Indigenousstudentshavethelowestretentionratesin the Australian school system, often leaving school before completing Year 10 with lowerlevelsofmathematicsthannonIndigenousstudents(Bortoli&Creswell,2004; Queensland Studies Authority (QSA), 2004). This has been attributed to racism, remoteness, English as a second or third language (ESL), social factors (Fitzgerald, 2001) and systemic issues including nonculturally inclusive forms of teaching, curriculumandassessment(Matthewsetal.,2005).Asculturalknowledge,mathematics istaughtfromaEurocentricpositionwhichmeansthatIndigenousandotherminority culturesexperiencealienationfromandconflictwithit(Matthews,etal.,2005).This flowsovertopostcompulsoryeducation,whereIndigenousstudentsexperienceanxiety in regards to mathematics due to prior negative schooling experiences (Katitjin,

1Thestudy&VETResearchProjectissupportedbyAustralianResearchCouncilgrantLP0455667.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.177184.Seoul:PME. 2177 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore

McLoughlin, Hayward, 2000). Thus, Indigenous retention in postcompulsory educationislowandfewcompleteseniorsecondarysubjectsatalevelthatenablesthem toenterUniversity(QSA,2004).IndigenousstudentsenterVETearlier(theproportion ofIndigenousstudentsaged16yearsorlessenteringVETishigherthannonIndigenous students)andarelesseducated(overhalfatorbelowYear10onentrytoVET)and morelikelytobeESLandremote(DEST,2003). The VET Research Project .OurinterestinmathematicseducationandVEThasarisen fortworeasons.First,mostVETtrainingpackagescontainmathematicsrequirements and assessment that cause problems for TAFE students with low mathematics knowledge.Gainingmathematicsskillshasbeenidentifiedasacentralequityissuein education, obviously because mathematics proficiency is “required not only in educational contexts but also in employment” (Louden et al., 2000, p. 202). Second, VETtrainingrequiresstudentstointegratepriorandnewmathematicalunderstandings inaworkplacecontextverydifferenttoschooling(Martin,LaCroix&Fownes,2005). This offers an opportunity for new approaches to teaching mathematics that may overcome the legacy of longterm school failure. This interest in VET mathematics education has led to a VET Research Project 1 in which we collaborate with TAFE teachersacrossQueenslandinavarietyofcoursesandprogramstostudyeffectiveways toteachmathematicstounderperformingTAFEstudents.Thispaperreportsononeof thesecollaborations,astudyofTSITAFEstudentslearningblocklayingmathematics. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS TheVETResearchProject’saimistostudythevalueofutilisingvocationalcontextsto teach mathematics to structural understanding (Sfard, 1991). The methodology is qualitative, interpretative and intervening, using casestudy approaches to investigate collaborativeactionresearchbetweenusandTAFEteachersinimprovingmathematics education.Theproject’sparticipantsconsistedoftheteachersandtheirstudents.Ithas twotheoreticalframeworks,namely,vocationalcontextandstructuralmathematics. Vocational context .ThefirstimperativeoftheProject,andtheTSIcollaborativestudy wasthat mathematicsinstructionshouldbesituatedwithinavocationalcontext.This camefromthefindingsofourfirstVETstudy(Baturo&Cooper,2006)whichfocused on Aboriginal horticulture students at a community secondary school in a rural area. Initially, these students studied horticulture in the morning with a TAFE teacher and returnedafterlunchformathematicswithaschoolteacher.Thenthetwocomponents wereintegratedandthestudentsstudiedhorticultureandtheassociatedmathematicsall day with the TAFE teacher. Our findings were that: (a) separating mathematics and horticulture was unsuccessful (most students simply did not attend the mathematics lessons);(b)teachingmathematicswithinahorticulturalcontextwassuccessfulaslong astheTAFEteacherwasgivencontentandcurriculumsupport;and(c)horticulturaland mathematicsstudywasmosteffectiveifitintegratedauthentictaskssuchasconstructing afenceforapark(“doingrealworkthatreallymatters”–Keller,2007,p.2)withvirtual simulationsofthesamework.Forexample,thehorticulturestudentsfounddifficultyin determiningthenumberandplacementoffencepostsevenwithacalculatorbecause

2178 PME31―2007 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore they did not understand the situation as division. A computer simulation (using PowerPoint)inwhichfencescouldbebuiltwithvirtualpostsanddiscussedintermsof fencedistance,postseparationandnumberofpostswasfoundeffectiveinfollowingup reallifefencingsituations. ItwasevidenttousthattheAboriginalstudentspreferredtomeetmathematicswithin anauthenticvocationalratherthanschoollikecontext(asdescribedinMartinetal., 2005). This is in line with growing global recognition of contextbased initiatives such as authentic pedagogy (Newman & Wehlage, 1995) and workintegrated learning (Gibson et al., 2006) and the continuing power of seeing cognition in situation(Brown,Collins,&Duguid,1989;Lave,1988).Theseapproaches(gathered together under the title “vocational context” in this paper) posit that knowing and thinkingshouldbeconsideredasaninteractionbetweenanindividualandphysical and social situations that allow for meaningful constructions and statements about learning(Wenger,1998)anddevelopschemasthatmediatebetweenexperienceand learning(Derry,1996).TheyinvolveacurriculumintegratedwithVETneeds,work components to allow learning through experience, relevant placement in VET activities, and welldefined logistics for organising, coordinating and assessing students (as Bates, 2005, proposed for teacher education). Community involvement andownershipthatisaconsequenceofvocationalcontextshasbeenidentifiedasthe singlemostimportantfactorofIndigenoussuccessinVETcourses(O'Callaghan,2005). Structural mathematics .ThesecondimperativeadoptedbytheProjectwastoalways takemathematicsinstructionbeyondproceduraltostructuralunderstanding,atthesame timecontextualisingtheinstructionbyincorporatingIndigenouscultureandperspectives intopedagogicalapproaches(Matthews,Watego,Cooper&Baturo,2005).Thefocuson structure was due to our prior success with this approach when educating adult IndigenousandnonIndigenousteachersandteacherassistants(Baturo,2004;Baturo& Cooper,2004).Itwasalsoreinforcedinourfirstcontactwiththeblocklayingteacher where he stated that his students had problems converting from mm to m. He had introducedthisconversionbymodeling1masthelengthfrom0mmto1000mmona measuring tape and then explaining that a decimal point preceded the amount when convertingmmtom.Thishadnotworkedbecausemanystudentsthenbelievedthat6 mmwas0.6m,60mmwas0.60m,and600mmwas0.600m. THE BLOCKLAYING COLLABORATION ThegovernmentcentreintheTorresStraithasasmallTAFEcampusstaffedbynon Indigenous and Indigenous people, including elders. This campus runs programs on skillsneededintheislands:generalconstruction,marinestudies,horticulture,business, art,culturalstudiesandgeneraladulteducation.Thegeneralconstructionprogramtakes young, predominantlyunemployed, TSI men and trains them for 1.5 years in blocklaying.Oncompletion,studentsgotoCairns(1000kmsouthonthemainland)and can be apprenticed, become labourers for builders, or use their skills to build for themselvesandtheirIslandCommunities.OurcollaborationwiththeTAFEteacherof theblocklayingcourseinvolvedfindingwaystodevelopTSIstudents'understandingof

PME31―2007 2179 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore themathematicsconceptsandprocessesembeddedinblocklayingsituationssufficient forthestudentstobesuccessfulinbuildingblockstructuresandinmeetingcertification. Teacher, course structure and students . The TAFE blocklaying teacher was not Indigenousbutwasahighlyqualifiedmasterbuilderwithbuildertrainingcertification. Wewereimpressedthathewasalreadyteachingusingvocationalcontexts:(a)building wallsandsmallbuildingswithblocksandsoftmortarinanoncampusconstruction centreinawaythatallowsconstructionstobedismantledandblocksreused;and(b) taking thestudentstodifferent Islandsto build actualstructures (e.g.,boatstorage sheds,retainingwalls,asmallbridge,schoolentrancegates)forthecommunityand private businesses. He did all the teaching for the blocklaying course and integrated mathematicsintohisblocklayingteaching.Aswell,hewasorganisingpartnershipswith localindustryandislandcompaniesandcouncilstogainfullscaleprofessionalprojects withwhichthestudentscouldnetworkfutureemployment. Heemphasizedlearningtobuildpersonalandcommunitycapacityasmuchastogain certification:I say to them, do the course and you will be able to build your own house even if you don’t go on and get certification . He had built up a strong personal relationshipwithhisTSIstudentsthatwentbeyondclassroomcontacthours.Hehadno training in mathematics education; not surprisingly, he saw mathematics teaching in proceduralterms(asisevidencedbythemeasuringtapeexampledescribedearlier). TheofficialcoursethroughwhichblocklayingwastaughtwasCertificate1inGeneral Construction(astherewerenotenoughmasterbuildersintheTorresStraittoenable apprenticeships) and ran for 18 months. The course was designed so that, at its end, studentswouldhavesufficientpracticalexperiencetoenterintoanapprenticeshipand getrecognitionthatwouldbeequivalenttotwoyearsasanapprentice. Theblocklayingstudentsvariedinagefrom1826yearsandallwereIndigenous.Some studentscamefromtheouterislandsandwereselectedbytheirIsland’scouncilsand elderstobecomebuildersfortheircommunities.Ofthetenstudentsinterviewed,five hadcompletedYear12;threehadcompletedYear11;andtwoothershadfinishedYears 9and10respectively.However,themathematicalabilityofmoststudentswasnotmuch morethanmidelementaryschool(asisindicatedinthemathematicsproblemstheywere having).Thiscausedproblemswhenmathematicswasencounteredinthecourseandled to early withdrawal and failure. The mathematics in the blocklaying course was supported by module workbooks but the teacher recognized quickly that these workbookswerenotconducivetoIndigenousstudentlearningstylesorneeds. Intervention .Weundertookthecollaborationattwolevels,professionallearningand planningsessionswiththeTAFEteacher,andmodellessonswiththestudents.Boththe sessionsandthelessonsfocusedonteachingstructuralunderstandingofthestudents’ mathematicslearning difficulties identified by the teacher as can be seen in the followingsummariesofinterventionsforthreeofthesedifficulties. 1) Whole and decimal numbers and conversion from mm to m .Akinaestheticactivity fromBaturo(2006)reinforcingmultiplicativestructureinwhich9studentsinarow

2180 PME31―2007 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore

are labeled as place value positions in periods of three (110100 ones, 110100 thousands, and 110100 millions). Other students labeled as digits (say 7) move betweenthemastheremainingstudentsusecalculatorstodeterminetheconversion rates (e.g. moving from 10 ones to 1 thousand is multiplying by 100). This is repeatedwiththeperiodsrelabeledasmm,mandkmandreinforcedbymetricslide ruleswhereacardboardstriplabeledmm,mandkmisslidalongaplacevaluechart allowing,inturn,mmandmtobeintheonesposition. 2) Proportion and measurement to interpret house plans drawn with a scale . Two PowerPoint virtual activities (Baturo & Cooper, 2006) were designed. The first reinforced the relationship between plan and reality in terms of scale. Students changedacopyofarectangleinrelationtotheoriginalasdirectedbyascaleand then translated this scale to a change between mm on plan and m in reality. The secondreinforcedbuildingwallswithblocks.Studentsusedvirtualpicturesofwhole, halfandthreequarterblocks,doorsandwindowstoconstructwallsanddetermine numbersandtypesofblocksinrelationtoarea. 3) Area and volume of footings .APowerPointactivitywasdesignedforwholeclass discussion to enable area formulae to be discovered and translated to volume formulae.Studentsmanipulatedpicturesoftilestorelatelengthandwidthtoareaand thenaddedlayersoftilestoastartingbasetorelateheightwithareaofbase. Student, teacher and administrator responses .Theprofessionallearningsessionsand the model lessons were videotaped and the blocklaying teacher and TAFE administratorswereinterviewed.Theinterviewsindicatedthattheblocklayingcourse was considered a success by the students, the teacher and administrators. To date attendance and achievement was higher than expected in the course and the students wereableattheendoftheprogramtobuildwithblocks.Asaconsequence,thecourse was being maintained at a time when other TAFE institutes were curtailing such activities.TheTAFEteacherwasstronginhispraiseforthestudents,sayingmostwere employablebecausetheycouldbuildwithblockssufficientlywelltomake money for an employer . Withregardtovocationalcontexts ,responsesfromstudentsandstaffindicatedstrong supportforthisteachingapproach,particularlywhenitwasdonethroughauthentic tasksthatsupportedthecommunity.Manystudentsstatedthattheypreferredlearning onthejobsitetointheclassroom.Theyfelttheycouldunderstandmathematicsifit wasbeingimplementedatthejobsite;asStudent1stated,I like it on-site because you can see it and you know what it is.Ofcourse,theywerepragmatic;asStudent2 saidwhenaskedaboutclassroomorsite, On the site … but a bit of both hey . ThestudentswereparticularlymotivatedbygainingskillsthattheirIslandscoulduse. Providingfortheircommunityandhelpingcommunitymemberswhohadhelpedthem in the past was important to these students. When asked if he would go to Cairns, Student 4 stated, I’d probably stay here and work out on the outer islands . When asked his reason, he stated, Help the people and help me . When asked what he wantedtodoandwhere,Student2said, I want to become a contractor, I want to

PME31―2007 2181 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore have a chance to give back to people who have helped me ,whileStudent5stated, I just want to pass this course … and start my own business … Yeah on TI, there’s a couple of outer island people that I want to help get into TAFE and do block work . Itwasalsoevidentthatastrongrelationshipexistedbetweenteacherandstudentsand wasakeyfactorinthesuccessofthecourse.Anumberofstudentsremarkedhow theyappreciatedtheencouragementandsupportprovidedbytheirteacher;Student3 stated, He’s a pretty good bloke. He’s not too tough, but when he wants us to do something … He’s a good teacher though ,whileanothersaid, Yeah, he’s alright. He doesn’t discourage us if we do something wrong and there’s always encouragement from him . The importance of building a relationship was supported by the teacher whosaid, Once I’ve built relationships with them, which takes about two weeks, they start to relax a bit with me … When [one student] first showed up I actually threw him out of the yard because he wouldn’t speak to me. He wouldn’t communicate. He was very withdrawn … Once he decided that he’d get to know me I had no problem. That’s the same with all the boys. I have to build a relationship with them before I can get them to do anything . Withregardtostructuralunderstanding ofmathematics,thestudentsandtheteacher appeared to find the modeling of the structural ideas useful for their blocklaying mathematics.Analysisofthevideotapesshowedthatwhenstudentsparticipatedin the kinaesthetic activity to learn about whole and decimal numbers, the level of engagement in the classroom increased. Mathematics related discussion between students,teachers,andourresearchteamwasalsogreaterthanatothertimesduring themodeling.Thevideotapealsoshowedstudentshighlyengagedwhentheywere presentedwiththePowerPointactivityonvolume.Evidenceofthiswasseenasone student controlled the PowerPoint slides and the rest of the class aided him with verbalencouragementandsuggestions.Whenweaskedattheendofthemodeling session, Do you like the computer stuff? Most students called out yes, and one particularstudentexclaimed, For sure!Onestudentremarkedtohisteacherlaterin thedaythatforthefirsttime,heunderstoodvolume;theteacherdescribedit, I was just talking to a couple of boys, and they said that they understand the volume better on [the data projector]… I did exactly the same thing except I did it on the board. They’ve understood this better. [One student] who I thought had grasped it very well, just said to me, I understand volume now. The feedback from the blocklaying teacher was even stronger; he changed his opinionofhowtoteachmathematicsasaresultoftheintervention.Attheendofthe firstresearchvisit,heapproachedamemberofourteamandadmittedthatheinitially hadconcernsthatthevisitwouldbeawasteoftimebuthewaswrong.Hesaidthat theprofessional learning and planning sessions and modeling lessons had changed hisopinionandthattheapproachesonofferwerevaluabletohimandwouldprove valuable to his teaching. He stated that he was looking forward to the next interventionandwouldimplementtheideasandapproachwithhisstudents.

2182 PME31―2007 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Thecentralimplicationofthestudyisthatvocationalcontextsandstructurallearningof mathematics is effective in VET situations. The collaboration with the blocklayers showedtheefficacy ofvocationalcontextinlinewiththeargumentsandfindingsof Baturo&Cooper,2006;Brownetal.,1989;Gibsonetal.,2006;&Newman&Wehlage, 1995.Bothteacherandstudentsstronglysupportedthevocationalcontextapproachfor learning mathematics. The success of the blocklaying course in comparison to other TAFEIndigenousinitiativesisastrongvalidationoftheeffectivenessoftheapproach. Oneofthereasonsforsuccessliesinthecourse’sorganization.Discussionswiththe blocklayer teacher revealed that he met the four areas that Bates (2005) argues are important for a successful work integrated program: VET integrated curriculum; experientiallearning;VETplacementsandwellorganisedandimplementedcourse.The collaborationalsoshowedtheimportanceofthecontextsbeingauthenticinrelationto community involvement (O'Callaghan, 2005) and being work that matters (Keller, 2007).Thestudentspositivelyrespondedtolearningthatprovidedthemwithskillsto improvetheirownlivesandtheircommunity.Also,thestudentsrespondedwelltothe positive relationship with their TAFE teacher, considered an important attribute of successfulIndigenousprograms(Baturo&Cooper,2006).Theyhaddevelopedpridein theiridentitiesasblocklayers,alsoabasisforsuccessinIndigenouslearning(Matthews etal.,2005). ThecollaborationalsovalidatedtheimportanceofmathematicsinVET(Loudenetal., 2000)andthevalueandsignificanceofstructurallearningofmathematics(Sfard,1991; Baturo & Cooper, 2006) to students’ successful use of mathematics in workplace situations.Althoughtheblocklayingstudentsexperiencedanxietytowardsmathematics (Katitjinetal.,2000),theywereabletounderstandthemathematicsinblocklaying contexts,mostlikely(astheirinterviewresponsesdisclosed),becauseitwasdifferent toschooling(Martinetal.,2005).Thecollaborationalsoreinforcedtheefficacyof virtual(PowerPoint)mathematicsmaterials(Baturo&Cooper,2006)asshowninthe students’reactionstothemodelinglesson.

References Bates, L. (2005). Building a bridge between university and employment: Work-integrated learning (ResearchBriefNo2005/08).Brisbane,Qld:QueenslandParliamentaryLibrary. Baturo, A. R. (2004). Empowering Andrea to help Year 5 students construct fraction understanding. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education .Bergin,Norway:PME Baturo, A. R. (2006). Developing structural knowledge of the decimal number system . Unpublishedteacherassistanttutoringmaterials,EducationFaculty,QUT,Australia,4059. Baturo, A. R., & Cooper, T. J. (2004). Train a maths tutor. http://www.dest.gov.au/ literacynumeracy/innovativeprojects/pdf/baturo_train_maths.pdf [Retrieved:07/01/2007]. Baturo, A. R., & Cooper, T. J. (2006). Mathematics, virtual materials and Indigenous vocational training .Unpublishedreport,EducationFaculty,QUT,Australia,4059.

PME31―2007 2183 Cooper, Baturo, Ewing, Duus & Moore

Bortoli,L.,&Creswell,J.(2004). Australia’s Indigenous Students in PISA 2000:Results from an International Study (ACERResearchMonographNo59).Camberwell,Vic:ACER. Brown,J.S.,Collins,A.,&Duguid,P.(1996).Situatedcognitionandthecultureoflearning . In H. McLellen (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 1944). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnologyPublications. Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate . Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4),163174 DEST.(2003). National report to Parliament on Indigenous education and training. Canberra, ACT:CommonwealthofAustralia. Fitzgerald, A. (2001). Cape York Justice Study Report . Brisbane, Qld: Department of the PremierandCabinet. Gibson, E., Brodie, S., Sharpe, S., Wong, D., Deane, E., & Fraser, S. (2006). Towards the development of a work integrated learning unit . http://www.cfl.mq.edu.au/celebrate/pdf/ papers/gibson1.pdf (Retrieved07/01/2007). Katitjin,L.,McLoughlin,C.,&Hayward,K.(2000).IndigenousAustralianadults'perceptions andattitudestomathematicsandonlinelearningofmathematics. Proceedings of Australian Indigenous Education Conference .Fremantle,WA:AIEC. Keller, D. (2007) Applied Learning is linked with improved academic performance. http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/applied_learning/research1.htm [Retrieved07/01/07]. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life . Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Louden,W.,Chan,L.,Elkins,J.,Greaves,G.,House,H.,Milton,M.,Nichols,S.,Rohl,M., Rivalland,J.,&VanKraayenoord,C.(2000). Mapping the territory: Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy .Canberra,ACT:DETYA. Martin,L.,LaCroix,L.,&Fownes,L.(2005).Fractionsintheworkplace:Foldingbackand the growth of mathematical understanding. Proceedings of the 29 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Ed .Melbourne,Vic:PME Matthews,C.,Watego,L.,Cooper,T.J.,&Baturo,A.R.(2005).DoesMathematicsEducation in Australia devalue Indigenous Culture? Indigenous perspectives and nonIndigenous reflections . Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia .Melbourne,Vic:MERGA. Newmann,F.,&Wehlage,G.(1995).Successful School Restructuring: A Report to the Public and Educators by the Center on Organisation and Restructuring of Schools . Madison, Wisconsin:UniversityofWisconsinMadison. O'Callaghan,K.(2005).Indigenous vocational education and training: At a glance .Adelaide, SA:NationalCentreforVocationalEducationResearch. QueenslandStudiesAuthority.(2004). Overview of statewide student performance in Aspects of Literacy and Numeracy: Report to the Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts . Brisbane,Qld:QueenslandStudiesAuthority. Sfard,A.(1991).Onthedualnatureofmathematicalconceptions:Reflectionsonprocessesand objectsasdifferentsidesofthesamecoin. Educational Studies in Maths, 22 ,136. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

2184 PME31―2007 INTERDISCIPLINARY LEARNING AND PERCEPTIONS OF INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF MATHEMATICS NgKitEeDawn,GloriaStillmanandKayeStacey UniversityofMelbourne,Australia This paper studies the effect of interdisciplinary project work on Singapore students’ perceptions of mathematics. Interdisciplinary project work aims to prepare students for the knowledge-based economy, emphasise links within and between school subjects and core skills such as communication. Two scales measuring perceptions of the interconnectedness of mathematics were completed by 409 students aged from 12 – 14, in 3 schools, before and after participating in a 12 – 16 week project. Amongst statistically significant changes was a relatively moderate increase in scores on the interconnectedness scale after project work. Students in different ability streams perceived and used interconnectedness in different ways both before and after the project work. Teaching emphasis on conscious integration of subject areas is needed.

INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECT WORK IN SINGAPORE Interdisciplinary project work (PW) was introduced as an educational initiative in Singapore in 1999 to prepare students to meet the demands of a knowledgebased economy(CPDD,2001).Tostayrelevantinsuchaneconomy,indepthknowledgeof specific subjects is insufficient. Students need to integrate ideas from various disciplinesforproblemsolving.Curriculumplannersinvariouspartsoftheworld(e.g., McGuinness, 1999; NCTM, 1995), including Singapore, have begun to emphasise explicitlinksbetweenschoolsubjects.PWisseenasaplatformforincorporatingcore skillsandvalues,andintegratingsubjectspecificknowledgeininnovativeways(Chan, 2001). PWcontributestotheSingaporevisionof Thinking School Learning Nation (Quek, Divharan,Liu,Peer,Williams,&Wongetal.,2006).Copingwithaknowledgebased economyrequiresmeaningfulintegrationofvarioussubjectspecificcontentareasfor problemsolving.Thus,theSingaporeMinistryofEducationismovingawayfromsole dependenceonpaperandpencilexaminations,andincludingholistic,studentcentred learningactivitiesandauthenticassessmentmodes.PWisconsideredasa“paradigm shift”(Queketal.,2006,p.14)fromteacherdependenttostudentinitiatedlearning. ThelearningoutcomesofPWarestatedin4domains:communication,collaboration, independent learning, and knowledge application, which include emphasis of the interconnectednessofwhatislearned(CPDD,2001). PW tasks are mainly adapted from Ministry resources or designed specifically by teachersaccordingtoyearlythemessetbyschools.EveryPWtaskanchorsinatleast twoormorecurriculumsubjectareas.Ideallyateamofatleasttwoteachersfromthese subjectareasareallocatedtotheclass.AtypicalPWtaskconsistsofamajordriving questioninvolvingareallifeproblemorscenario.Criticalintellectualactivitiesare generatedfromthetask,withpurposefulintegrationofcontentfromitsvariousanchor

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.185192.Seoul:PME. 2185 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey subjects.PWisdifferentfromtheinterdisciplinaryorintegratedcurriculaespousedby manyschoolsintheWest(seeJacobs,1991),wherecontentlearningderivesfrom thematicrelatedprojecttasksandinvestigations.InSingapore,thenecessarycontent and skills are taught during traditional subjectspecific lessons, and PW teachers provide “justintime instructions” (CPDD, 2001) so that groups can work independentlyandcreativelywhileapplyingtheknowledgeandskillstaught. Aims of this study Theworkreportedhereispartofamixedmethodsstudyintothenatureofthethinking that students engage in during PW and the effects of PW on their mathematical learning. Close analysis of selected groups of students as they work on a project enablesastudyoftheinterplaybetweencognitive,metacognitive,andsocialprocesses duringPW. A quantitative surveybased study has also been conducted to measure changes in variousaffectivemeasuresasstudentsparticipateinPW,andtoobservedifferences betweengroupsofstudents.Areviewoftheliteraturerelatingtolinksbetweenaffect andproblemsolving,ofgoalsandexpectationsofPWinSingapore,andextensive statisticalanalysisofdraftscalesledtotheidentificationofthreeconstructsasbeing especiallyrelevanttointerdisciplinarylearning: • confidence in mathematics scale • value of mathematics scale • interconnectedness of mathematics (ICS) scale ,incorporating2subscalesof intersubject learning (ISL) and beliefs and efforts in making connections (BEC). ThispaperwillreportonlyresultsfromICSscale.Resultsfortheotherscalescanbe found in Ng and Stillman (2006). Perceptions of the interconnectedness of mathematicshavenotbeenmeasuredbefore,toourknowledge.Wewillreportonthe constructionofthescales,differencesbetweengroups(genderandeducationalstream), andtheimpactofPWonstudents’perceptionsofICS. INTERCONNECTEDNESS IN MATHEMATICS One aim of implementing PW in Singapore schools is to make explicit the interconnectionsofsubjectspecificknowledgesothatlearnerscan“transcendsubject boundariesandmakeconnectionsbetweenthevarioussubjectareas”(CPDD,2001,p. iii).Proponentsoftheinterdisciplinarycurriculum(e.g.,NCTM,1995)emphasisethe importanceofdrawinglinksbetweencontentandskillsofschoolsubjectstoencourage holisticlearning. Beliefs,selfconfidence,andvalueinmathematicshavebeenexaminedbyresearchers (e.g.,Schoenfeld,1989)todrawinferencesonstudents’affectandproblemsolving. ThoughthereareotherSingaporestudiesonPW,Tan(2002)wastheonlystudytodate relatingmathematicsattitudestoPW.HefoundthataproblembasedapproachtoPW improved most of the six dimensions of mathematical attitudes studied from his

2186 PME31―2007 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey allmalesampleintwoeducationalstreams.However,hedidnotlookintostudents’ perceptionsoftheinterconnectednessofmathematics. Despitegrowingemphasisoninterdisciplinarylearningincurricula,noliteratureto datehasbeendedicatedtoquantifyingtheperceptionsofinterconnectednessbetween subjects.ThisstudybeganbyexaminingtheSingaporePWgoalsandidentifyingthree components of interconnectedness namely, how students perceive (a) mathematics contentandskillsinrelationtoothersubjects;(b)theusefulnessofmathematicsin understanding other subjects; and (c) the complementary relationship between mathematics and other subjects in problem solving. These components representa continuum,fromawarenessofinterconnectedness,toconsiderationofuse,toactual use. Items were constructed for these three components. For example, for the first component,itemBEC2(seeTable1,whichgivesthefinalversiononly)mayindicate highpersonalsensitivitytointerconnectednessofmathematics.Thesecondcomponent arisesfromassertionsamonginterdisciplinaryproponentsthatstudents’understanding ofonesubjectcanbereinforcedbyanother(Jacobs,1991).Itemsfocussedonlinks suchaswhetherstudentsrecognisethepossibilityoftransferringknowledgeacross subjects(e.g.,ISL4).Knowingthatinterconnectednessexistsbetweensubjectsdoes not imply action, however. Boix Mansilla, Miller, and Gardner (2000) assert that interconnectednessrequirethatstudentscombinedisciplinebasedknowledgetosolve problems,sothethirdcomponent(e.g.,ISL6)measurestheapplicationofmathematics andothersubjectstosolvereallifeproblems,whichareusuallyinterdisciplinaryin nature.Highscoreshereimplyflexibleintegrationofknowledgeacrossdisciplines,the epitomeofthegoalsofinterdisciplinaryeducation. Althoughconceivedasthreecomponents,extensivetriallingofthescales,asdescribed below,resultedintwosubscalesforICS,withgoodstatisticalproperties.Wetriedto encapsulatethedifferencesinthefactorsinthetwonames Inter-subject Learning (ISL) and Beliefs and Efforts in Making Connections (BEC) . All items from BEC scale derivedfromthoseproposedforthefirstcomponentabove.ISLitemsderivedfromall 3components.ThefinalitemsandscalesareshowninTable1.

METHODOLOGY Construction of the scales Thefirstversionoftheconfidence,valuesandinterconnectednessscalescomprisedof 45fivepointLikertitems.TwoexpertpanelsfromSingaporeandAustraliavettedthe initialitems.Thethreescaleswereconstructedinthreephaseswith283studentsinthe targetagerange(12–14)from7Singaporesecondaryschools.Carewastakentotrial withstudentsofarangeofEnglishlanguageabilitiesfromgovernmentneighbourhood schools,tobesimilartothe3schoolswhichundertookthePWstudy. First, items were facevalidated by 9 students from three streams in individual interviews,whoexplainedtheirresponsesandrephrasedproblematicitems.Rephrased

PME31―2007 2187 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey versions were retested on subsequent interviewees. The 45 items were then administeredtoanothergroupof36studentstwicewithinoneweekand13students with high response inconsistency attended individual facetoface interviews to identify confusing statements for deletion. The scales were reduced to 41 items. Second,twoschoolsheldalargescaletrial(n=204).Factoranalyseswereconducted separatelyonthethreescales.Varimaxrotationrevealedatotalofeightsubscales, includingtwo(ISLandBEC)forICSasnotedabove.Table1showsbasicstatisticsfor thescales.Third,testretestreliabilitywascheckedwith34studentswhoresponded twiceinonemonth.Allsubscalesdisplayedmoderatetohighstability.Futurestudies couldaddtothedevelopmentoftheICSscalepioneeredbythisstudy.Fulldetailsof the development of the scales are given by Ng and Stillman (2006). In the final questionnaire,theitemsweregivenwithothersthatelicitedbackgroundinformation. Students were told to respond with reference to their most recent classroom experiences. InterconnectednessofMathematicsScale(ICS)(Varianceexplained=44.85%) IntersubjectLearning(ISL)( α=0.787;Testretestr=0.62) ISL1 Ihaveusedmathwhileworkinginanothersubjectbefore. ISL2 Icanseelinksbetweensomemathtopicsandothersubjects. ISL3 SometimesIusemathtohelpmeunderstandanothersubject. ISL4 Icanusemathtohelpmelearnanothersubjectbetter. ISL5 Iuseanothersubjecttohelpmelearnmathsometimes ISL6 Sometimes,IcombinewhatIknowfrommathandothersubjectstosolve problems. ISL7 Mathmaysharesomecommontopicsandskillswithothersubjects. Beliefs&EffortsinmakingConnections(BEC)( α=0.587;Testretestr=0.53) BEC1 Idon’ttrytomakeconnectionsbetweenmathandothersubjectswhenIlearn. BEC2 Itisimportanttorelatemathtoothersubjectswhenlearning. BEC3 Ifindlearningmoremeaningfulwhenmathandothersubjectshavecommon topics. BEC4 MathhasnoconnectionswiththeothersubjectsIamstudying.

Table1.TheitemsoftheInterconnectednessofMathematicsScale The project work ThemainstudycentredontheimplementationofPWinthreeSingaporeschools.PW lessonsareincorporatedintothenormaltimetableandstudentsworkingroupsof4or 5,consultingteachersatleastonceaweekforabout13weeks,andtheyalsowork outsideclasstime.SixteenclassesundertookthePWwithatotalof632students,of

2188 PME31―2007 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey whom409agreedtosubmitdatatothestudy.InSingapore,studentsarestreamedon entrytosecondaryschool.The16classeswerefromthehighest(Express)andmiddle (NA=normalacademic)overallabilitiesinlanguage,mathematics,andscience.One schoolhadoneteacher(mathematics)forPWineachclassandtheothershadtwo. ThefirstauthorcreatedaPWtaskonenvironmentalconservation.Ng(2006)describes thetask“Designinganenvironmentallyfriendlybuilding”indetail.Thetaskformally combined mathematics, science and geography and aimed to enhance students’ environmentalconsciousness.Theflexibility,scope,andbreadthaffordedbythetask enabledstudentsfromdifferingabilitystreamstoparticipate.Extensivedesignand supportmaterialswereprovidedfortheteachers.For their final products, students constructed physical scale models of their buildings using recycled materials. Mathematicalconceptsandskillsincludeestimatingdimensions,makingappropriate scaledrawings,constructing3Dscalemodels,costingandevaluating. Theclassesusedtheprojectbasedapproach.Theyweregivenascenariotoexplore, brainstorm, and plan theirownschedules for completion. Students collaborated in decision making, research, and constructing the prototypes of their buildings. Assessmentofthetaskevaluatedtheprocess(e.g.,drafts)andproductsproduced.Each memberofthegrouppresentedaportionoftheirworkorallytotheclass.Individual andgroupscoreswereawardedbasedonrubrics.

RESULTS Table2givesthemeansandstandarddeviationsforthescoresonthetwosubscalesof interconnectedness(ISLandBEC)forthewholesampleandvarioussubsamples.All themeansareintherange3.25–3.75,indicatingthatthesegroupsofstudentswereon averageabouthalfwaybetweenneutralandagreementonthefivepointscale.The overallISLmeanandtheISLmeansofallofthesubgroupsinTable2improvedafter thePWexperience.TheoverallBECmeanshowsverylittlechangeafterthePW experience, with some the subgroups making a small increase and some making a smalldecreasefrompretasktoposttask. Thestatisticalsignificanceofthedifferencesinthetableweretestedwithageneral linearmodel(GLM)i.e.amultirepeatedmeasuresANOVA.Therepeated measureswerethedependentvariables(ISLandBEC)scorespretaskandposttask (timefactor),andtherewere3independentfactors:gender,streamandschool. School differences. Theschooldifferences were not statistically significant, and so studentsfromthethreeschoolsareputtogethertomakeonesample. Pre-task to post-task differences. The change in ISL on the whole sample was statisticallysignificantatthe5%level(Wilks’Lambda=0.966,F(1,391)=13.760,p 2 2 =.000, ηp =.034).Theeffectsizeof0.034(measuredby ηp )isbetweenCohen’s (1988)limitsof0.01forsmalland0.06formoderateeffect.ThechangeinBECfrom pretasktoposttaskwasnotstatisticallysignificant(Wilks’Lambda=1.00,F(1,390) 2 =0.014,p=.906, ηp =.000).

PME31―2007 2189 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey

Gender differences. The BEC subscale showed a small but significant gender 2 differencefavouringmales(F(1,1)=4.460,p=0.035,df=1, ηp =.011)buttheISL 2 scaledidnot(F(1,1)=0.032,p=0.858,df=1, ηp =.000).Timegenderinteraction effectswerenotsignificant,implyingthatgenderwasnotafactorforreactiontothe PWexperiences,butafactorforbetweensubjectdifferences. Stream differences. Thereweresignificantdifferencesofrelativelymoderateeffect sizebetweenExpressandNAstudentsforbothISL(F(1,1)=10.891,p=0.001,df=1, 2 2 ηp =.027)andBEC(F(1,1)=11.713,p=0.001,df=1, ηp =.029),withexpress studentsscoringhigher.TherewasnotimestreaminteractioneffectforeitherISLor BEC,indicatingthatPWaffectedtheattitudesofeachstreaminthesameway. SampleGroups IntersubjectLearning BeliefsandEffortsat (ISL) makingConnections(BEC) Pretask Posttask Pretask Posttask mean s.d. mean s.d. mean s.d. mean s.d. All(n=409) 3.52 0.58 3.64 0.53 3.48 0.58 3.49 0.60 Males(n=206) 3.51 0.58 3.66 0.60 3.52 0.61 3.49 0.65 Females(n=203) 3.53 0.58 3.62 0.47 3.44 0.56 3.48 0.54 Express(n=295) 3.59 0.57 3.70 0.50 3.54 0.56 3.57 0.56 NA(n=114) 3.35 0.57 3.50 0.59 3.31 0.61 3.27 0.64 School1(n=151) 3.56 0.51 3.61 0.49 3.46 0.59 3.44 0.60 School2(n=94) 3.40 0.59 3.54 0.64 3.38 0.59 3.36 0.66 School3(n=163) 3.56 0.63 3.73 0.50 3.56 0.57 3.60 0.53 Table2.MeansandStandarddeviationsforISLandBECscores.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study has pioneered the quantitative measurement of perceptions of interconnectednessofmathematics,providinginformationaboutstudentsinvarious groups,andbeforeandafteranexperienceofprojectworkwhichhasappreciationof interconnectednessasoneofitsgoals. Through a careful process of test development, it was found that perceptions of interconnectedness could be summarised in two factors which had good statistical properties: inter-subject learning (ISL)and beliefs and effort in making connections (BEC). Further research by others on the measurement of perceptions of interconnectednesswouldbewelcome,totestthisfactoranalysisbeyondSingapore secondaryschoolstudents.Sinceincreasingappreciationofinterconnectednessand promotinginterdisciplinarylearningarecommongoalsofschoolsystems,arobust analysisoftheconceptshouldbeveryuseful.

2190 PME31―2007 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey

There were differences of relatively moderate effect size between the two ability streams,favouringhigherabilitystudents,beforeandafterPW.Expressstudentstend toperceivetheinterconnectednessofmathematicsmorethanNAstudents,andare likelytomakeeffortsatmakingconnectionssuchasengaginginusingmathematics forintersubjectlearning.Studentsindifferentabilitystreamsseemtodefineandmake useoftheconnectionsbetweensubjectsfortheirlearningindifferentways.Although the ISL and BEC subscales are still in developmental infancy, information on this wouldassistfuturefacilitationofinterdisciplinarylearningforstudentsindifferent educationalstreams. Administrationofthetwosubscalesshowedthattherewasasmallgenderdifference favouringmalesonBEC,butnotonISL.Thisprovidedfurtherevidencethatthetwo subscales are indeed different, and added furtherinformation to the knowledge of genderdifferencesinmathematicsinanAsiansetting. Inaccordancewiththegoalsofprojectwork,therewasasmallimprovementofscores toISLafterparticipatingintheinterdisciplinary project. Students after the project work were somewhat more likely to appreciate mutual reinforcement of learning amongmathematicsandothersubjects.Theydidnot,however,reportanincreased efforttomakesuchconnections(BEC).Wehavenogoodexplanationofwhythere shouldbeanimprovementinoneofthesubscalesbut not the other, although the qualitativedatagatheredinthestudymaysoonprovidesomeclues. Animprovementinappreciationofinterconnectednesswouldbeexpectedbecauseof thenatureoftheprojectexperience,whichrequiredstudentstousemathematicsin conjunctionwithothersubjects.Intwoschools,studentshadteachersfromdifferent subjectareasfacilitatingPWgroups.Therearealsosomereasonswhytheeffectmay havebeensmall.Abouthalfofthestudentshaddoneprojectworkbefore,andabouta thirdhadusedmathematics(usuallyonlyarithmetic)intheirpreviousPW,sotheymay alreadyhavedevelopedsomeideasaboutinterconnectedness. Classroomobservationsandteachers’reportswerethattheopentaskwasappropriate forclassesofbothabilitylevels,becausethestudentswerelargelyabletosetthe mathematicaldemandsofthetaskforthemselves.Themainmathematicaldifficulties wereinfixingthescalesforthebuildingandmakingthe3Dmodelfrom2Ddrawings. Oftenthesemathematicaltasksweredelegatedto‘experts’withinthegroup,sothat notallgroupmembersnecessarilyhadexperienceofusingmathematicsinthereal, interconnected situation. This may have contributed to the small effect size on interconnectedness scales. Teachers have to be aware that relevant and conscious knowledgeapplicationofsubjectcontentandskillsintotheinterdisciplinarytaskisnot automatic.Similarly,successfulintegrationofthevariousknowledgeandskillsfrom differentsubjects,usedtogetherinthetaskdependsheavilyonthenatureofteacher facilitationandclosemonitoringofstudentprogress.Thechallengeistostrikethe rightbalanceinprovidingguidancewithinthescopeanddepthofthetheme.

PME31―2007 2191 Dawn, Stillman & Stacey

Finally,weacknowledgethattherearemanygoalsofPWbeyondthoseonwhichthis paperhasreported.Itisnotpossibletojudgethesuccessofeitherthistaskinparticular, orPWingeneral,fromtheinterconnectednessmeasuresalone. Acknowledgement WeacknowledgetheassistanceofAssociateProfessorsYapSookFweandFanLiang Huo,DrGrahamHepworth,EwaKarafilowska,teachersandstudents. References Boix Mansilla, V., Miller, W., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinarywork.InS.Wineburg&P.Grossman(Eds.),Interisciplinarycurriculum: Challengestoimplementation(pp.1738).NY:TeachersCollege. Chan, J. K. (2001, June). A curriculum for the knowledge age: The Singapore approach. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Curriculum Corporation Conference, Sydney, Australia. Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences.Hillsdale,N.J.:L. ErlbaumAssociates. CPDD.(2001).CraftingPWprojecttasks(Secondary).Singapore:MinistryofEducation, CurriculumPlanningandDevelopmentDivision. Jacobs,H.H.(1991).Planningforcurriculumintegration. Educational Leadership, 49 (2), 2728. McGuinness, C. (1999). From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: A review and evaluation of approaches for developing pupils' thinking. London: Department for EducationandEmployment. NCTM.(1995).Positionstatementoninterdisciplinarylearning:PreK4.TeachingChildren Mathematics,1(6),386387. Ng,K.E.D.(2006).Interdisciplinarytask:Designinganenvironmentallyfriendlybuilding. InJ.Ocean,C.Walta,M.Breed,J.Virgona&J.Horwood(Eds.),MAVConference2006: MathematicsThewayforward(pp.250259):MathematicalAssociationofVictoria. Ng, K. E. D., & Stillman, G. (2006, May 2931). Interdisciplinary learning: Are there differences among streams and gender? Paper presented at the Educational Research AssociationofSingaporeConference,Singapore.. Quek,C.L.,Divaharan,S.,Liu,W.C.,Peer,J.,Williams,M.D.,Wong,A.F.L.,Jamaludin, A.(2006).Engaginginprojectwork.Singapore:McGrawHill. Schoenfeld,A.(1989).Explorationsofstudents'mathematicalbeliefsandbehaviour. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20 (4),338355. Tan, T. L. S. (2002). Using project work as a motivating factor in lower secondary mathematics.Unpublishedmaster'sthesis,NanyangTechnologicalUniversity,National InstituteofEducation,Singapore.

2192 PME31―2007 THE TREATMENT OF ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION OF FRACTIONS IN CYPRIOT, IRISH, AND TAIWANESE TEXTBOOKS SeánDelaney ,CharalambosY.Charalambous, HuiYuHsu,andVilmaMesa UniversityofMichigan In this paper, we report on an analysis of the treatment of addition and subtraction of fractions in elementary mathematics textbooks used in Cyprus, Ireland, and Taiwan. For this purpose we developed and applied a framework to investigate the learning opportunities afforded by the textbooks. We found key similarities and differences among the textbooks regarding two constructs: first, the presentation of addition and subtraction of fractions, examined through the structure, selection and sequencing of topics, as well as the worked-out examples and representations employed; and second, the textbook expectations manifested in the cognitive demands of the tasks on adding and subtracting fractions and the type of the work required from students when considering these tasks. INTRODUCTION Textbook analysis, a relatively unexplored field (Johansson, 2003), appears to be increasingly attracting the interestof theresearch community (Pepin, Haggarty, & Keynes, 2001; Mesa, 2004; Rezat,2006). Inthelasttwo decades researchershave expressedcontrastingviewsastowhatonecanlearn from analyzing mathematics textbooks.Someresearchershavegoneasfarastoclaimthattextbookanalysiscan explainthedifferencesinstudents’performanceininternationalcomparativestudies (Fuson, Stigler, & Bartsch, 1988; Li, 2000). Other researchers have argued that textbooksexertlittleinfluenceoninstructionandonwhatstudentslearn(Freeman& Porter,1989).Amorebalancedviewpointpositsthattextbooksafford probabilistic ratherthandeterministicopportunitiestolearnmathematics(Mesa,2004;Valverde, Bianchi,Wolfe,Schmidt,&Houang2002).Althoughthisperspectiveacknowledges thattextbookanalysisislimitedtoportrayingthe intended andnottheimplemented curriculum,itholdsthatimportantinsightscanbegleanedfromstudyingtextbooks used in different countries by illustrating similarities and differences in the opportunitiestolearnmathematicsofferedtostudentsaroundtheworld. Studiesshowsignificantcrossnationaldifferencesinthetextbooks.Twolargescale studies that compared and contrastedthe textbooks adoptedin almost40 countries concludedthattextbooksvary“inamyriadofways”(Schmidt,McKnight,Valverde, et al., 1997, p. 22) and that “they exhibit substantial differences in presenting and structuringpedagogicalsituations”(Valverdeetal.,2002,p17).Smallscalestudies alsofoundmajordifferencesbetweenthemathematicstextbooksusedinChina,Japan, the former Soviet Union, Taiwan, and the United States (e.g., Fuson, et al., 1988; Mayer,Sims,&Tajika,1995)orbetweenthetextbooksusedindifferentEuropean

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.193200.Seoul:PME. 2193 1 3 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa countries(Pepinetal.,2001).Thesestudieshavepursueddifferenttextbookanalysis approaches. Some have examined the textbooks as a whole , focusing on general textbook characteristics (e.g., physical appearance, the organization of the content acrossthebook).Criticshavearguedthatthisapproach,whichwecalla horizontal analysis of textbooks , fails to illuminate substantial differences in the learning opportunitiesofferedtostudentsindifferentcountries,sincetopicsarenottreatedin thesamemannerandwiththesamedegreeofemphasisindifferenttextbooks(Howson, 1995).Otherstudieshavemovedintogreaterdepth,attendingtothewaysinwhich textbookstreat a single mathematical concept (Fuson et al.,1988; Li, 2000, Mesa, 2004); we consider this approach a vertical analysis of textbooks. This approach, however,doesnotallowsituatingtheconceptunderinvestigationwithinthebroader contextofthetextbook.Thestudiesthatanalyzedtextbookspursuingbothahorizontal andaverticalanalysisillustratethatsuchacomplementaryapproachisfeasibleand worthwhile(Howson,1995;Pepinetal.,2001).However,thefieldseemstobelacking a single coherent, useable framework that would allow for systematic finegrained analysesoftextbooks. Inthepresentpaper,wereportfindingsfromalargerprojectinwhichwedeveloped suchaframeworkandappliedittostudythetreatmentoffractionsinthemathematics textbooks used in three countries, Cyprus, Ireland, and Taiwan. We focused on fractions,becauseteachingandlearningfractionshastraditionallybeenconsideredone ofthemostproblematicareasinelementaryschoolmathematics(Lamon,1999).Inthis paper we scrutinize,in particular, the treatment of the addition and subtraction of fractionsinthesetextbooks.AsVerschaffel,Greer,andTorbeyns(2006,p.65)noted intheirreviewofthestudiespublishedinthelast15PMEproceedings,littlework appearedintheareaofthefouroperationsonfractions,andspecificallyontheaddition andsubtractionoffractions,anareawhereevenpreserviceteacherslackconceptual proficiency (Philippou & Christou, 1994). We analyzed textbooks from the aforementioned countries, because the existence of a national curriculum in each countryfacilitatedtheselectionoftextbooks.Notwithstandingthis,thethreecountries havesignificantdifferencesinhistory,size,language,economy,culture,andstudent attainment in international comparative studies. In addition, our experiences as studentsandteachersofelementarymathematicsinthesecountriesprovideduswith thecontextualknowledgeconducivetosuchananalysis. Thegoalofourinquirywastwofold.First,wesoughttoinvestigatethesimilaritiesand differences in the presentation of the addition and subtraction of fractions in the textbooksofthesecountries.Second,byanalyzingthetasksusedinthesetextbooks, we aimed to explore the expectations that the textbook authors appear to hold for studentswhenworkinginthisarea.Bynarrowingourattentiontotheadditionand subtractionoffractions,weaimedforamoredetailedanalysisofthetwofociunder consideration,whichweconsideredcriticalforshapingstudents’probabilisticlearning opportunities.

2194 PME31―2007 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa

METHODS Indevelopingthetwolayeranalyticframeworkusedinthelargerproject(Figure1), we pursued an iterative approach that combined results from the literature with a preliminaryexplorationofthetextbooksusedinthe three countries. The literature reviewsuggestedcriteriaemployedinpreviouscrosscultural textbook studies; we filteredandsynthesizedthesecriteriaconsideringtheparticulartextbookstohand. Figure 1. Framework used to analyze the mathematics textbooks. Forthepurposesofthepresentpaper,weanalyzed(1)thestructure,sequencing,and thetopicscoveredwithrespecttotheadditionandsubtractionoffractions(fromthe horizontalanalysis);(2)thedifferentconstructsoffractions(cf.,Behr,Lesh,Post,& Silver, 1983; Lamon, 1999); (3) the representations; (4) the workedout examples employed in the textbooks (from the “what is presented” aspect of the vertical analysis);(5)thepotentialcognitivedemands; 1and(6)theperformanceexpectations (fromthe“whatisexpected”aspectoftheverticalanalysis).Weusedthefirstfour dimensionstoanalyzethe presentation oftheadditionandsubtractionoffractionsand thelattertwoaspectstoanalyzethetextbook expectations . Weanalyzedfivetextbookseries:thefourthgradeCypriottextbookseriesusedinall publicschoolsinthecountry(MinistryofEducationandCulture,1998),twowidely used Irish fifthgrade textbook series (Barry, Manning, O’Neill, & Roche, 2003; Courtney,2002)andtwofourthgradetextbookserieswidelyusedinTaiwan(Li& Huang,2005;Yang&Miao,2003).Thedisparityinthegradeswasduetothedifferent 1Weanalyzedthepotentialcognitivedemandsusingthetaskanalysisguide(Stein,Smith,Henningsen,& Silver, 2000, pp. 1621), according to which memorization and procedures-without-connections tasks are considered intellectually undemanding and procedures-with-connections and doing-mathematics tasks are intellectuallydemanding.Wealsodistinguishedthetasksthatrequireconnectingtheadditionandsubtraction offractionstoitsunderlyingmeaningbutexpectstudentstoapplya well-established procedurefromthosethat connecttheproceduretoitsmeaning,buttheprocedurerequiredisnotwellestablished.

PME31―2007 2195 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa gradeplacementoftheadditionandsubtractionoffractionsinthethreecountries.The content of the Cypriot and the Taiwanese textbooks was translated into English to supportthecooperativeanalysisofthecontentofallthreetextbooksbyallfourauthors andtheresolutionofthedisagreementsthatemerged. FINDINGS Presentation: Structure, Sequencing, and Topics Covered. Wefoundnotabledifferencesamongthethreecountries.First,inCyprusandTaiwan theadditionandsubtractionoffractionsandmixednumberswithlikedenominatorsis formallyintroducedinthefourthgrade;theadditiveoperationsonfractionsandmixed numberswithunlikedenominatorsareconsideredinfifthgrade.Incontrast,bothIrish textbooksintroducetheadditionandsubtractionoffractionsandmixednumberswith similar or unlike denominators in fifth grade; no reference is made to adding or subtractingfractionsinthefourthgradetextbooks. Second,theIrishtextbooksfollowaslightlydifferentsequenceinthepresentationof the content compared to the textbooks used in the other two countries: they first introducetheadditionandsubtractionoffractionswithsimilarorunlikedenominators, nexttheyconsideradditiveoperationsonmixednumberswhosefractionalparthasthe sameordifferentdenominator,andfinally,theyofferstudentsopportunitiestosolve wordproblemsontheadditionoffractionsormixednumbers.Incontrast,theCypriot andtheTaiwanesetextbooksfirstintroducetheadditionandsubtractionoffractions withsimilardenominatorsandthenmovetotheadditionandsubtractionofmixed numberswhosefractionalparthasthesamedenominator.Inbothcountries,exercises thatpurporttohelpstudentsdevelopproceduralfluencyareinterwovenwithword problemsontheadditionandsubtractionoffractions. Third,thetextbooksinIrelandandTaiwanconnecttheadditionoffractionswiththe multiplication of fractions as repeated addition; in the Cypriot textbooks, this connection is postponed until fifth grade, when the multiplication of fractions is formallyintroduced.Inaddition,theTaiwanesetextbooksbuildconnectionsbetween theadditionoffractions,equivalentfractions,andthedivisionoffractionsasrepeated subtractionbyaskingstudentstoconsiderproblemssuchas:“Onebaghas100small paperplates.83of1/100bagofplatesequalshowmany1/10bagsofpaperplates? Howmany1/100bagofpaperplates?”(Li&Huang,2005,vol.,1,p.11). Presentation: Subconstructs of Fractions Presented in the Textbooks. The part-whole interpretation of fractions is the dominant subconstruct used in all textbook series. The measure subconstruct, which is associated with the measure assigned to some interval appears less frequently; this interpretation is weakly reinforced, since in all cases the measure assigned to the interval(s) under consideration(e.g.,thelengthofalinesegment,thevolumeoftheliquidinvolumetric glasses)isalreadygiven(i.e.,studentsarenotexpectedto measure theinterval).The remainingthreesubconstructs(i.e.,ratio,operator,andquotient)arenotpresentinany ofthetextbooksanalyzed.

2196 PME31―2007 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa

Presentation: Representations Employed in the Textbooks. TherepresentationsintheIrishtextbooksconsistofmainlyprepartitionedcircular units.Therepresentationsaccompanyingallworkedoutexamplesandthetasksinthe Cypriottextbooksaremostlycircularorrectangulararearepresentations,which,inall butonecase(vol.4,p.46),areprepartitioned.Incontrast,theTaiwanesetextbooks,in additiontothecircularandrectangularareaprepartitionedrepresentations,include linear representations (e.g., ropes) and volumetric representations (e.g., bottles of liquids). Besides these continuous models, the Taiwanese textbooks also include representations of discrete sets (e.g., bag of cookies or eggs, boxes of stationery materials or fruits). No textbook series employs a number line in presenting the additionandsubtractionoffractionsandmixednumbers. Presentation: Worked-out Examples. We found different approaches for scaffolding student understanding through workedout examples; we illustrate these with the subtraction of mixed numbers (Figure2).

Figure 2. Worked-out examples on the subtraction of mixed numbers (A: Cypriot textbook; B: Taiwanese textbook; C and D: Irish textbooks) First,theTaiwaneseworkedoutexamplesuggeststwodifferentwaysofsubtracting mixed numbers, the Irish textbooks suggest only one such way, and the Cypriot textbook does not suggest an algorithm. Second, whereas the Cypriot and the Taiwanesetextbookssituatetheworkedoutexamplewithinaparticularcontext,in both Irish textbooks the workedout examples are not contextualized. Third, the Cypriottextbookusestwodifferentpartwholerepresentations; the Irish textbooks employatmostone.TherepresentationusedintheTaiwanesetextbooksiscloserto

PME31―2007 2197 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa the measure subconstruct of fractions. Fourth, the workedout example in the Taiwanesetextbooksisbasedonthe comparison interpretationofsubtraction,whichis consideredmorecomplexthanthe take-away interpretationemployedintheexamples usedintheCypriotandoneoftheIrishtextbooks. Expectations: Potential Cognitive Demands. Fromthe46tasksoftheCypriottextbookseries,14requireemployingaddingand subtractingfractions without connections to its meaning .Theremaining32taskswere classifiedas procedures with connections to meaning ,butonly13expectstudentsto employ a procedure that is not modeled in the workedout examples. The procedures-without-connections tasksarelonger(e.g.,inonesuchtaskstudentsare expected to solve up to 24 similar exercises). A similar pattern was found in the Taiwanese textbooks. From the 44 tasks in the Yang and Miao series, 20 were classifiedas procedures without connections ,and24as procedures-with-connection to meaning .Only4ofthelattertasksrequireaproceduresomewhatdifferentfromthat modeledintheworkedoutexamples.Ofthe67tasksofthe Li and Huang series,12 werecodedas procedures without connections and55as procedures with connection to meaning ; yet, only 11 of these tasks require using a procedure that was not wellestablished.IntheIrish Barry et al .series ,51taskswereclassifiedas procedures without connections and9tasksas procedures with connections thatrequireusinga wellestablished procedure. Nine tasks in the Courtney series were classified as procedures without connections –someofthemhaveasmanyas16subparts–andsix taskswereclassifiedas procedures with connections thatexpectstudentstoapplya wellestablishedprocedure.Noneofthetasksinthetextbooksanalyzedwasclassified asa doing-mathematics . TasksintheTaiwanesetextbookscodedas procedures-without-connections aremore complex.Forexample,besidesaskingstudentstofindthesumorthedifferenceoftwo fractionsormixednumbers,therearetasksaskingstudentstofindthemissingaddend orminuend/subtrahend(e.g.,85/12+?=101/12;?+26/7=53/7;203/16–?=7 9/16;?–123/30=319/30(Li&Huang,vol.2,p.23&25).Suchtasksdonotappear in the Irish textbooks; in the Cypriot textbook there are two such tasks, one that concernsoperationswithintheunit(e.g.,?+1/5=4/5and3/7–?=2/7;vol.3,p.47) andtheotheronmixednumbers(49/12+1/12+?=53/12+7;vol.4,p.49).

Expectations: Performance Expectations. AllthetasksincludedintheCypriotandtheIrishtextbooksaskstudentstoprovidea single answer. Whereas finding an answer is also the predominant performance expectationintheTaiwanesetextbooks,thesetextbooksincludeseveraltasksinwhich studentsareaskedtoexplaintheirsolutionapproach:“Thelengthoftheredropeis2 37/100meters.Thelengthofthewhiteropeis14/100meters.Howlongarethetwo ropesaltogether?Writethecalculationexpressionforthisproblemandgivethefinal resultintheformofamixednumber.Explainyourthinkingprocessinsolvingthis problem”(Li&Huang,vol.1,p.47).

2198 PME31―2007 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa

DISCUSSION Theframeworkemployedinthepresentstudyinanalyzing the Cypriot, Irish, and Taiwanese textbooks helped identify key similarities and differences in the presentationandtextbookexpectationswithrespecttotheadditionandsubtractionof fractions. For instance, the partwhole subconstruct of fractions was found to be dominantinthetextbooksofallthreecountries;inpresentingthisinterpretationof fractions the textbooks mainly used prepartitioned area models. Additionally, the textbooksinallthreecountriesintroducedtheadditionandthesubtractionoffractions andthenshiftedtotheadditionandsubtractionofmixednumbers.Ontheotherhand, ouranalysispointedtosomenotabledifferencesbetweentheTaiwanesetextbooksand thoseusedinCyprusandIreland.Inparticular,theTaiwanesetextbooksemploya greatervarietyofrepresentationscomparedtotheCypriotandIrishtextbooks;theyuse a greater variety of representations (linear, area, volumetric, and discrete sets representations),whichisconsideredcriticalforsupportingstudents’understandingof rational numbers (Lamon, 1999). The Taiwanese textbooks also build more connections of the addition and subtraction to the multiplication and division of fractions; moreover, they employ more complex situations in their workedout examplesandexplicitlymodelmorethanonewaytocarryoutanalgorithm. TowhatextentcanthedifferencesbetweentheTaiwanesetextbooks,ontheonehand, andtheCypriotandIrishtextbooks,ontheother,explainthesuperiorperformanceof theTaiwanesestudentsoninternationalcomparativestudies?Doesthedominantrole ofthepartwholeinterpretationoffractionssuggestthattheassociation,foundina previousstudy(Charalambous&PittaPantazi,2005)betweenthissubconstructand theadditiveoperationsoffractions,ismainlyanartifactofthecurriculum?Whatmight beamoreappropriatewayofpresentingaworkedoutexample?Althoughthepresent studydoesnotprovideanswerstothesequestions,itillustratestheaffordancesofa more finegrained textbook analysis facilitated by our framework in generating hypotheses that are worth further investigation, and which might help better understandtheconnectionsbetweentheintended,theimplemented,andtheattained curriculum.

REFERENCES Barry,K.,Manning,P.,O’Neill,S.,&Roche,T.(2003) Mathemagic 5. Dublin,Ireland:C.J.Fallon. Behr,M.,Lesh,R.,Post,T.,&SilverE.(1983).Rationalnumberconcepts.InR.Lesh&M.Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp.91125).NY:AcademicPress. Charalambous,C.&PittaPantazi,D.(2005).Revisitingatheoreticalmodelonfractions:Implications forteachingandresearch.InH.L.Chick&J.L.Vincent(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29 th PME Conference, (vol.2,pp.233240).Melbourne:UniversityofMelbourne. Courtney,D.(2002). Action Maths: 5 th Class. Dublin,Ireland:Folens. Freeman,D.J.,&Porter,A.C.(1989).Dotextbooksdictatethecontentofmathematicsinstructionin elementaryschools? American Educational Research Journal, 26 (3),403421. Fuson,K.C.,Stigler,J.W.,&Bartsch,K.(1988).Gradeplacementofadditionandsubtractiontopics

PME31―2007 2199 Delaney, Charlambous, Hsu & Mesa

inJapan,mainlandChina,theSovietUnion,Taiwan,andtheUnitedStates.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19 (5),449456. Howson, G. (1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of grade-8 texts. (TIMSS Monograph, No. 3 ),Vancouver:PacificEducationPress. Johansson,M.(2003). Textbooks in mathematics education: a study of textbooks as the potentially implemented curriculum. DoctoralThesis:LuleåDepartmentofMathematics,LuleåUniversity ofTechnology(availableat:http://epubl.luth.se/14021757/2003/65/LTULIC0365SE.pdf) Lamon,S.J.(1999). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Li,G.,&Huang,J.(2005). 4th Grade Mathematics (vol.1 & 2) .Taipei:HanLin. Li,Y.(2000).AcomparisonofproblemsthatfollowselectedcontentpresentationsinAmericanand Chinese mathematics textbooks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 (2), 234241. Mayer,R.E.,Sims,V.&Tajika,H.(1995).Acomparisonofhowtextbooksteachmathematical problemsolvinginJapanandtheUnitedStates. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 443460. Mesa,V.(2004).Characterizingpracticesassociatedwithfunctionsinmiddleschooltextbooks:An empiricalapproach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56 ,255286. MinistryofEducationandCulture(1998). Mathematics for fourth grade (vol. 1-4). Nicosia,Cyprus: MinistryofEducationandCulture. Pepin, B., Haggarty, L., & Keynes, M. (2001). Mathematics textbooks and their use in English, FrenchandGermanclassrooms:awaytounderstandteachingandlearningcultures. ZDM, 33 (5), 158174. Philippou G. & Christou, C. (1994). Prospectiveelementary teachers’ conceptual andprocedural knowledge of fractions. In J. P. Ponte & J. F. Matos (Eds), Proceedings of the 18th PME Conference ,(vol.4,pp.3340).Lisbon:UniversityofLisbon. Rezat,S.(2006).Amodeloftextbookuse .InJ.Novotná,H.Moraová,M.Krátká,&N.Stehlíková (Eds), Proceedings of the 30th PME Conference , (vol. 4, pp. 409416). Prague: Charles University. Schmidt,W.H.,McKnight,C.C.,Valverde,G.,Houang,R.T.,&Wiley,D.E.(1997). Many visions, many aims (vol.1) . Dordrecht:Kluwer. Stein,M.K.,Smith,M.S.,Henningsen,M.A.,&Silver,E.(2000). Implementing Standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. NJ:TeachersCollegePress. Valverde,G.A.,Bianchi,L.J.,Wolfe,R.G.,Schmidt,W.H.&Houang,R.T.(2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice in the world of textbooks .Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Kluwer. Verschaffel,G.,Greer,B.,&Torbeyns,J.(2006).Numericalthinking.InA.Gutierrez,andP.Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Past, present, and future (pp.5182). Rotterdam:SensePublishers. Yang,R.,&Miao,L.(2003). 4th Grade Mathematics .Taipei:KangHsuan.

2200 PME31―2007 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THE STRUCTURED NUMBER LINE CarmelDiezmann andTomLowrie QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,AUSTRALIA/ CharlesSturtUniversity,AUSTRALIA Thispaperinvestigateshowprimarystudents’knowledgeofthestructurednumber linedevelopsovertime.Effectivenumberlineuseisimpactedbyanunderstandingof thisgraphicasarepresentationthatencodesinformationbytheplacementofmarkson anaxisandanappreciationthatthesemarksarerepresentationsoflengthratherthan labelledpoints.Generally,theresultsrevealeddevelopmentofnumberlineknowledge overtime.However,althoughcorrelationsbetweennumberlineitemswerepositive, theywereonlymoderateorlow.Additionally,therewaslowsharedvariancebetween items even though students solved the same items in three consecutive years. Noteworthywerethestatisticallysignificantgenderdifferencesinfavourofboysover the3yearperiod−findingsthatwarrantsfurtherinvestigation.

INTRODUCTION Structurednumberlinesareoftenusedasinstructionalaids,intexts,andontestsinthe primaryyears.Thesenumberlinesaredistinguishedbythepresenceofmarkedline segments−whichareabsentfromemptynumberlines(Klein,Beishuizen,&Treffers, 1998).Advocatesofstructurednumberlinesarguethattheyhavevariousbenefitsfor students,forexampleinnumbersequencing(e.g.,Wiegel,1998)andforconcretising operations (e.g., Davis & Simmt, 2003). In contrast, others have reported that structurednumberlinesareneithereffectiveasconceptualsupports(e.g.,Fuson,Smith, & Cicero, 1997) nor are number line items valid measures of rational number knowledge (e.g., Ni, 2000). This disagreement in the literature about the utility of numberlinesisproblematicbecauseitfailstoprovideadequateguidanceforeducators whoaretryingtoimprovestudentoutcomes.Thus,furtherresearchonnumberlinesis essentialiftheyaretobeeffectiveconceptualtoolsforstudents.Understandingthe role of tools in developing mathematical proficiency is fundamental to achieving equityinstudentoutcomes(Ball,2004). Ourpreviousstudiesofprimarystudents’knowledgeanduseofstructurednumber lines(Diezmann&Lowrie,2006;Lowrie&Diezmann,2005,inpress)haveprovided someinsights.However,likemuchoftheliteratureonnumberlineuse,ourearlier studiesgenerallyexaminedstudents’knowledgeatasinglepointintimeorovera single year. This paper extends on our past work by exploring how students’ knowledgeofthestructurednumberlinedevelopsovera3yearperiod.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedingsofthe31 st Conferenceof theInternationalGroupfor thePsychologyofMathematicsEducation ,Vol.2,pp.201208.Seoul:PME. 2201 Diezmann& Lowrie

THE STRUCTURED NUMBER LINE The structured number line has potential cognitive advantages for understanding variousaspectsofmathematics.However,underpinningtheactualbenefitfromthese advantagesarekeyunderstandingsaboutthestructurednumberline. Advantages of Number Line Use Cognitively, number lines have three potential advantages for users. The first two advantages relate to mathematical variability and perceptual variability (Dienes, 1964).Mathematicalvariabilityisdemonstratedonthenumberlinebyitsuseasa genericrepresentationortoolwhichcanshowmanymathematicalconceptsincluding thepositionofafractioninanumbersequenceandthecontinuityofrationalnumbers. Perceptualvariabilityinmathematicsisillustratedbythenumberlinewhenitisused asoneofavarietyofrepresentationstoshowdifferentaspectsofthesameconcept.For example,ahalfcanberepresentedonanumberline,onapiegraph,andonanarray. Thefinalcognitiveadvantageofthenumberlineis representationaltransfer(Novick, 1990).Thisprocessofknowinghowtousearepresentationforaroutinetaskcancue theuserabouthowtouseitonanoveltask.Forexample,knowinghowtoidentifya missing whole number on a number line might cue students about how to find a missing decimal number on another number line. Despite the potential cognitive advantages,manyprimarystudentsdonotusethenumberlineeffectively(Diezmann &Lowrie,2006;Lowrie&Diezmann,2005). Key Understandings about the Number Line Therearetwokeyunderstandingsthatstudentsneedtodevelopaboutthestructured numberline.Thefirstunderstandingrelatestothenumberlineasagraphic.Structured number lines are part of the increasing number of graphics that are used for the management, communication, and analysis of information (Harris, 1996). Number lines are part of the Axis graphic language that uses a single position to encode informationbytheplacementofamarkonanaxis(SeeAppendixforexamplesof numberlineitems).Therearefiveothergraphiclanguagesthatusedistinctperceptual elements and encoding techniques (Mackinlay, 1999): Opposedposition (e.g., bar graph), Retinallist (e.g., saturation graphics such as population density), Map, Connection (e.g., family tree), and Miscellaneous (e.g., calendar). See Lowrie and Diezmann(2005)foradescriptionoftheselanguagesandexamples.Althoughthese sixgraphiclanguagesdifferperceptually,theyarerelated.Ourpreviousresearchon AxisLanguagesrevealedpositiveandstatisticallysignificantcorrelationsatap ≤ .01 levelbetweenstudents’performanceandpairingswithothergraphicallanguageswith theexceptionoftheAxisOpposedpositioncorrelation(r=.15,p ≤ .05)(Lowrie& Diezmann,2005).Opposedpositionlanguagesconsistofgraphicswhereinformation isencodedbyamarkedsetthatispositionedbetweentwoaxes(e.g.,abargraph).The weakcorrelationbetweenAxisitemsandOpposedpositionitemswasnotsurprising becausetheselanguagesarestructurallydissimilarwithinformationencodedinone dimensiontwodimensionsrespectively.

2202 PME31―2007 Diezmann &Lowrie

Thesecondunderstandingisthatthestructurednumberlineisameasurementmodel. Structurednumberlineshavemarkedlinesegments,andhence,numbersontheline are representations of length rather than simply labelled points (Fuson, 1984). Students’ conceptualisation of the number line as a measurement model impacts directlyontheirsuccess.Forexample,ininterviewsonnumberlineitemswith6710 to11yearolds,wefoundthatsuccessfulandunsuccessfulstudentsdifferedfromeach otherintheiruseofthenumberline(Diezmann&Lowrie,2006).Typically,successful studentsdemonstratedameasurementorientationintheiridentificationofunknown numbersrepresentedbyalettersonanumberline:“IchoseDbecauseBis(tothe) right, abitfaraway from20andCis inthemiddle andIthoughtthatwouldbeabout 10 and A wouldbe too close tothe0tobe17”(emphasisadded).Incontrast, a common response from unsuccessful students was to solely employ counting to identifytheunknownvalue:“Ithinkit(thenumber17)shouldgothere(D)becauseit’s nextto20anditgoes19,18then 17(emphasisadded)”.Theuseofasimplecounting strategy is inappropriate because it incorrectly assumes that (1) the marked line segmentsareevenlyspacedandthat(2)thedistancebetweeneachsegmentrepresents oneunit.Asthespacingbetweenmarkingsoflinesegmentsisvariableonstructured numberlinesandthedistancebetweenthesegmentscanrepresentanynumberofunits, studentswhosolelyuseacountingstrategyareunlikelytobesuccessful.Although countingaloneisaninappropriatestrategyforuseonthestructurednumberline,itcan beappropriatefortheemptynumberline(e.g.,Kleinetal.,1998).

DESIGN AND METHODS This investigation focuses on students’ performance on number line items over a 3yearperiod.Thelongitudinalstudyemployedtherepeatedcollectionofmasstesting dataoverthreeannualtimeintervals.Thisdesignallowedforanexaminationofthe magnitudeanddirectionofchangeinstudents’knowledgeofnumberlines.Thisstudy ispartofalargerstudy(Diezmann&Lowrie,2006;Lowrie&Diezmann,2005,in press)inwhichwearemonitoringthedevelopmentofprimary students’ ability to decodethesixtypesofgraphicallanguagesincludingAxislanguagesofwhichnumber linesareakeyexemplar.Here,wereportsolelyonthelongitudinaldataforthenumber lineitems.Theresearchquestionswere: 1. Howdoesstudents’performanceonnumberlineitemsvaryovertime? 2. Whataretherelationshipsinstudents’performanceacrossnumberlineitems overa3yearperiod? 3. Weretherearegenderdifferencesinstudents’decodingperformanceonnumber lineitemsovertime? The Participants Atotalof328participants(M=204;F=174)commencedinthestudywhentheywere 10 to 11 yearolds (Grade 4 in New South Wales; Grade 5 in Queensland) and completedthethreeannualtestsinconsecutiveyears.Thesestudentsweredrawnfrom

PME31―2007 2203 Diezmann& Lowrie sixprimaryschoolsacrosstwostatesandincludedstudentsfromstate,churchbased, andindependentschools.Thesocioeconomicstatusofthestudentswasvariedand lessthan5%ofstudentshadEnglishasasecondlanguage. The Instrument TheGraphicalLanguagesinMathematics[GLIM]Testisa36itemmultiplechoice testthatwasdesignedtoinvestigatestudents’performanceoneachofsixgraphical languages(SeeLowrie&Diezmann,2005).Thisinstrumentcomprisessixitemsthat aregraduatedindifficultyforeachofthegraphiclanguages.Thefournumberline items used in this study (See Appendix) were drawn from the Axis subtest. In reportingtheresults,theAxisitemsaredenotedbyanitemnumberfollowedbythe yearofthestudy.Hence, Axis2/3referstoItem2inthethirdyearofthestudy. Data Collection and Analysis Dataonstudents’performanceontheGLIMtestwascollectedthroughmasstestingof thesameitemsinthreeconsecutiveyears.Students’performanceonthesetaskswas scoredas“1”foracorrectresponseand“0”foranincorrectresponse.Correlations weregeneratedfromthedatatoinvestigatetherelationshipsacrossnumberlineitems (Research Question 1). Multivariate and univariate statistics were employed to examinestudents’performanceonnumberlineitemsovertime(ResearchQuestion2) andtoexploregenderanditemsuccess(ResearchQuestion3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Howdoesstudents’performanceonnumberlineitemsvaryovertime? A MANOVA showed a statistically significant difference between year and item success over the 3year period [ F(8, 2086) = 11.4, p ≤ .001). Posthoc analysis revealedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthestudents’performancesacrossthree ofthenumberlineitemsoverthreeyearsofschooling[ Axis2 (F(2,1052)=7.1, p ≤ .001); Axis3 ( F(2,1052)=37.1, p ≤ .001);and Axis4(F(2,1052)=9.1, p ≤ .001) (SeeTable1).StudentperformanceonItem1wasnotstatisticallydifferentovertime [Axis1 ( F(2,1052)=2.5, p>.08),however,thiswasdueinparttoaceilingeffect.The mostdramaticimprovementinstudentperformancewasonItem3(from37%to67%). Thisitemrequiredstudentstoestablishthetimetakenforthesecondoffourstagesin thelifecycleofabutterfly.Thecorrectresponse required students to identify the startingandfinishingpointsoftherelevanttimeperiod,andtocalculatehowmany daysintheperiod(SeeAppendix).Themarkingofthelinesegmentsintwodayrather thanonedayperiodsaddedtothecomplexityoftheitem. 2. What are the relationships in performance across number line items over a 3yearperiod? Correlationsweregeneratedforstudentresponsesacrossthefirstyearandthirdyearof thestudyforeachofthefournumberlineitems.Thesefouritemswerepositively correlated with each other [ Axis1/1Axis1/3 ( r = .34, p ≤ .001); Axis2/1Axis2/3 ( r

2204 PME31―2007 Diezmann &Lowrie

=.08, p>.05); Axis3/1Axis3/3 ( r=.35, p ≤ .001);and Axis4/1Axis4/3 ( r=.20, p ≤ .001)]. Although three of the correlations had strong statistical significance, the items were only weakly or moderately correlated with each other. Previously, we foundmoderatecorrelationsamongthesixgraphicallanguages(Lowrie&Diezmann, inpress);however,theresultsofthepresentstudyaresurprisingsincerelationships were weak between identical items within the axis language over time. Moreover, althoughthestudentssolvedtheseitemsineachofthreeconsecutiveyears,thegreatest sharedvariancebetweentheitems[ Axis3/1Axis3/3 ]wasonly12%. YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR3 Item1 Total .88(.33) 89(.31) .93(.26) Male .91(.28) .91(.29) .95(.31) Female .83(.38) .87(.34) .90(.30)

Item2 Total .79(.41) .85(.36) .89(.31) Male .82(.38) .87(.33) .90(.30) Female .75(.44) .82(.38) .88(.33)

Item3 Total .37(.48) .58(.50) .67(.47) Male .44(.50) .67(.42) .73(.44) Female .28(.45) .47(.50) .61(.49)

Item4 Total .31(.46) .41(.49) .46(.50) Male .39(.49) .50(.50) .55(.50) Female .21(.41) .29(.46) .36(.82)

Table1:Meansandstandarddeviationsfornumberlineitems(andgender). 3. Were there are gender differences in students’ decoding performance on numberlineitemsovertime? The third aim of this investigation was to establish whether there were gender differencesinstudents’decodingperformanceonthenumberlineitems.Themean scoresformalestudentswerehigherthanforfemalestudentsinallfourcategories acrossthethreeyearsofthestudy(SeeTable1).AMANOVAshowedastatistically significantdifferencebetweengenderanditemsuccessoverthe3yearperiod[ F(4, 1044)=16.6, p≤ .001).ANOVAsrevealedstatisticallysignificantdifferencesacross thegendervariableforeachitem[ Axis1 ( F(1,1052 )=9.3, p ≤ .001); Axis2 ( F(1,

PME31―2007 2205 Diezmann& Lowrie

1052)=5.2, p≤ .02); Axis3 ( F(1,1052)=29.7, p≤ .001);and Axis4 ( F(1,1052)= 42.8, p ≤ .001). These gender differences are consistent with other research. Previously,wefoundstatisticallysignificantgenderdifferencesinfavourofmalesat Grade4andGrade5onasetofsixAxisLanguagetasks(Lowrie&Diezmann,in press).Hannula(2003)alsoreportedthatboysoutperformedgirlsonnumberlinetasks inaFinnishstudyofGrade5(n=1154)andGrade7(n=1525)students.Thus,gender appearstobeakeyvariableinstudents’successonthenumberline.

CONCLUSION Thisstudyrevealedthreepointsofinterest.First,themoderateorlowcorrelationsover the3yearperiodbetweennumberlineitemsandthelowsharedvarianceindicatethat students perceived these items to be dissimilar rather than similar. One plausible explanationforthisfailuretodetectsimilarityisthatstudentswerepayingattentionto thesurfacedetailratherthanthestructureofthegraphic.Thenumberlineitemsare similaratastructurallevelinthateachitemmakesuseoftheplacementofmarkonan axis(McKinlay,1999).However,theyaredissimilaratasurfacelevel,forexamplein thecontext,therangeofnumbers,andthevisualpresentationofthegraphic.Afocus onthesurfacedetailratherthanthestructurelimitsthepossibilityofrepresentational transfer where knowledge of a particular representation is transferred to another representation (Novick, 1990). This finding indicatestheneedforanemphasison perceptualvariability(Dienes,1964)innumberlineexamples. Second, the longitudinal results indicate that there can be a dramatic increase in students’performanceoveracoupleofyears.Itisunlikelythatthisincreasewassolely duetostudents’improvedunderstandingofthenumberlineasagraphicbecause(1) the curriculum did not include explicit instruction about number lines, and (2) in additiontoknowledgeofthegraphic,successongraphicallyorienteditemsrequiresa simultaneousconsiderationofknowledgeofmathematicalcontentandcontextandan adequatelevelofliteracytocomprehendthetext(Lowrie&Diezmann,inpress).It seems more likely that with additional experience and schooling, students had mastered the mathematical, contextual and/or literacy elements that had previously been“stumblingblocks”tosuccess. Third,thefindingofgenderdifferencesisofparticularinterestbecauseitchallenges Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden (1995)’s conclusion from a metaanalysis that the only genderdifferenceinspatiallyorientedtasksinunder13yearoldstudentsislimitedto performanceonmentalrotationtests.Inthisstudy,wefoundgenderdifferenceswithin andacrossprimaryagedstudentsatthreegradelevels.Thus,genderdifferencesinthe latteryearsofprimaryschoolingwarrantfurtherinvestigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ThisprojectisfundedbyAustralianResearchCouncil.SpecialthankstoTracyLogan, LindySugarsandotherResearchAssistantswhocontributedtothisproject.

2206 PME31―2007 Diezmann &Lowrie

References Ball,D.L.(Chair)(2004). Mathematicalproficiencyforallstudents:Towardastrategic researchanddevelopmentprograminmathematicseducation. RANDMathematicsStudy Panel. Retrieved January 1, 2006 from http://Fwww.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/ MR1643/MR1643.pref.pdf Davis,B.,&Simmt,E.(2003).Understandinglearningsystems:Mathematicseducationand complexityscience. JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,34 (2),137–167. Dienes,Z.P.(1964). Buildingupmathematics (2nded.).London:HutchisonEducational. Diezmann, C. M., & Lowrie, T. (2006). Primary students’ knowledge of and errors on numberlines.InP.Grootenboer,R.Zevenbergen,&M.Chinnappan(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol.1,pp.171178),Sydney:MERGA. EducationalTestingCentre,NSW(2001). AustralianSchoolsScienceCompetition,Year5 , Sydney:UniversityofNewSouthWales. Fuson,K.(1984).Morecomplexitiesinsubtraction. JournalforResearchinMathematics Education,15 (3),214225. Fuson, K. C., Smith, S. T., & Lo Cicero, A. M. (1997). Supporting Latino first graders’ tenstructured thinking in urban classrooms. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,28 (6),738766. Hannula, M. S. (2003). Locating fractions on a number line. In N A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty,&J.T.Zilliox(Eds.), Proceedingsofthe27thConferenceoftheInternational GroupforthePsychologyofMathematicsEducationheldjointlywiththe25thConference ofPMENA (Vol.3,pp.324).Honolulu,HI:PME. Harris,R.L.(1996). Informationgraphics:Acomprehensiveillustratedreference. Atlanta, GA:ManagementGraphics. Klein,A.S.,Beishuizen,M,&Treffers,A.(1998).TheemptynumberlineinDutchsecond grades:RealisticVersusGradualprogramdesign. JournalforResearchinMathematics Education,29 (4),443464. Lowrie,R.,&Diezmann,C.M.(2005).Fourthgradestudents’performanceongraphical languagesinmathematics.InH.L.Chick&J.L.Vincent(Eds.), Proceedingsofthe30th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol3,pp.265272).Melbourne:PME. Lowrie,T.,&Diezmann,C.M.(inpress).Solvinggraphicsproblems:Studentperformance inthejuniorgrades. JournalofEducationalResearch. Mackinlay, J. (1999). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, & B. Schneiderman (Eds.), Readings in informationvisualization:Usingvisiontothink (pp.6681). SanFrancisco,CA:Morgan Kaufmann. National Centre for Educational Statistics – US Department of Education (2003). NAEP questions. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ ITMRLS/search.asp?picksubj=Mathematics

PME31―2007 2207 Diezmann& Lowrie

Ni, Y. (2000). How valid is it to use number lines to measure children’s conceptual knowledgeaboutrationalnumber. EducationalPsychology,20 (2),139152. Novick,L.R.(1990).Representationaltransferinproblemsolving. PsychologicalScience, 1(2),128132. QueenslandStudiesAuthority(2000a). 2000QueenslandYear3test:AspectsofNumeracy. VIC:ACER. QueenslandSchoolCurriculumCouncil(2000b). 2000QueenslandYear7test:Aspectsof Numeracy .VIC:ACER. VoyerD,VoyerS,&Bryden,M.P.(1995).Magnitudeofsexdifferencesinspatialabilities: A metaanalysisand considerationofcriticalvariables. PsychologicalBulletin,117( 2), 250270. Wiegel,H.G.(1998).Kindergartenstudents’organizationofcountinginjointcountingtasks andtheemergenceofcooperation. JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,29 (2) 202224.

APPENDIX: NUMBER LINE ITEMS 1.Estimatewhereyouthink17should 2.Estimatewhereyouthink1.3shouldgo goonthisnumberline. onthisnumberline.

(Adapted from Queensland Studies (AdaptedfromQueenslandStudiesAuthority, Authority,2000a,p.11) 2000b,p.8) 3.Thefollowinggraphshowsthelength oftimetakenforthefourstagesinthe BayCityExtonYardville lifeofabutterfly.Howmanydaysare thereinthecaterpillarstage? 4. On the road shown above, the distance from Bay City to Exton is 60 kilometres. What is the distance from Bay City to Yardville? (EducationalTestingCentre,2001,p.2) (National Centre for Educational Statistics, 2003)

2208 PME31―2007 REASONING WITH METAPHORS AND CONSTRUCTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION CONCEPT HamideDoganDunlap UniversityofTexasatElPaso,USA.

The paper describes the nature of two intermediate algebra students’ use of metaphors in constructing an understanding of the mathematical function concept, and in reasoning with them while addressing mathematics questions. The interview analysis of the two students indicated three categories of metaphor use. Furthermore, these metaphors appeared to have encouraged the formation of some of the misconceptions reported in literature. INTRODUCTION Theconceptoffunctionisessentialtocollegemathematicslearning,especiallyfor thosecoveredincoursescalculusandup.Becauseoftheimportanceoffunctionin highermathematicalunderstanding,itisnecessarytomakesurethatstudentsgainan accurateunderstandingofthebasicsoftheconceptbeforetakingadvancedcourses. Many students in entrylevel courses do not have a background of mathematical knowledgefromwhichtoattempttomakesenseofnewlyintroducedmathematical information(Sfard,1997).Thustheyturntotheirexistingknowledge,whichmainly originates from everyday experiences. This paper reports on the metaphors originating from everyday experiences intermediate algebra students used to constructanunderstandingofthemathematicalfunctionconcept.

Metaphor Ametaphorcanbedefinedasanimplicitanalogy(Presmeg,1997).Presmegadds thatametaphorhasbothgroundandtension.Accordingtoher,similaritiesbetween conceptsconstitutethegroundanddifferencesconstitutethetension.Forinstance,for themathematicalstatement,“Aisanopenset,”thetensionofametaphormaybethe physical idea of openness (an open space view) without a boundary and the mathematicalideaofanopensetwithaboundary.Considerasetofallpointsthat satisfy the inequality, x 2+y 2<1. Here, the open set is bounded by the unit circle. Considering that similarities between concepts (source and target) are mainly determinedbystudentsbasedonpastexperiences,ratherthanbeinggiventothem (Sfard,1997),students,inthiscase,mayapplythenoboundarycharacteristicofthe sourceconcept,andcometoaconclusionthattheparticularsetisnotopensinceit hasaboundary.Moreover,thestudents’misconceptionmayfurtherbestrengthened if initially introduced examples of mathematical open sets are those without boundaries.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.209216.Seoul:PME. 2209 Dogan-Dunlap

Metaphorsplayanimportantroleinreasoninginmathematics(LakoffandNunez, 2000;Presmeg,1997).Presmegillustrateshowonemayreasonwithmetaphorsinher exampleofahighschoolstudentwhoused“Dome”metaphortoreasoninsolving thequestionoffindingthesumofthefirst30termsofasequence(5,8,11,…).This highschoolstudent’spersonalmetaphorseemedtoplayasignificantroleinsolving theproblem.Thestudentswhoseinterviewexcerptsarereportedherealsoappeared toreasonwiththeiridiosyncraticmetaphorsinrespondingtomathematicsquestions.

Function Studies on the function concept focused mainly on students’ conceptualizations (Carlson, 1998; Hansson and Grevholm, 2003; Selden and Selden, 1996; Vinner, 1990; Williams, 1998). Some of the conceptualizations (misconceptions) reported are:1)Functionisanalgebraicterm/aformula/anequation;2)Functionsshouldbe given by one rule; 3) Graphs of functions should be regularand systemic;4) The constantalgebraicform, y=c, c is a constant, isnotconsideredastherepresentation ofafunction.Thefindingsofourstudyindicatethatsomeoftheseconceptionsmay havebeentheresultofametaphoricalreasoningwhileattemptingtomakesenseof mathematicalinformation.Manystudiesontheconceptualizationsusedinstruments suchaspaperandpenciltests,whichdonotrevealmetaphoricalreasoning.Otherson theotherhandusedinstrumentsthatmayhaverevealedreasoningwithmetaphors. Theyhowevermaynothavereportedthecasesbecauseofthedifferingfocusoftheir investigation.Wereportstudentresponsesthatappearedirrelevanttothefocusofour studyatfirst,butrevealedmeaningandrelevanceduringinterviews.

METHODOLOGY

Datareportedisbasedontwointermediatealgebrastudents’interviewsconductedas partofastudythatgatheredconceptmaps(NovakandGowin,1984)andinterpretive essaysalongwithinterviewstoinvestigatestudents’conceptualizationsastheywere introducedtothevariousaspectsofthemathematicalfunctionconceptthroughouta semesterinFall2003fromtwointermediatealgebrasectionsatafouryearmidsize Southwest University in the United States. The intermediate algebra course at the Universityprovidesbasicmathematicalconceptsandskillsthatareprerequisitefor collegemathematicscoursessuchasprecalculusandcalculus.Bothsectionsofthe courseweretraditionalinthesensethatitsmaterialwascoveredthroughalectureby instructormode.Amongthethreestudentswhovolunteeredtobeinterviewed,two displayedreasoningwithmetaphorsoriginatingfromeverydayexperiences.Werefer to one of the two as student L (American female with an intended major in criminology), and the other as student Y (HispanicAmerican female with an intended major in bilingual education). It should also be noted that student Y’s instructorused“blender”analogytointroducethemathematicalfunctionconcept.

2210 PME31―2007 Dogan-Dunlap

Eachinterviewwasvideotapedandlastedaboutanhourandahalf.Interviewsbegan with more personal questions, and proceeded to questions on the function concept andconceptmaps.Students’inaccurateresponseswerenotcorrectedthroughoutthe interviews in order to further understand the sources of their mistakes, and to eliminate the possible influence of the interviewer’s opinion on students’ thought processes.Twomathematicsgraduatestudentstranscribedtheinterviews,whichwere thenanalyzedbythesamegraduatestudentsandtheinvestigatorinordertoidentify emergingpatterns. RESULTS

Metaphors and Students’ Descriptions Duringtheinterviews,studentsprovideddescriptionsfortheirunderstandingofthe functionconceptinbotheverydayandmathematicalsettings.Thedescriptionscame aboutwhenstudentswereaskedtotalkaboutthetermsdisplayedontheirconcept maps;totalkaboutwhattheythinkofwhentheyheartheword“function;”andto addressthequestion,“whatafunctionis.”Whatfollowsaretheexcerptsfromthe interviewsprovidinginformationonthestudents’descriptions.

Student L’s Description WhenstudentLwasaskedtotellthefirstthingshethoughtofrightafterhearingthe word“function,”shereplied“relations.”Shehoweverdidnotaddanythingfurtherin supportofwhatshemeantbyrelations.Laterintheinterview,shewaspromptedto comeupwithanapplicationofafunction.Withthisquestion,theinterviewer’sintent was to investigate whetherthe studentdisplayed any knowledge of an application specificallyinthecontextofmathematics.Thestudent’sresponsewas: L:Well,intermsofmathorintermsof? Interviewer:Ingeneral. L:Well,somethingfunctionywouldbe,somethinggeneralis running the way that it is supposed to .Orifyouaretryingtoplanafunction,itwouldbesomethingthatwould helpsomethingto flow or to run properly .That’swhatIwouldthinkabouttheword function. Whenaskedhowshewoulddescribetheconceptinthecontextofmathematics,she explained: L:Inmathematicalsetting,functionwouldbesomethingthatwhereallofthenumbers pluggedin..allofthenumbersthatwerepluggedinwouldcreatemmmsomethingthat was consistent likeagraphitwouldbeconsistent. Interviewer:Elaborateonconsistent. L:ConsistentIthinkmeaninglike..likeifIweretobeplugginginpointsonagraphin ordertogetastraightlineifIifthereweresomepointsthatIplottedthatwouldnot allow metodrawthe straight line then thenthe pointsthatIhave,thatIwasgiven would not be consistent with the graph. Whereas if I had ordered pairs and then I plottedthemandtheydidmakethestraightlinethentheywouldbeconsistentwiththe graph…

PME31―2007 2211 Dogan-Dunlap

Onthisexcerpt,sheappearstoconsidertheterm“consistent ”asobtainingwhatis expected.Onemaynoticethesimilaritiesbetweenheruseofthephrase“ running the way that it is supposed to” in describing the term (function) from everyday experiences , andtheuseof “consistent” inmathematicalsetting.Ineverydaysetting, sheusesthetermasanentitythatrunsasexpected,orhelpsrunthingsproperly.In mathematical setting, she thinks that a tableof values represents a function if the expectedoutcome (a line in her case) is obtained as a result of plottingthetable values.Noticethathertwodescriptionsshareacommonnotionof“ consistent with what is expected.”Lseemstoconsiderthisasasimilaritybetween everyday and mathematicalmeaningsoftheconcept.Thatis,forher,everydaymeaningsappearto becomemetaphorsthatsheusestoconstructanunderstandingforthemathematical functionconcept.

Student Y’s Description Rightafterconstructingherconceptmap,studentYwasaskedtotalkabouttheterms andlinksdisplayedonhermap(Seefigure1forthemap).Shereplied: Y:Ibasicallyseeafunction…asa key asan answer likeproblemlikea key whenyou open the door. It is a problem and then function is the answer , a resolution , a conclusion to… Here, she seems to hold an understanding of a function as being an entity that “resolves ” problems. Considering the possibility that Y may have provided a description from everyday experiences with the concept, during her interview, she was further prompted to describe her understanding specifically in the context of mathematics.Thefollowingexcerptrevealsherdescriptioninmathematicalsetting: Y:Alsolikeakeylikeyouputtingitinlikewhatyoudowithfunctionyouputitin…

Figure 1. StudentY’sconceptmap(Redrawn). Inthisexcerpt,sheappearstodescribeafunctionasa“ key ”or“ the role of a key ”to solve problems. Later in the interview, she was asked specifically what the term “key ”meanttoher.Shestatedthatsheconsiders“ key ”asthevalueofanindependent variableofanequationwithtwovariables,andthatsheusesthe“key ”to“ resolve ”a door/problembyputtingthe“key ”in,andasaresultopeningthe“door .”Sheseemed tobereferringtoanalgebraicequationasrepresentingadoortoberesolved,andthe

2212 PME31―2007 Dogan-Dunlap value of its variable as a key to be used to evaluate the equation. The following excerptfurtherexplainswhat“key ”meanttoherinmathematics: Y:…likethatisthe key [pointingtox=2writtenonapaper]andyoujustsortofputitin there[pointingtoh(x)=5x+1writtenonapaper]to resolve it,toopenthedoorwith… Overall,onecanseethatstudentY’sdescriptionsinbothcontextscontaintermsand phrasesthatarenotonlysimilarbutmanyarethesame.

Metaphorical Reasoning in Responses to Mathematics Questions Duringtheinterviews,bothstudentsweregivenvariousrepresentations,andaskedto decide whether they formed functions. These representations included numerical, algebraicandgraphicalformsaswellasnonexamplesoffunctions.Whatfollowsare the excerpts of students’ responses from the interviews, which shed light on the students’useofmetaphoricalreasoningwhileansweringthequestions.

Student L’s Response WhenstudentLwasgivenatableofvaluesandaskedwhetheritformsafunction, afterplottingthepoints,shesaid“no ,”andexplained: L:Becauseitdidn’titdidn’t flow harmoniously likehowthisonedid.Whereitwasjust very simple I would just draw a line this would create some kindofproblemforme because I will be able to draw the line and there will be my third point it would be somewhereofftheline… Figure 2 shows a section of the video clip where student L was explaining why she thought the table values did not represent a function. As seen on the figure, she was focusingontheplottedpointseenatthetipof her line. She used the particular point to determinewhetherthiswastheexpected Figure 2 .VideosectionfromL’sinterview typeofgraph(alineforhercase).Sheseemedtoreasonwithherpersonalmetaphor ofanentity“running the way that it is supposed to ”inrespondingtotheparticular question.Furthermore,heruseofthephrase“ flow harmoniously” indicatesthatshe may have been considering the graphs of functions as regular/systemic. This is in agreementwithsimilarfindingsreportedinliterature. Laterinherinterviewwhenshe wasaskedtogiveanexampleofafunction,shegavetheequation,“ 3x=9 ,”asone. Whenaskedwhetherwecouldprovethatherexamplerepresentsafunction,shesaid: L:Ifweweretosubstituteintoxthatwouldequal9Ya.IIfIweretoput3into9it equal,it equal 9 butIdidnotwrite x=3 …ifIweretoputx=2,itwouldnotbeafunction because3times2is6thatisnot9. In this excerpt, L seems to be applying her metaphor of “consistent with what is expected ” as meaning consistent with the expected result 9. What she appears to metaphoricallythinkisthatnineiswhatisexpectedasaresultofasubstitution,and ifshegets9fortheassignedvalueofxthenherequationrepresentsafunction.Ifshe

PME31―2007 2213 Dogan-Dunlap doesnotobtain9then“ it would not be a function .”Inshort,throughouttheinterview studentLconsistentlyusedhermetaphorsinherresponsestomathematicsquestions.

Student Y’s Response WhenstudentYwasgiventhealgebraicexpression,h(x)=5x+1,andaskedwhetherit representsafunction,shesaid“ Ya Ohh No .”Afterarequestforafurtherexplanation, shestated: “Not till you have x equaling something…”RecallthatstudentLalsoused aphrasesimilartothisoneinherresponseregarding whether we couldproveher example, “ 3x=9,” forms a function. Student Y consistently used the term “ key ” to metaphoricallydescribetheroleofanindependentvariableindecidingwhetheran algebraic description determines a function. Without the presence of a numerical valueofanindependentvariable,shewasnotwillingtocallanalgebraicexpression representing a function. Later in the interview, the interviewer also asked whether “f(x)=5,x=1”(notethathere,x=1wasincludedtoeliminateapossible“no”answer) representsafunction.Y’sresponsewas: “No, because no x over here [pointingthe expression, f(x)=5]…” Here, student Y appears not to consider these kinds of expressionsasformingfunctions.Thisisalsoinagreementwiththepapersreporting asimilarconceptualizationamonghighschoolandcollegestudents.Herreasoning seems to havebeen influenced by the metaphors that she used in constructing an understandingoftheconceptinmathematics.Thatis,accordingtohermetaphors,she needs a problem to solve which the constant expressions do not provide. She thereforerejectsthemasfunctionrepresentations.Shealsoreasonsmetaphoricallyto answeraquestionofwhetheratableofvaluesformsafunction.Shesays:“You need a problem for that...” Y appears to consider a function as an entity that solves problems. She consistently used this notion in determining whether an expression represents a mathematical function. It isclearthat she reasons with her “ Key and Door ”analogyinrespondingtomathematicalquestions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Thestudentsusedthreekindsofmetaphorsintheirdescriptionsofthemathematical functionconcept,andintheirresponsestomathematicsquestions.Table1outlines themetaphorsandtheresultingconceptualizations.Duringtheinterviews,studentL consistently used the first two metaphors to describe her understanding of mathematicalfunctionconceptasanalgebraicequationoratableofvaluesthatleads toanexpectedoutcomewhengraphed.Sheexpectedtohavelineargraphsasaresult ofplottingpoints.Shemainlyusedgraphingasameantodetermineifagivenform (algebraicexpressionandtable)representsafunction.Moreover,shemetaphorically reasonedthattheequationsofoneunknownsaretherepresentativesoffunctionsonly iftheassignedvaluesoftheunknownssatisfytheequations(i.e.,3x=9isafunction representation only when x=3). Similarly, student Y reasoned using the third metaphorshowninTable1toarguethatequationswithtwovariables(i.e.,y=3x+1) representfunctionsonlyiftheindependentvariablesareassignednumericalvalues.

2214 PME31―2007 Dogan-Dunlap

ThisfurthermorepreventedstudentLfromconsideringtablesofvaluesandconstant algebraicforms(i.e.,f(x)=c)asfunctionrepresentations .

Table 1: MetaphorsandResultingConceptualizations. Source Attributes Target (Conceptualization) Functionalityofan “Functiony ” Equationortableofvalueswhose object/Machine Runningthewayitis graphsarelines. (Adjective). supposedto. Equationwithoneunknownwith anassignednumericalvalue satisfyingtheequation. Graphofafunctionis regular/systemic. Anentitythatrunsan Toflowortorun Thesameasthefirstcase. event(noun). properly. KeyandDoor(noun) Roleofkeyresolves Equationwithtwovariableswhere problems. theindependentvariableis assignedanumericalvalue. Theconstantalgebraicform, f(x)=c,isnotafunction representation. Insummary,reasoningwiththepersonalmetaphorsappearedtoleadbothstudentsto theformationofsomeofthemisconceptionsreportedinliterature.Theydidnotseem to consider equations as the representations of functions; rather, they seem to considerfunctionsasequations.Bothstudentsseemedtolacktheunderstandingofa functionas a relationship. Furthermore, L’s metaphorsseemedtohave encouraged her to consider graphs of functions as regular/systemic. Similarly, Y’s metaphors appearedtoallowtheformationofanunderstandingthattheconstantalgebraicforms donotrepresentfunctions. Even though the findings reported here came from only two intermediate algebra students, the number (17 students out of 49) of intermediate algebra students who displayedeverydayterms(suchasmachine,computer,andevent)ontheirconcept mapsindicatesthatthephenomenaobservedonthetwostudents’interviewsmaynot beunique.Itmayinfactbecommonamongmanystudents,especiallyamongthose enrolledinhighschoolandearlycollegemathematicscourses.Thefindingsreported herehowevercannotbegeneralizedbasedonlyonthetwostudents’cases.Further investigation, including more students with a variety of mathematics backgrounds, ethnicities,andlanguagesspoken,isinorder.

PME31―2007 2215 Dogan-Dunlap

Recalling that student Y was from a section whose instructor used a “blender” analogy to introduce the mathematical function concept, one implication of the findings for the teaching and learning mathematics may be that the teachers of mathematics need to be cautious with the use of analogies such as “function machine” and “juice maker” in introducing the concept. As Max Black indicates, “Similarity is created in the mind of conceivers of the metaphor rather than being given to them ”(reportedinSfard(1997,page342)).Whatistensionintheeyeofa teachermaybecomethegroundforstudents.Itisanunavoidablefactthatstudents bring their everyday experiences into mathematics classroom, and consider them during the process of conceptualizing a newly acquired mathematical concept. Teachersmayneedtoexplicitlycovertherelevantsimilaritiesbetweensourceand target concepts whenever there is a potential of applying irrelevant aspects by students.Inthecaseofthefunctionconcept,therelationshipaspectoftheanalogies usedneedstobeemphasized,andtheirrelevantaspectsneedtobecoveredexplicitly to make sure students do not consider these attributes while constructing an understanding.

References Carlson,P.M.,(1998).Acrosssectionalinvestigation ofthedevelopmentofthefunction concept. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Issues in Mathematics Education: Vol. 7, Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, III . pp. 114162. Providence,RI:AmericanMathematicalSociety. Hansson,O.&Grevholm,B.,(2003).Preserviceteachers’conceptionsabouty=x+5:Do theyseefunction? The 27 th and 25 th proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol.3,pp.2532).Honolulu,Hawai:PME. Lakoff,G.andNunez,E.R.,(2000 ). Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being .BasicBooks,NewYork. Novak,J.D.andGowin,D.B.,(1984).Concept mapping for meaningful learning. Learning How to Learn .CambridgeUniversityPress,pp1553. Presmeg, N. C., (1997). Reasoning With Metaphors and Metonymies in Mathematics Learning.InL.D.English(Ed.), Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah New Jersey. Part IV, Chapter 9, pp. 267281. Selden A. and Selden J., (1990). Research Perspectives on conceptions of function: Summaryandoverview.InG.HarelandE.Dubinsky(Eds), The concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy .Pp.116.MAANotesVol.25. Sfard, A. (1997). Commentary: On Metaphorical Roots of Conceptual Growth. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images . Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,MahwahNewJersey.PartIV,Chapter13,pp.339373. Vinner S., (1990). The Function concept as a prototype for problems in mathematics learning. In G. Harel and E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: aspects of epistemology and pedagogy .MAAnotesVol.25.pp.195213. Williams,C.G.,(1998).Usingconceptmapstoassessconceptualknowledgeoffunction. 1998. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education .Vol.29,No.4,pp414421.

2216 PME31―2007 EXPLORING THE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY-MATHEMATICAL PROFICIENCY RELATIONSHIP IN LEARNERS: AN INVESTIGATION USING INSTRUCTIONAL ENGLISH COMPUTER SOFTWARE EssienAnthony andSetatiMamokgethi MarangWitsCentreforMathsandScienceEducation UniversityoftheWitwatersrand

The difficulty of teaching and learning mathematics in a language that is not the learners’ home language (e.g. English) is well documented. It can be argued that underachievement by South African learners in most rural schools is due to a lack of opportunity to participate in meaningful and challenging learning experience (sometimes due to lack of proficiency in English) rather than to a lack of ability or potential. This study investigated how improvement of learners’ proficiency enables or constrains the development of mathematical proficiency. English Computer software was used as intervention to improve the English Language proficiency of 45 learners. Statistical methods were used to analyse the pre- and post-tests in order to compare these learners with learners from another class of 48. The classroom interaction in the mathematics class before and after the intervention was analysed in order to ascertain whether or not the mathematics interaction has been enabled or constrained. The findings of this study were that, first, any attempt to improve the language proficiency of learners with the aim of improving academic proficiency should be done in such a way as to develop concurrently, both the Basic interpersonal communicative skills and the cognitive- academic language proficiency; second, proficiency in the language of instruction (English) is an important index in mathematics proficiency, but improvement of learners’ language proficiency, even though important for achievement in mathematics, may not be sufficient to impact on classroom interaction. The teacher’s ability to draw on learner’s linguistic resources is also of critical importance. INTRODUCTION Research study and philosophies dealing with the relationship between language proficiencyandmathematicalproficiencyhaveeitherpositionedtheoneasdependent ontheother(Peal&Lampert,Cummins,1978;Baker,1988;1962,Bialystock,1992, in Lyon, 1996; Clarkson, 1992; Wales, 1977; Freitag, 1997; Holton, Anderson, Thomas,andFletcher,1999,inAlbert,2001;Taylor2002)orthetwoasautonomous (Macnamara,1977;Chomsky,1975;Henney,inAiken,1972).InSouthAfrica,even thoughtheconstitutiongivesprovisionforlearnerstolearninanyofthe11official languagesoftheirchoice,mostlearnerslearnmathematicsinEnglishwhichformost, is not their first or home language. Underachievement in Grade 12 mathematics examinations has been found to be more prevalent amongst learners who use the Englishlanguagelessfrequentlyathome(SimkinsinTaylor,Muller&Vinjevold, 2003)andinareaswhereEnglishislessfrequentlyusedathome.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.217224.Seoul:PME. 2217 Essien & Setati

Most research dealing with language issues in mathematics education have documentedthatproficiencyinthelanguageoflearningandteachingisimportantfor mathematical proficiency 1 (e.g. Howie, 2002). But previous research into the relationshipbetweenEnglishlanguageproficiencyandmathematicsproficiencywas notdoneinaclassroomwheretherewasanexplicit attempt to improve learners’ languageproficiencyusingcomputersoftware.Thestudyreportedhereinvestigated how the improvement of learners’ English proficiency (using the English literacy computersoftware–ASTRALAB–designedtopromoteEnglishproficiency)inone South African school, enabled or constrained the development of mathematical proficiency in learners. The study was organised to answer the broad question: Whetherandhowdoesimprovinglearners’proficiencyinEnglishenableorconstrain mathematicalproficiency? THEORETICAL ORIENTATION Douady (1997) contends that to know mathematics involves a double aspect. It involvesfirstlytheacquisition,atafunctionallevel,certainconceptsandtheorems thatcanbeusedtosolveproblemsandinterpretinformation,andalsobeabletopose new questions_ (p. 374). Secondly, to know mathematics is to be able to identify conceptsandtheoremsaselementsofascientificallyandsociallyrecognisedcorpus ofknowledge.Itisalsotobeabletoformulatedefinitions, and to state theorems belongingtothiscorpusandtoprovethem_(p.375).Whatroledoeslanguageplay in the knowing of mathematics? Pirie (1998) and Driscoll (1983) contend that mathematicssymbolism is themathematicsitselfandlanguageservestointerpretthe mathematics symbol. In the relationship between language and mathematics, languageservesasamediumthroughwhichmathematicalideasareexpressedand shared(Brown,1997;Setati,2005).Itcanbeargued,asRotman,(1993,inErnest, 1994:38)does,that mathematicsisanactivitywhich uses written inscription and language to create, record and justify its knowledge_. Language, thus, plays an important role in the genesis, acquisition, communication, formulation and justificationofmathematicalknowledge–andindeed,knowledgeingeneral(Ernest, 1994;Lerman,2001). Itiswiththeaboveinmindthatthisstudyisinformedbythesocioculturaltheoryof learning.Thesocioculturalperspectiveproposesthatlearningisasocialprocessand happensthroughparticipationinculturalpractices(Doolittle,1997).Learning,thus, involves becoming enculturated and enculturation into a community of practice in whichalearnerfindshim/herselfandit(learning)ismarkedbytheuseofconceptual toolslikelanguage.Sincetheproductionofmathematicalknowledge,forexample, involvesparticipationandnegotiationofmeaningwithinacommunityofpractice,it thenmeansthattheuseoflanguageasacommunicativetoolisintegraltotheprocess of mathematical enquiry (Siegel & Borasi, 1994). For the sociocultural view of learning,therefore,languageisessentialforparticipationinacommunityofpractice. 1TheuseofthisterminthisstudyresonateswiththeunderstandingofthistermasdefinedbyKilpatrick,Swafford& Findell(2001)

2218 PME31―2007 Essien & Setati

Languageallowsmeaningstobeconstantlynegotiatedandrenegotiatedbymembers ofamathematicscommunity–exceptforthemathematicsregisterwhichhasafixed meaningacrosscontexts(Brown et al ;ColeandEngeström,inChernobilsky et al , 2004). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Inordertoaddressthecriticalquestionaboveinthisstudy,aquasiexperimentalnon equivalent comparison group design was used because it was not possible to randomlyassignlearnerstogroups. Population and Sample Thestudyinvolvedatotalnumberofninetythreelearnersingradenine.45learners in grade 9A constituted the experimental group while 48 learners in grade 9G constitutedthecontrolgroup(thenumber45and48arethenumberoflearnersin each respective class in the school). Learners in school offer Sesotho, IsiZulu, IsiXhosa,SetswanaandSepediandarefluentinoneormoreoftheselanguages. The research instrument consisted of 35 questions drawn from a wide range of mathematicalcontentandwordproblemswhichlearnershavecoveredintheclass. They were made up of both multiplechoice questions and questions requiring learners to write the answers. The test items were selected from the 2003 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and were modified slightly wherenecessarytosuitthecontextoflearnersinthestudy. Methods of data collection Data from this study was collected over a period of four weeks. Before the commencement of the ASTRALAB programme in the first week, the mathematics pretestwasadministeredtobothgroups.Attheendoftheimplementationphase(in the4 th week),theposttestwasadministeredandtheexperimentalclasswasvideoed. Therewereclassobservationsofthemathematicsclassoftheexperimentalgroupat thebeginningofthetreatment.Themathematicsclassoftheexperimentalgroupwas alsovideoedaweekfollowingtheendofthetreatment.Thevideotapedmathematics lessonswereusedtoanalysetheinteractionandcommunicationinthemathematics class. Implementation Phase of the ASTRALAB Programme Even though the ASTRALAB programme in itself was designed to be used individually as instructional learning computer software, for implementation in the researchschool,anadaptedversionwhichusedaninbuiltprojectorconnectedtothe computer was used. This enabled whole class instruction and thereby avoided the fundamental criticism of computer based programme instruction as being an individualised approach where instructional situations are cold, mechanical and dehumanizing and where interaction between the teacher and learners is highly eclipsed(Hergenhahn&Oslon,2001).Learnerswererequiredtoparticipatedailyin thewholeclassteaching_usingtheprogrammeforatotalof22.5hoursconsistingof

PME31―2007 2219 Essien & Setati

30 sessions in total. In general, the software provides a unique approach to the practice and reinforcement of reading comprehension by building vocabulary, spelling,readingfluency...whiletestingoverallcomprehension. English Pre-test and Post-test On the first day of implementation, the ASTRALAB programme instructor gave learnersintheexperimentalgroupapretestusingthesoftware.Healsogavethema post test the week following the end of the implementation of the software. The results showed a 28.2% general improvement in the learners’ English proficiency frompretesttoposttest. Nieman(2006)notesthatthefactthatalearnerunderstandstheeducatorinclassand is able to, with ease, read in the language of teaching and learning does not presuppose that such a learner will understand academic texts as easily and write fluently.EarlierresearchbyCummins(1984,inNieman,2006)hadledhimtodrawa distinctionbetweenbasicinterpersonalcommunicativeskills_(BICS)andcognitive academiclanguageproficiency_(CALP).WhileBICSdenoteslanguageproficiency inasocialsituationandcharacterisedbyinterpersonalinteraction,CALPpositions itself as second level of additional language proficiency. This second level of language proficiency is what is needed if learners are to read and understand scientificreports,tasksoracademicassignmentsingeneral(Nieman,2006).Froman observerpointofview,itcouldbearguedthattheinterventionwiththeASTRALAB software,eventhoughveryinteractiveinnature,wasbiasedtowardsthedevelopment oflearners’basicinterpersonalcommunicativeskills. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The data collected from the mathematics pretest and the posttest constituted the quantitativeaspectofthestudywhilethedatacollectedfromtheclassobservation constitutedthequalitativepartoftheanalysis. Analysis of pre- and post-tests 1. A comparison of the control and experimental groups before the treatment withASTRALABILSindicatedthat: • Inthetestforskewness,therewasanevendistributionoflearnersasfarasthe mathematicsabilityisconcerned(skewness=.172). • The tTestandthenonparametrictestindicatethatthere was no statistically significantdifference( p=.29)inthetestresultsbetweenthetwogroupsbeforethe treatment(eventhoughtherewasadifferenceinthemeanscoresinfavourofthe experimentalgroup).

2220 PME31―2007 Essien & Setati

PRE-TEST RESULTS POST-TEST RESULTS MEAN STD DEV MEAN STD DEV EXPERIMENTAL 5.4318 1.9813 6.3556 2.6897 CONTROL 4.9583 2.2874 4.9286 1.9555 p-value tTest:.293 tTest:.006; nonparametrictest:.292 nonparametrictest:.008 Table1:StatisticalResults 2. Analysis of the performance in the pretest and posttest for the control group indicatedthattherewasnostatisticallysignificantdifference( p=.84)betweenthe performancesinbothpretestandposttest(eventhoughtheperformanceoflearners inthisgroupwaslowerintheposttest). 3.Analysisofperformanceinpretestandposttest scores for experimental group revealed a moderate correlation (.328) between performance in pretest and performanceintheposttest.AtTestandnonparametrictestindicatedastatistically significantdifference( p=.03)betweenscoresinpretestandthoseofposttest. 4.Acomparativeanalysisoflearnerperformanceinbothcontrolandexperimental groupsinposttestindicatethattherewasahighlysignificantdifference( p=.008) between performance in the experimental group compared to performance in the controlgroup. 5.Asfarasthepretestanalysisbygenderwasconcerned • Therewasnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenperformanceofboys withinandacrossgroups.Thiswasalsotrueoftheperformancebygirlsinthepre test. • In the posttest results for gender, there was no statistically significant differencebetweenperformancebyboyscomparedtoperformancebygirlswithinthe twogroups. • There was however as statistically significant difference between the performanceofgirlsintheexperimentalgroupandtheperformanceofgirlsinthe controlgroup(therewasnodifferenceintheperformanceofboysacrossgroupsin theposttest). 6. As far as the content domains were concerned, there was improvement in all content domains in the experimental group but none of the domains recorded a statisticallysignificantdifference. Analysis of classroom interaction Asnotedinprevioussections,inadditiontoalgorithmiccompetence,solvingword problemsandusingmathematicalreasoning(Moschkovich,2002),interactioninthe mathematicsclassisalsoimportantintheteachingandlearningofmathematics.If the language proficiency of learners was improved, it was also necessary to investigatewhetherandhowsuchimprovementoflinguisticcompetencehaseither

PME31―2007 2221 Essien & Setati enabledorconstrainedtheinteractionintheclass.Thecodingsystemforlanguage used by learners and the teacher distinguish when language was used either for questioning,justification,explanation,andregulation.Thetablebelowshowsthetalk distributionbetweenteachersandlearners: PRE- TOTAL POST- TOTAL INTERVENTION INTERVENTION English African English African language language TEACHER 195 10 205 164 5 169 UTTERANCE LEARNER 179 179 157 157 UTTERANCE TOTAL 374 10 321 5

Notethattheabovetabletendstodepictahighlyinteractiveclassforboththepre andthepostinterventionlessons.Thetabletendsalsotoportraythatlearnerstalked (almost)asmuchastheteacher.Whatthetabledoesnotdoisindicatethenatureor qualityofthetalkbyboththeteacherandthelearners.Acarefulstudyofthepre interventionlessonandofthepostinterventionlessonwhichtakesintoconsideration thenatureofthetalkindicatesthattherewasnodifferenceintheinteractivepattern ofbothlessons.Whatdominatedtheclassroominteractioninbothlessonswas first , onlyteacherlearnerinteractionandlearnercontentinteraction.Inbothlessons,there was no learnerlearner interaction. Even though learners were sitting in pairs, the classdiscussionwasnotstructuredinsuchawayastoencouragelearnerstoshare ideaswiththeirpartnersabouttheirsolutionprocess. Second ,inbothlessons,much oftheteachertalkwasproceduralquestionsrequiringthelearnerstoproduceshort proceduralanswers. Discussions and Conclusions from Research Giventhattherewasahighlysignificantdifferencebetweentheposttestscoresin the experimental group and those of the control group, and that the experimental groupshowedastatisticallysignificanthighergainsfrompretesttoposttest,itcan beconcludedthattheimprovementoftheperformanceinmathematicsfrompretest toposttestwasnotduetochancethanduetothefactofhavingimprovedtheEnglish languageproficiencyoflearners.Ontheotherhand,itcanbededucedfromthedata that even though the English language proficiency leveloflearnerswasimproved, such improvement had no effect on classroom interaction during the mathematics lessons. When one considers these results from the qualitative and quantitative analysesofdata,oneistemptedtoconcludethatthetwoprovideconflictingresults. Ifwhatisforegroundedinthedevelopmentoflanguageproficiencyinlearnersisthe

2222 PME31―2007 Essien & Setati basicinterpersonalcommunicativeskills(BICS)andnotbothBICSandCALP,there isnodoubtthatlearnerinteractionintheclass–anenterprisewhichdemandsthat learnersdebate,reason,critique,analyse,evaluate,expressandjustifytheiropinions usingacademiclanguageintheclass–wouldnotbeimproved.Littlewonderthat learners did not ask questions in the postintervention class, and the class did not becomelessprocedural(andmoreconceptualandadaptive)bywayofthenatureof talk in the postintervention lesson. This also means that there is no causal relationshipbetweenachievementinmathematicsandinteractioninthemathematics class.Improvementinperformancedoesnotautomaticallyleadtoimprovementin mathematicscommunicationinclass. Whatotherconclusioncanbedrawnfromtheaboveseemingdichotomybetweentest scores and interaction in the mathematics class? The present research study is an indication of the fact that proficiency in the language of instruction (English) is closelylinkedtoachievementinmathematics.Butimprovinglearnerproficiencyin English,eventhoughnecessary,isnotsufficienttoimpactonclassroominteraction. Inanyclassroom,theteacherplaysakeyroleinthemanagementoftheinteractionin theclassroom(Edwards&Westgate,1987).Theteacher’sability,therefore,todraw on learners’ linguistic resources one of which is structuring questions to allow learnerstosufficientlyexpresstheirthinkingisthereforeimportant. Recommendations TheresearchertakesseriouslytherecommendationbytheCentreforDevelopment Enterprise that all mathematics (and Science) activities be “closed linked with improved language [English] education” (CDE, 2004: 3334). But any attempt to improvethelanguageproficiencyoflearnerswiththe aim of improving academic proficiencyshouldbedoneinsuchawayastodevelopconcurrently,boththeBasic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and the cognitiveacademic language proficiency(CALP),asCumminswouldargue.Bysodoing,therewouldbeahigh possibilityoflearners’improvementinmathematicslearninginEnglishaswellasa greaterclassroominteraction. Also, appropriate mathematics teacher training (in mathematics) must be accompanied by appropriate training of the teachers in effective English communication(Howie,2002)andteacherdevelopmentinstrategiesoftappinginto learners’linguisticresources. Whywasthereastatisticallysignificantdifferenceinachievementbetweenboysand girlsfromthepretestandposttestresults?Was the language proficiency level of girlsgreatlyimprovedcomparedtothatofboys?Whatcouldhavebeenresponsible for the difference? Are the comprehension stories, for example, used in the ASTRALAB ILS gender biased? This could be an important area of research for future study as it could provide invaluable information for education software developers.

PME31―2007 2223 Essien & Setati

Limitations of this Study Akintothelimitationbywayofthenumberoflearnersinvolvedinthestudyisthe limitationbywayofthedurationoftheimplementationphase.Baker(1993)argues thatittakes5to7yearstoacquirecognitiveacademiclanguageproficiency(CALP) in a second language. Therefore, a more prolonged intervention using the ASTRALABsoftwarewouldhavebeenworthwhile. References CentreforDevelopmentandEnterprise(CDE)(2004).FromLaggardtoWorldClass:Reforming MathsandScienceEducationinSouthAfrica’sSchools.Johannesburg. Clarkson, P. (1992). Language and Mathematic: A Comparison of Bilingual and Monolingual StudentsofMathematics. Educational studies in Education, 23,417429. Chernobilsky, E., Dacosta, M & HmeloSilver, C. (2004). Learning to talk the educational psychologytalkthroughaproblembasedcourse. Instructional Science ,00,138. Doolittle, P (1997).Vygotsky's zone of proximal development as a theoretical foundation for cooperationlearning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching ,8(1),83103. Douady (1997). Didactic Engineering, in Nunes, T & Bryant, P.(eds) Learning and Teaching Mathematics: An international Perspective .EastSussex:PsychologypressLtd. Driscoll,M.(1983). Research Within Research: Secondary School Mathematics .USA Edwards,A&Westgate,D.(1987). Investigating Classroom Talk .London:TheFalmerPress. Ernest,P.(1994).TheDialogicalNatureofMathematics.InErnest,P.(ed) Mathematics, Education and Philosophy: An international perspective .London:TheFalmerPress.3348. Funkhouser, C. (1993, Spring). The influence of problemsolving software on student attitudes aboutmathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25, 3,339346. Howie,S.(2002). English Language Proficiency and Contextual Factors Influencing Mathematics Achievement of Secondary School Pupils in South Africa .Enschede:PrintPartnersIpskamp. Lerman, S. (2001). Cultural, Discursive Psychology: A Sociocultural approach to studying the teachingandlearningofmathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics ,46,87113. Moschkovich,J.(2002).Asituatedandsocioculturalperspectiveonbilingualmathematicslearners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning ,4,189212. Nieman, M. (2006). Using the Language of Learning and Teaching (LoLT) appropriately during Mediation of Learning. In Nieman, M & Monyai, R. (eds). The Educator as Mediator of Learning .Pretoria:VanSchaikPublishers. Pirie,S.(1998).Crossingthegulfbetweenthoughtandsymbol:Languageas(slippery)stepping Stones.In,H.Steinbring;B.Bussi;&A.Sierpienska;(eds.) Language and Communication in the Mathematics Classroom .NCTM,Reston:Virginia.729 Setati M. (2005). Mathematics Education and Language: Policy, Research and Practice in multilingualSouthAfrica.InR.Vithal,J.Adler,&C.Keitel(eds ), Researching Mathematics Education in South Africa .CapeTown:HSRCPress. Siegel,M&Borasi,R.(1994).DemystifyingMathematicsEducationthroughInquiry.InErnest,P. (ed) Constructing Mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and Mathematical Education . London:TheFalmerPress.201214. Taylor, N., Muller, J. & Vinjevold, P. (2003). Getting Schools Working: Research and Systemic School reform in South Africa .CapeTown:PearsonEducation. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. [Online]. Available: www.ets.org/research/pic/ technolog.html

2224 PME31―2007 VET IN THE MIDDLE: CATERING FOR MOTIVATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN VOCATIONAL ACCESS COURSES IN NUMERACY BronwynEwing ,AnnetteBaturo,TomCooper,ElizabethDuusandKaitlinMoore QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia Within Queensland, young people who disengage from schooling before Year 11, are required to return to study at school or vocational training institutions in special numeracy and literacy access courses if they do not have a job. This paper describes a study of young people’s and teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning at one vocational institution. The study found that the young people formed two groups; one which was resistant and resentful, and the other which was participatory and indifferent. The first group had to be cajoled and tempted by intrinsically interesting mathematics activities while the second was happy to work through symbolically–based worksheets. However, regardless of group, most of the access students felt ‘cheated’ by constructivist approaches using materials; rather they wanted procedurally based activities like the traditional school mathematics classrooms in which they had previously failed. INTRODUCTION In2002thegovernmentoftheAustralianstateofQueensland developed a policy (titled“earnorlearn”)requiringyoungpeopletobeeitherengagedinsomesortof workortobeenrolledinfurthereducationortraininguntiltheyareseventeenyearsold (QueenslandGovernment,2002).Thispolicywasdrivenbytheneedtoreduceyouth unemploymentandtoalleviateanongoingshortageofskilledworkers.Vocational training institutions called Technical and Further Education [TAFE] institutions in Australiahadbeenprovidingnumeracyaccesscoursesforthesedisengagedyoung peoplewhoseachievementlevelsweretoolowtomeet numeracy prerequisites of traineeships and apprenticeships. Australian young people who leave school early generallyhavelownumeracyskillsandformamajorgroupwithinthesecoursesand theunemployed(Millar&Kilpatrick,2005). Numeracy skills, disengagement and re-engagement Although there is strong support for the importance of numeracy in training and employment(DepartmentofEducation,2004;Fitzsimons,2001;Karmel,2005),there is little research that provides insight into what numeracy skills are required for employmentandhowtheycanbeeffectivelytaught(McLeish,2002).Thereissome evidencethatflexibilitywithclients’needs,contextualisingnumeracytotheculture andbackgroundofyoungpeople(Fitzsimons,2002;Millar&Kilpatrick,2005),the use of nonscholastic, kinaesthetic, individualised activities to link numeracy with vocationalinterestsandilluminatingtheimportance of numeracy in a holistic way (McNeil&Smith,2004)maybeeffectiveapproaches.However,asMcNeilandSmith (2004) argue although lowachieving, disengaged young adults are unique in their learningneeds,andneedtobehookedorluredintoattemptingeducationaltasks,the contextualisation(whichisthebasisofthehooksandlures)hastobebalancedwiththe

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds .). Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.225232.Seoul:PME. 2225 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore learningprioritiesoftheclassroom.Thisbalanceisparticularlydifficultwhenyoung peopleareinTAFE.First,TAFEcollegesusecompetencybasedtrainingframeworks whichtendtocompartmentaliseoratomisenumeracytopics.Second,asBoaler(1993, citedinFitzsimons,2002,p.148)argues: …randominsertionofcontextsintoassessmentquestionsandclassroomexamplesinan attempt to reflect reallife demand and to make mathematics more motivating and interesting …ignoresthecomplexity,rangeanddegreeofstudentsexperience’saswellas the intricate relationships between an individual’s previous experience, mathematical goalsandbeliefs. AccordingtotheAustralianNationalTrainingAuthority[ANTA](2004,p.27)“‘tick andflick’training,ismorethanarareoccurrenceinTAFEclassrooms”ratherthan teachingofhigherorderthinkingskillswithhighqualitylearningoutcomes. ResearchindicatesthatyoungpeopledisengagefromschoolinAustraliabecauseof school practices (e.g., uninspiring pedagogy and teaching, unfair treatment and disrespectfromteachers,andinconsistentdiscipline(Smyth,etal.,2000)andthe economicandacademicvulnerabilityoftheirlowsocioeconomicstatus(Finn&Rock, 1997). Low socioeconomic students do not have access to the communicative strategiesthatmiddleclassstudentshavesuchasLemke’s(1990,citedinZevenbergen, 2000)triadicdialoguewhichinvolvesteacherquestion;studentresponseandteacher evaluationofstudents’responseandworkstomanagestudentbehaviourandstipulate classcontent.Thistypeofdialogueisneverexplicitlytaughttostudentsandexposure tothesamedialogueathomemakesiteasiertolearn,howeverthisisrareforstudents fromlowersocioeconomicbackgrounds(Zevenbergen,2000). Reengagementofyoungpeoplerequirestheinterplayofparticipationandreification givingshapetotheirmathematicalunderstandings.This,accordingtoEwing(2005)is assistedbyteachingpracticesthattakeaccountofstudents’differentlearningstyles. Forexample,linkingnumeracytoreallife,andensuringthatlearningispacedsothat conceptsareunderstoodbeforefurtheronesconsidered. Methodology ThestudydescribedinthispaperispartofalargerAustralianResearchCouncilgrant. The project was funded to investigate the mathematics teaching and learning of lowachievingpostYearTenstudentsinordertodeveloptheoriesregardingeffective materials for teaching mathematics in access courses within TAFE’s, secondary schools.Theprojectexplorestheeffectivenessofutilisingeverydayandvocational contextstoteachthebasicmathematicsneededbythesestudents.Themethodology usedintheprojectisprimarilyqualitative,interpretativeandintervening(Burns,2000). A casestudy approach (Yin, 1989) is used to investigate what happens when researchers, TAFE, and school teachers collaborate to improve the teaching and learningofmathematics. Theparticipantsforthestudyconsistedofthirtyfivestudents,twoteachersandtwo tutorsfromaTAFEnumeracyaccesscourse.Manystudentsattendedthecourseunder

2226 PME31―2007 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore directions from the Queensland Magistrates courts; a significant number had been expelled from previous schools or had ‘dropped out’ due to confrontation with traditionalschoolingenvironments.Studentscouldbeconsideredpartofa“streetkid” subculture.Theaccessnumeracycoursehadbeendevelopedinrecognitionofthe importanceofhavingtailormadeandflexiblechoicesforyoungpeopledisengaged from high school. Its basic premise was to increase fundamental skills, revive engagementintrainingandlearningandtoprovidesomeroutinetopreparestudents forworkplaceentryorfurtherstudy. DatawasgatheredthroughobservationsofaccessnumeracyclassesattheTAFEand semistructuredinterviewswithstudentsandteachers.Thefocioftheinterviewswere students’andteachers’priornumeracylearningandteachingexperiencesandtheir perceptions of numeracy, the learning and teaching of numeracy, and the access numeracycourse. Atthecommencementoftheprojecttheclasseswerevideotapedforlateranalysis. Interviewswithteachersandstudentswerethenconducted.Alltherecordeddatawas transcribedandanalysedforcommonalities.Categoriesweredevelopedthroughan evolvingprocessofrefinement.Thesewereclassifiedinpreparationforintervention. Thefindingsfromthesedataarepresented. Results Approximatelythirtyfivestudentswereenrolledinthenumeracyaccesscourseintwo classeswithteachersMaryandKylewhowereassistedbyoneortwotutors. 1The studentswerepredominantlyfifteentosixteenyearsoldwithequalproportionofmale andfemalestudentsandafewIndigenousstudents.Mostofthethirtyfivestudentshad difficultieswithintraditionallearningenvironments,lownumeracyandliteracyskills (about mid primary or elementary level), and irregular attendance. Social and significantpersonalproblemswerealsoidentified.Moststudentswerealsoenrolledin coursesinliteracy,computersandvocationalskills. Observationsshowedthat,althoughstudentbehaviourwas,ingeneralnotpositivefor learning,thereweretwocategoriesofstudents.Thefirstcategoryconsistedofstudents whose behaviour was resistant and resentful or, in Ewing’s (2005) terms, nonparticipatory. These students took time to settle into class, and had fluid and inconsistent engagement in learning. They actively refused to follow teachers’ instructionsandarguedaboutdoingwork(askingwhytheyweredoingtheworkand howitwasrelevanttothem),refusedtodoanythingtheyfeltwas“childish”,copied otherstudents’work,andbehaveddangerouslywithmaterials(e.g.,throwingscissors, slappingrulers),preventinghandsonactivities.Theyneededconstantremindersfrom atutortostayfocused,gaveupeasilywhentheyencountereddifficultyanddisengaged fromthetaskafterashorttimespan.Theyopenlytoldpeersandstaffthat“maths sucks”, that they “sucked at maths” and hated mathematics. They had a negative

1Allnamesusedinthispaperarepseudonyms.

PME31―2007 2227 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore attitudetomathematicswhichisreflectedinthewordsofonestudent–“Ican’tdothis! I don’t want to! This is too hard!” However, they were less antipathetic towards onetoonetutoring,selfpacedworkbooks,andpeerandteacherinteractionsthatwere supportive,respectfulandequal.Finally,theirperceptionsofnumeracywerenegative asthisinterviewbetweentheresearcher(R)andJessshowed. R:Doyoufeellikemathsisimportantforyouinthefuture? Jess :Yes,‘cos(because)Ineedtousemeasurementandvolumeinplumbing. …Idon't enjoymathsatall. R:Whataboutwhenyougettherightanswer? Jess :Itdoesn'tbotherme.Ijustdon'tlikeit. R:Haveyoueverthoughtofyourselfassomeonewho'sgoodatmaths? Jess :Nope,never. R:Isthereanythingyoudon'tlikeaboutthemathshereintheTAFEclass? Jess :JustdoingstuffthatIdon'tneedtoknow. R:Whatsortofstuffisthat? Jess :Ican'tremember...butthestuffthatwe'vebeendoinginthepastweek....Itwas justannoying‘cos(because)Ialreadyknewit.Idon'tseewhyIhadtowriteit downagain. The second category consisted of students whose behaviour was participatory yet indifferent.Ingeneral,theseparticipatorystudentsweremorelikelytoaskforhelpand tousethetutorsproductively.Theyengagedintasksmoreeasilyandremainedfocused forlongerperiodsanddidnotgiveupasquicklyastheresistantlearners.Theyworked throughsetbookletsattheirown,andwerewillingtotutorpeers.Theyshowedlittle interestinnumeracy per se orthenumeracyactivities,but,putupwiththerequired workbooksinordertocompletethecourse.Liketheresistantstudents,theyalsoliked onetoone tutoring and supportive environments. Their perceptions were more positive,butstillshowedanunderlyingdislikeofmathematicsasthefollowingtwo interviewexcerptsbetweentheresearcher(R)andSamandTaylorshowed. Sam :Well,Idon'tlikemathsbutithastobedonebecauseyouuseitallthroughyourlife. R:Doyouthinkit'simportant? Sam :Yeah,it'simportant …‘Cos(because)IneeditsoIcangothroughlifeknowing whattodoinsteadofgoingtotheshopandgettingconfusedandnotknowinghow muchitis. R:Ifyouhatemaths,whydoyoucomealongeveryweek? Taylor :BecauseIwanttogetmycertificatesoIcangetagoodjob. R:Andyouthinkthatthemaths... Taylor :Itwillhelpmeinthefuture …ButIhatemathsbutthisisalright.I'vealways hatedmathsbutthisisthebestmathsthatI'vehad. Observations showed that the predominant teaching practices evident included worksheets, workbooks, and project work. Learning spaces were basic and

2228 PME31―2007 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore uninterestingwithminimalsupportmaterialandlackofequipment.Theteachershad difficulty maintaining general engagement and directing the class because of individualstudents’demands.Theyrarelytookdisciplinaryaction(andwhentheydid, theyfounditdifficulttoimplementandsustain).Bothteachersandtutorshadlittle traininginhowtoteachnumeracyatthelevel(middleprimary)ofthestudents.They tended to focus more on achieving a friendly environment than challenging the studentsmathematically. The observational notes showed that one teacher approached the resistant and participatorystudentsdifferently.Thefirstteacherobserved,Mary,triedhardtobuild positive relationships with the students, Kym and Dani, as these excerpts from observationsshowed. Anumberofresistantstudentsarrivedlate,talkingloudlyovertheteacher,andthrowing thingsaroundtheroom andswearing. Marydidnot respondtothesebehaviours.She attemptedtocontinuethelesson,tryingtoengagethestudentsbyusingsoftwords.She calledonebyname,“Kym”andasked“Doyouhaveaworksheet?Whatareyoudoing?” Theteacherhandedoutaworksheet,towhichKymsaid,“Ihateit …Whydotheymake us do this? I don’t know this!” The teacher was unable to respond as she has been distractedbyanotherstudent(butatutormanagestogetthestudentontask).Twogirls requestedtoleaveearly.Theteacherremindedthemthattheyleftearlylastweekandthat thisshouldbethelasttime.Onegirlinterruptedher,“We’llbehereothertimes.”The teacherreplied,“Doyoupromise?”Thegirlsansweredwithamildlyinterested“Yeah” andwalkedaway.Daniappeareddisinterestedinthework.Maryattemptedtoengagehim, saying,“Howaboutyougraboneofthosesheets …howaboutyoucomeoverhereandsit down?”Hetookaseatatatablewiththeteacherandfourotherstudents.However,when the teacher’s attention was focused on other students, Dani got bored, stood up and proceeded to walk around the classroom. At this point, three other students left early withoutanexplanation.Theteacherwasunabletostopthem. Mary’sapproachtotheparticipatorystudents,EliandFrankinthesamelesson,as shown in the excerpt below, was different to the resistant students in terms of the attentionthatshegavetothestudents. Eli and Frank were working quietly and apparently efficiently; they did not appear distractedbyallthecommotionintheclassroom.Oncethedisruptivestudentshadleft, theywerequicktotakeadvantageoftheteacher’snewlyavailableattentionandasked manyquestions.Theteacherdidnotattendtothesestudentsuntiltheclasshadquietened down. Thesecondteacher,Kylewasmoretraditional;hefocusedonnumeracycontentina proceduralmannerandattemptedtopushonwiththelessonregardless.Hedidthisfor boththeresistantstudent,Andy,andtheparticipatorystudent,Ben.Kyleappearedto haveonlyoneexplanationforgivenproblemsasthesethreeinterchangesbetweenthe teacherandthestudentsshowed. Kyle :CanIshowyouthenextstepwiththeruler?Seehowyou’vegotthetoponeright? Letmeshow youthenextones,sowhen you’readdingtogetherthenineand two...Andy?Andy?Andy?Sowewanttoaddtogethernine… Andy :NoIdon’twanttodoit!

PME31―2007 2229 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore

Kyle :Nocomeone,justwatchforaminute,that’sall...comeon,there’snineplustwo thatmakeseleven.Nowyoucan’tfitelevenunderneaththat,likeyoudidbefore, soyouputdowntheone,offtheelevenandyoucarryonetothere,sothat’sthe eleventherenow,splitupintooneandone,nowyouneedtoaddtogetherone,six andseven … Andy :IfeellikeI’minschoolagain... Kyle :Pardon?Andy:IfeellikeI’minschoolagain. Kyle :Ohwellnotforlong,becauseI’monlygoingtoshowyouonceandthenyou’llbe abletodoitonyourown … [TheteacherreturnslatertocheckonAndy’sprogress.] Kyle :Okaysoyouknowhowtoaddupnow? Andy :No,Ijustcopieditoffhim... Kyle :Why’dyoudothat? Andy :BecauseIhatemaths. Kyle :Okaybutyoucoulddoitwiththeruler,couldn’tyou? Andy :(Yawnsreallyloudly!) [Benasksforclarificationinadivisiontask.] Kyle :Soyougodowntillyougettothenumbernearestto26,whichis24.Sowhenit says3lotsof8are24,itgoesin8timeswitharemainderoftwo. Ben :Okay …I’lltryanddothisone. WhenBenstillstruggledtounderstand,Kyleexplainedtheprocedureagainbutinthe samewayasthefirstexplanation.Thetutor,Jasmine,wasthenlefttoaddressthe student’sdifficultiesasthisexcerptofanobservationshowed. Kyle again worked through the problem procedurally for thestudent using almost identicallanguageandinstruction.KyleleftBentoJasminewhowasabletoelicit responsesfromthestudentandencouragedhimtocometohisownconclusions.They solvedtheproblemandthentriedtoidentifywheredifficultiesaroseforthestudent. JasmineeventuallyexplicitlytoldBenthattryingtounderstandtheproblemistoohard andthatheshouldonlyworryaboutROTElearningtheprocedure.Shesaidtodoit“in yourhead,ratherthantryingtounderstandwhy,becausethat’simpossible,justtryto rememberthatifyouputanaughtabovethatnumber …” Therewasinconsistencybetweentheteachersandtutorinstruction.Itappearsthat someteachersandtutorswerenottryingtodevelopunderstandingandmeaninginthe mathematics. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Theconclusionsfromthestudyindicatetherearetwodistinctcategoriesofstudentand thatneitherishavingtheirnumeracyneedssatisfactorilymetwithintheTAFE.Both categoriesofstudentsdislikednumeracybuttheparticipatorystudentswerewillingto putupwiththenumeracylessonsifitenabledthemtoundertakevocationaltraining. Theresistantstudentswerenotsowilling,andhadbehaviouralproblemsdisrupting

2230 PME31―2007 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore theclassandattractingtheteachers’attention.Inthissituation,anddespiteMary’s intentions,shewasnotsuccessfulwithherteachingbecauseofthecompetingdemands ofthestudents.Theresistantstudentsdidnotwanttostudyinanysituation.Rather, theycontinuedtodisrupttheclass.Theparticipatorystudents’needswerenotmet either because of the disruption and included requests for regular sequenced worksheets.Consequentlyanyattemptatimplementingmathematicalinvestigations withhandsonmaterialwasthwarted.TherepetitiveproceduralapproachusedbyKyle wasalsonotsuccessfulastheparticipatorystudentsappearedtoneedmorevariety with explanations. Individual attention appeared toworkformoststudentsbutthe TAFEinstitutiondidnothavetheresources(oftentheywereonlyabletoprovideone teacherandonetutorperclassoftwenty). IntheTAFEcontexttheteacherswereinthemiddleofcompetingforces;whatseemed toworkforoneofthetwocategorieswasineffectivefortheother.Thissituationwas exacerbatedbythelackofresources,theuninspiringlearningspaces,familiarityand successintraditionalnumeracyteachinginteractions,andthecompetingneedtomake progressthroughoutcomes.TheTAFEnumeracyaccesscoursereflectedthefindings ofFitzsimons(2002),andMcNeilandSmith(2004). Most interesting of all, the students’ perceptions of numeracy and the TAFE classroomsindicatedthattheystillbelievedinthetraditionalabsolutistandprocedural ideasaboutnumeracyanditsteachingthathadresultedintheirpreviousfailures(and thattheirbeliefsappearedtobemuchstrongerthanthoseofhighachievingstudents). Aswell,thebehaviouroftheresistantstudentsappearedtobearesultofrejectionof education’s capacity to provide social mobility and acceptance of an unskilled labouringorunemployedroleinsocietywithinwhichtheycouldenactlocalcontrol,a “learningtolabour”subcultureasinWillis(1978). ThesocialconditionsandresourcesattheTAFEmakeanyinterventionproblematic. However,the“earnorlearn”contextprovidesaframeworkforemancipationaswellas oppression. First, the students have to come to the institution and be given opportunitiesforengagement.Second,theinterestsofthestudentsislocatedwithin streetlifeandvocationalimprovementenablinga“streetmaths”vs“schoolmaths”or “vocationalmaths”vs“schoolmaths”approachtohavesomeresonance. To take advantage of this, it is evident that the two types of students need to be separatedintodifferentclasses.Theparticipatorystudentsneedtohavetheirnumeracy horizonswidenedfromworkbookstoconceptsandstrategies.Onepossibilityforthis processisthroughafocusontheresiliencethathasbroughtthemtothispositionin relationtothevocationtheywishtotakeup.Questions such as, what gives these studentsthestrengthtorebuildtheirlives,whereisthenumeracythatunderpinnedthis resilience,whatnumeracydotheyneedfortheirvocation,andhowcanthisbelinked toformalprevocationalmathematics? Theresistantstudentsneedtolookinwardbutinadifferentmanner.Theyneedto developanidentity(andpride)thatallowsthemtoseethemselvesascontrollingtheir

PME31―2007 2231 Ewing, Baturo, Cooper, Duus & Moore widerworld.Numeracyfocusingonthesocialsituationsthatcontrolthem(e.g.,money, employment,andpolice)couldbeastartingpoint. References Burns,R.B.(2000). Introduction to research methods .London:Sagepublications. Department of Education, Science. and Training. (2004). Furthering Success: Education, training and employment transitions for disadvantaged older workers.Retrieved01/02/06, fromhttp://dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres Ewing,B.F.(2005). Disrupting tradition: Students' accounts of their experiences of learning mathematics. GriffithUniversity.Workinprogress,Southport. Finn,J.,&D.Rock.(1997).AcademicSuccessamongStudentsatriskforSchoolFailure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2),22134. Fitzsimons,G.(2001).Integratingmathematics,statistics,andtechnologyinvocationaland workplace education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32 (3),37583. Fitzsimons,G.(2002). What counts as mathematics? Technologies of power in adult and vocational education .Melbourne:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Karmel,T.(2005). Linkages between Australian vocational education and training and the labour market. PaperpresentedattheSecondSinoAustraliaVocationalEducationand TrainingConference,Chongquing. McLeish,A.(2002). Employability skills for Australian small and medium sized enterprises . Canberra:DEST. McNeil, B., & Smith, L. (2004). Success factors in informal learning: Young adults experience of literacy, language and numeracy . London: National Research and DevelopmentCentreforAdultLiteracyandNumeracy. Millar, P., & S. Kilpatrick. (2005). How community development programs can foster reengagement with learning in disadvantaged communities: Leadership as process. Studies of the Education of Adults, 37 (1),1830. Queensland Government. (2002). Queensland the smart state: Education and training-reforms for the future . Retrieved 19/04/06, from http://education.qld.gov.au/etrf/pdf/greenpaper.pdf Smyth,J.,Hattam,R.,Edwards,J.,Cannon,J.,Wilson,N.,&Wurst,S.(2000). Listen to me I'm leaving: Early school leaving in South Australian secondary schools . Adelaide: FlindersInstituteforthestudyofteaching. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research : Design and methods (Vol. 5). London: Sage publications. Zevenbergen,R.(2000)CrackingtheCodeofMathematicsClassrooms.InJ.Boaler(Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 20124). London: AblexPublishing.

2232 PME31―2007 THE GENDERING OF MATHEMATICS IN ISRAEL AND AUSTRALIA HelenJ.Forgasz andDavidMittelberg MonashUniversity/Oranim,AcademicCollegeofEducation The “Mathematics as a gendered domain” instrument was administered to grade 9 Israeli Jewish and Arab students. The data were examined for differences in the views of the students from the two ethnic groups and also among males and females within each group. The instrument was designed and normed in Australia and the Israeli data were compared to the Australian findings. Differences between the cultural groups in Israel were identified; the Jewish students’ views were more similar to the Australians’ than were the Arab students’. The implications of the findings are discussed.

BACKGROUND Genderinequitiesinmathematicseducationarefrequentlyreportedwithrespectto achievement,participationrates,andinregardtostudents’attitudesandbeliefsabout mathematics(e.g.,Leder,Forgasz&Solar,1996).Whilesomechangeshavebeen reported over time in stereotyped attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Forgasz, Leder & Kloosterman, 2004), PISA 2003 results (OECD, nd) revealed that males generally outperformedfemales,whilegenderdifferenceswerefoundforsomecountriesbutnot in others in TIMSS 2003 (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Chrostowski, 2004). Participation data in Australia (Forgasz, 2006) still reveal that males outnumber femalesinthemostchallengingmathematicssubjectsofferedatthegrade12level. InIsrael,theeducationalsystemsforArabsandJewsaresegregated,althoughbothare runbytheMinistryofEducation(Birrenbaum&Fasser,2006).HebrewandArabicare thelanguagesofinstructioninthepertinentsystems,whiletheintendedmathematics curriculaarethesame.Ayalon(2002)maintainedthatJewishstudentsgenerallyhad greaterchoiceofadvancedlevelsubjectsleadingto matriculation than students in Arabschools,whereadvancedcourseswereoftenlimitedtomathematics,sciences, andhistory.TherestrictedcurriculuminArabschoolswashypothesisedtobenefit femaleswithrespecttoaccessto valued knowledge such as mathematics (Ayalon, 2002).MittelbergandLevAri(1999)reportedthatArabgirls’preparedness“toadopt a mathematicallybased profession in the future is particularly high both when comparedtoJewishgirlsaswellasJewishboys”(p.88). BasedondatafromtheIsraeliCentralBureauofStatistics,itwasfoundthat“gender inequalityamongArabstudentswasrelativelymoderate,withhigherproportionsof IsraeliArabthanJewishgirlstakingadvancedcoursesinmathematics(Ayalon,2002). Ayalon(2002)citedfindingsindicatingthatbetween1948and1980Arabfemales’ enrolmentsatalllevelsofsecondaryeducationhadequalledmales’andthattheyhad higherparticipationratesinpostsecondaryeducation.MittelbergandLevAri(1999) reported that Arab females also had high levels of perceived achievement and

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.233240.Seoul:PME. 2233 Forgasz & Mittelberg selfconfidence in mathematics and were willing to consider mathematicallybased studiesandprofessionsinthefuture.However,culturalfactorsappeartoworkagainst Arab females being able to capitalise on their potential. Compared to the Jewish populationinIsrael,theArabpopulationismoreconservativeand“Arabwomenare notexpectedtobeactiveoutsidetheirhomesandlabourmarketparticipationisstill low” (Ayalon, 2002, p.63). Indeed, while females comprise 56% of all Arab matriculants,only20%ofallArabwomenarefoundinthelabourforce,comparedto 51%ofallJewishwomenand65%ofallArabmen(FogelBizau,2003). JewishstudentsinIsraelappeartofollowmorecloselythegenderstereotypedpatterns ofparticipationreportedwidelyinotherwesternnationssuchastheUSAandAustralia. Thatis,moremalesthanfemalesareenrolledinthemostchallengingmathematics courses offered at the secondary level (Mittelberg & LevAri, 1999). In 2003, Australian and Israeli grade 8 students participated in TIMMS. The Australians (ranked14)performedslightlybetterthantheIsraelis(ranked19)ofthe46countries participating.InbothIsraelandAustralia,therewerenosignificantgenderdifferences inperformance,althoughmalesdidslightlybetterthanfemales(seeMullisetal,2004). ItmustberecognisedthatIsraeliArabscompriseonly20%oftheIsraelipopulation andthustheIsraeliTIMMSresultsreflectmorecloselytheIsraeliJewishstudents’ performance;thereisnowayofdisaggregatingtheTIMSSdatabyethnicgroupsto examinetheperformancesofIsraeliJewsandIsraeliArabs. InthestudyreportedhereIsraeliJewishandIsraeliArabgrade9students’beliefs aboutthegenderstereotypingofmathematicswerecompared.Withingroupgender comparisons were also undertaken. Data were also gathered on perceptions of mathematicsachievementlevelswhichwerecomparedbyethnicgroupandbygender withinethnicgroup.FurthercomparisonsweremadewithAustraliangrade9student datagatheredinanearlierstudy(seeForgasz,Leder&Kloosterman,2004).

AIMS AND METHODS The Mathematics as a Gendered Domain instrument was developed by Leder and Forgasz(seeLeder&Forgasz,2002fordetails)andnormedonAustralianstudentsin grades 710 that included 253 (122 males, 131 females) grade 9 students. It is comprisedofthreesubscaleswith16Likerttypeitems scored onfivepointscales fromSD=1toSA=5oneach.Thethreesubscalesare: Mathematics as a Male Domain [MD], Mathematics as a Female [FD],and Mathematics as a Neutral Domain [ND]. Sampleitemsfromeachscaleinclude: MD:Boysunderstandmathematicsbetterthangirlsdo FD:Girlsaremoresuitedthanboystoacareerinamathematicallyrelatedarea ND:Boysarejustaslikelyasgirlstohelpfriendswiththeirmathematics TheinstrumentwastranslatedintoHebrewandintoArabicandadministeredto103 grade9studentsin4Jewishschoolsand112grade9studentsin3Arabschoolsin NorthernIsrael.Whilerecognisingthatthispurposefulsamplewasnotrepresentative

2234 PME31―2007 Forgasz & Mittelberg oftheentireIsraeligrade9population,itenabled robust comparisons to be made betweenthebeliefsofIsraeliJewishandArabstudents,andwaslargeenoughtomake comparisonswiththeearliergatheredAustraliandata.Alsoincludedontheinstrument wasanitemaskingstudents“Howgoodareyouatmathematics”[HGM].Students respondedonafivepointscalerangingfrom1=weakto5=excellent.

RESULTS Israeli and Australian grade 9 students’ perception of mathematics achievement Meanscoresforperceivedlevelsofmathematicsachievement[HGM]werecompared by country using an independent groups ttest. The Israelis were found to have a significantly higher mean level of perceived mathematics achievement than the Australians(Israelis:3.67,Australians:3.43,p<.01).Thesefindingsareinconsistent withtheTIMSSfindingsthatrevealedthattheAustralianshadperformedbetterthan theIsraelis.Asnotedearlier,IsraeliArabsareaminorityoftheIsraelipopulationand thedifferenceismostlikelyduetotheunrepresentativesamplingofIsraelistudents, thatis,usingapproximatelyequalnumbersofJewishandArabIsraelis.TheIsraeli dataweredisaggregatedbyethnicgroup,andcomparisonsbetweenthethreeethic groupswereundertaken. Perceptions of mathematics achievement: Ethnic comparisons AonewayANOVAwasconductedtodetermineifthereweredifferencesinmean scores on students’ perceptions of their mathematics achievement levels by ethnic grouping:IsraeliJews,IsraeliArabs,andAustralians.Scheffeposthoctestswereused todeterminewhichpairsofmeanscoresweresignificantlydifferent.Theresultsare showninTable1. Ethnicity N Mean F,plevel Scheffeposthoc IsraeliJews 103 3.59 4.15,p<.05 IsraeliJews–IsraeliArabs:ns IsraeliArabs 107 3.75 IsraeliJewsAustralians:ns Australians 250 3.43 ArabAustralians:p<.05 Table1.HGM:ANOVAresultsbyethnicgroup

AscanbeseeninTable1,therewasastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenthe threegroups(p<.05).Theposthoctestsrevealedthatthisdifferencewasduetothe differencebetweenthemeanscoresforIsraeliArabsandAustralians(p<.05)withthe IsraeliArabsbelievingtheywerehigherachievers(mean=3.75)thanAustralians (mean=3.43).TherewerenosignificantdifferencesinmeanscoresfortheIsraeliJews andIsraeliArabsorfortheIsraeliJewsandAustralians. Genderdifferenceswithineachethnicgroupwereexaminedusingindependentgroups ttests.TheresultsareshowninTable2andshowthattheonlygenderdifferencewas foundamongAustralianstudentswithmalesbelievingtheywerehigherachieversthan females(Mmean=3.56,Fmean=3.30).

PME31―2007 2235 Forgasz & Mittelberg

Table2.HGM:Meansandttestresultsbygenderwithinethnicgroup Male Female Ethnicity N Mean N Mean T,plevel IsraeliJews 50 3.56 52 3.60 ns1 IsraeliArabs 57 3.81 54 3.67 ns Australians 121 3.56 129 3.30 2.28,p<.05 1 ns=notsignificant Insummary,theIsraeliArabshadthehighestperceived mathematics achievement levelsamongthethreegroups.ThebeliefsoftheIsraeliJewsabouttheirmathematics achievementlevelsweresimilartothoseoftheAustralians,consistentwiththeTIMSS 2003data.UnliketheAustralians,however,therewerenogenderdifferencesinthe beliefsofIsraeliJewswithrespecttomathematicsachievementlevels. Mathematics as a gendered domain: Differences by country Thegrade9students’scoresontheMD,FDandNDsubscaleswerecomparedby country using independent groups ttests. Statistically significant differences by countryformeanscoresoneachofthethreesubscaleswerefound.Themeanscores areillustratedinFigure1.

Mathematics as a Gendered Domain: Australia and Israel

5.00 4.00 3.83 3.58

3.00 3.00 2.82 2.68

2.28 Mean score Mean 2.00

1.00 Male Domain [MD] Female Domain [FD] Neutral Domain [ND]

Israel Australia

Figure1:MD,FDandND:MeanscoresforAustralianandIsraelistudents ThedatainFigure1indicatethattheIsraelistudents: • DisagreeslessstronglythattheAustralianstudentsthatmathematicswasa maledomain(Australia:mean=2.28;Israelmean=2.82) • WereunsureifmathematicswasafemaledomainwhiletheAustraliansdid notbelievethatitwas(Australia:mean=2.68;Israel:mean=3.00) • Agreed less strongly than the Australians that mathematics was a neutral domain(Australia:mean=3.83;Israel:mean=3.56). Gendered beliefs about mathematics: Ethnic differences The mean scores for each ethnic group on each of the three subscales of the Mathematics as a gendered domain scaleareshowninFigure2.

2236 PME31―2007 Forgasz & Mittelberg

5.00 4.00 3.83 3.57 3.60 3.29 3.02 3.00 2.62 2.71 2.68 2.28 2.00 1.00 Male Domain [MD] Female Domain [FD] Neutral Domain [ND] Israeli Jews Israeli Arabs Australians

Figure2.MD,FD,andND:Meanscoresbyethnicgroup AscanbeseeninFigure2,theorderofthebeliefmeasuresonthethreesubscaleswas thesameforallthreegroups:highestscoreonND,andlowestscoreonMD,thatis, theyagreedmoststronglythatmathematicswasaneutraldomainandleaststrongly that mathematics was a male domain. While all three groups strongly agreed that mathematicswasaneutraldomain(means>>3),fortheMDandFDsubscales,the directionsofthebeliefsoftheIsraeliArabsdifferedfromthoseoftheIsraeliJewsand theAustralians.TheIsraeliArabswereunsureifmathematicswasafemaledomain (meanapprox.3)whereastheothertwogroupsdisagreedthatitwas(means<3),and theIsraeliArabsbelievedthatmathematicswasamaledomain(mean>3)whereasthe othertwogroupsdisagreedthatitwas(means<3). ANOVAs followed by posthoc tests were conducted to determine if there were statisticallysignificantethnicdifferencesinthestudents’genderedbeliefsonthethree Mathematics as a gendered domain subscales.TheresultsareshowninTable3.The datarevealedthattherewerestatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthemeanscoreson the MD, FD, and ND subscales, and posthoc tests indicated that the only nonsignificantdifferencesinmeanscoreswereforIsraeliJewsandAustraliansonthe FD,andforIsraeliJewsandIsraeliArabsontheND. Thestatisticallysignificantfindingsindicatedthat: • MD: Australians (mean = 2.28) disagreed more strongly than Israeli Jews (mean=2.62)thatmathematicswasamaledomain;IsraeliArabswerenot sureifmathematicswasamaledomain(mean=3.02) • FD:Australian(mean=2.68)andIsraeliJews(mean=2.71)disagreedthat mathematicswasafemaledomain;IsraeliArabsagreedthatmathematicswas afemaledomain(mean=3.29) • ND:Allthreegroupsagreedthatmathematicswasaneutraldomain(means >3),withtheAustralians(mean=3.83)agreeingmorestronglythanIsraeli Jews(mean=3.57)andIsraeliArabs(mean=3.60).

PME31―2007 2237 Forgasz & Mittelberg

F, Subscale Ethnicity N Mean plevel Scheffeposthoc MD IsraeliJews 103 2.62 IsraeliJewsIsraeliArabs:p<.001 42.26, IsraeliArabs 107 3.02 1 IsraeliJewsAustralians:p<.001 <.001 Australians 233 2.28 IsraeliArabsAustralians:p<.001 FD IsraeliJews 99 2.71 IsraeliJewsIsraeliArabs:p<.001 36.42, IsraeliArabs 100 3.29 IsraeliJewsAustralians:ns <.001 Australians 236 2.68 IsraeliArabsAustralians:p<.001 ND IsraeliJews 101 3.57 IsraeliJewsIsraeliArabs:ns 13.89, IsraeliArabs 104 3.60 IsraeliJewsAustralians:p<001 <.001 Australians 224 3.83 IsraeliArabsAustralians:p<.001 1Onesamplettestindicatedthatthismeanwasnotsignificantlydifferentfrom3 Table3.MD,FD,andND:MeansandANOVAresults Gendered beliefs about mathematics: Gender differences Todetermineifthereweregenderdifferencesinthegrade9students’genderedbeliefs about mathematics within each ethnic group, independent groups ttests were conducted.TheresultsareshowninTable4. Male Female Ethnicity Subscale All N Mean N Mean t,plevel IsraeliJews MD 2.62 49 2.51 53 2.73 ns FD 2.71 50 2.59 48 2.86 2.346,<.05 ND 3.57 49 3.57 51 3.56 ns IsraeliArabs MD 3.02 55 2.81 51 3.25 3.241,<.01 FD 3.29 49 3.39 51 3.20 ns ND 3.60 49 3.58 54 3.62 ns Australians MD 2.28 112 2.47 121 2.11 4.35,<.001 FD 2.68 115 2.66 121 2.70 Ns ND 3.83 108 3.79 116 3.87 Table4.MD,FD,andND:Meansandttestresultsbygenderwithinethnicgroup AfewinterestingtrendsareapparentfromthedatainTable4. • TherewasaclearsimilarityinthebeliefpatternsoftheAustralianmales, Australianfemales,IsraeliJewishmales,andIsraeliJewishfemales.Allheld thatmathematicswasaneutraldomain(means>3)anddisagreedthatiswas eitheramaleorafemaledomain(means<3). • ThepatternwasdifferentamongtheIsraeliArabs.Thefemalesbelievedthat mathematicswasaneutraldomainaswellasbeingbothamaledomainanda femaledomain(means>3),andthemalesagreedthatmathematicswasa neutralandafemaledomain(means>3),butdisagreedthatitwasamale domain(mean<3).

2238 PME31―2007 Forgasz & Mittelberg

Thethreestatisticallysignificantgenderdifferences,oneforeachethnicgroup, showedthat: • Israeli Jews: Males (mean = 2.59) disagreed more strongly than females (mean=2.86)thatmathematicswasafemaledomain[FD] • IsraeliArabs:Femalesagreed(mean=3.25)andmalesdisagreed(mean= 2.81)thatmathematicswasamaledomain[MD] • Australians: Females disagreed more strongly (mean = 2.11) than males (mean=2.47)thatmathematicswasamaledomain[MD] Insummary,theIsraeliJewsandtheAustralians(aswellasthemalesandfemalesin eachcountry)heldsimilarviews.Theyagreedthatmathematicswasaneutraldomain andrejectedmathematicsaseitheramaleorafemaledomain.Thefindingsforthe IsraeliArabs’werequitedifferentandareambiguous.Theyagreedthatmathematics wasbothaneutralandafemaledomain,andwereuncertainifitwasalsoamale domain(mean=3.02).ThegenderdifferenceontheMDsubscaleappearstoexplain theoveralluncertaintyamongtheIsraeliArabs;whilethefemalesagreedthatitwasa maledomain(mean=3.25),themalesdisagreed(mean=2.81).

CONCLUSIONS ConsistentwiththeTIMSSfindingsformathematicsperformance(Mullisetal.,2004), the beliefs about mathematics performance levels and the gendered beliefs about mathematicsofalltheIsraelistudentsandtheIsraeliJewishstudentsbutnottheIsraeli ArabstudentsweresimilartotheAustralianstudents’.Onaverage,theIsraeliJewsand the Australians believed they were above average in mathematical performance, believedthatmathematicswasaneutraldomain,anddisagreedthatitwaseitheramale orafemaledomain.Thesefindingssuggestthatthereisaculturalsimilaritybetween the Israeli Jewish and the Australian grade 9 students. The statistically significant differencesbetweenthemeanscoresofthetwogroupsindicatedthattheAustralians’ beliefs were more strongly held. That Australian society may be less gender stereotypedthanIsraelisocietymaypartlyexplainthesefindingsbutfurtherresearch isneeded.ItisnoteworthythattheIsraeliJewishstudents’viewswereconsistentwith findingsfromthe Mathematics as a gendered domain scaleintheUSAaswellas Australia(Forgasz,Leder&Kloosterman,2004). Ofthethreegroups,theIsraeliArabshadthehighestperceivedlevelsofmathematics performance, a finding that may be partially explained by the limited curriculum offeringsinIsraeliArabschools(Ayalon,2002)thatmaylimitstudents’perceptionsof which discipline areas they are relatively stronger or weaker. The Arab Israeli students’genderedviewsofmathematicswereintriguinglydifferentfromtheviewsof theIsraeliJewsandtheAustraliansandarenoteasilyexplained.Liketheothers,the IsraeliArabs(bothmalesandfemales)alsobelievedthatmathematicswasaneutral domain. However, both the males and females simultaneously believed that mathematicswasafemaledomainand,whiletheIsraeliArabmalesdisagreed,the IsraeliArabfemalesagreedthatmathematicswasafemaledomain.Theseapparently

PME31―2007 2239 Forgasz & Mittelberg ambiguous findings strongly suggest that there may beaculturalfactorwithinthe IsraeliArabcommunityinwhichthereconflictingbeliefsassociatedwiththegender stereotypesoftheadultcommunityandwhattakesplaceinclassroomsandschool settings. There may be an unresolved tension between school and postschool expectationsandemploymentoptionsforbothmaleandfemaleIsraeliArabstudents. ClearlymoreresearchisneededtounderstandbettertheambiguityintheIsraeliArab students’findingsaboutthegenderingofmathematics.

REFERENCES Ayalon,H.(2002).MathematicsandsciencecoursetakingamongArabstudentsinIsrael:A caseofunexpectedgenderequality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24 (1), 6380. Birenbaum, M., & Nasser, F. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in mathematics achievement and in dispositions towards the study of mathematics. Learning and Instruction , 16 ,2640. FogelBizau,S.(2003).'Thesecondearner'intheeraofglobalization:WomenintheIsraeli labormarket . Society ,8,(Hebrew).Accessed28December2006from: http://lib.cet.ac.il/pages/item.asp?item=8060 Forgasz,H.J.(2006). Australian year 12 mathematics enrolments: Patterns and trends – past and present .InternationalCentreofExcellenceforEducationinMathematics.Accessed 28December2006 from: http://www.iceem.org.au/pdfs/Mathematics_Enrolments.pdf Forgasz,H.J.,Leder, G.C.,& Kloosterman,P.(2004).Newperspectives onthegender stereotypingofmathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 6(4),389420. Leder,G.C.,&Forgasz,H.J.(2002).Twonewinstrumentstoprobeattitudesaboutgender andmathematics. ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE), ED463312. Leder, G. C., Forgasz, H. J., & Solar, C. (1996). Research and intervention programs in mathematics education: A gendered issue. In A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick,&C.Laborde(Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education, Part 2 (pp.945985).Dordrecht,Netherlands:Kluwer. Mittelberg, D, & LevAri, L. (1999). Confidence in mathematics and its consequences: GenderdifferencesamongIsraeliJewishandArabyouth. Gender and Education , 11 (1), 75–92. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., & Chrostowski, S.J. (2004). Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades .ChestnutHill,MA:TIMSS&PIRLSInternationalStudyCenter,BostonCollege. OECD(nd). First results from PISA 2003. Executive summary .Accessed12December,2006 from:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/63/34002454.pdf

2240 PME31―2007 21 ST CENTURY CHILDREN, NUMERACY AND TECHNOLOGY: AN ANALYSIS OF PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE JillianL.Fox QueenslandUniversityofTechnology Technology has catapulted young children into a society where numeracy practices are integral to their everyday lives and future success. In order to determine the scope and foci of the literature on early childhood digital-numeracies, this study examines the articles published between 2000 and 2005 in the ERIC database and proceedings of the annual conferences of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education [PME]. Overall, this study revealed (1) a lack of peer-reviewed articles that discuss, investigate, or examine early childhood digital-numeracies; (2) an absence of studies on the prior-to school years, and (3) an absence of research exploring the impact of new technologies on young children’s numeracy practices. INTRODUCTION Youngchildrenarebeingbornintoaworldthatisbuiltondigitaltechnology− a worldwherehavingcompetenceandthedispositiontousemathematicsincontextis essential.Consideringthewidespreaddemandforanumeratecitizenryinadigitalage, it is essential that young children develop the foundations of digitalnumeracies. Throughoutthispaper,theterm, “digitalnumeracies”isusedasaparalleltermto digitalliteracies(Lankshearetal.,1997).Thus,“digitalnumeracies”arethenumeracy practices, behaviours and events which are mediated by new technologies. These technologies comprise technological innovations that have been made possible through digitization, such as digital music players. They also include “old” technologies(e.g.,digitaltelevision)whichhavebeentransformedthroughthedigital signal(Marshetal.,2005).Thus,researchonchildren’snumeracylearninganddigital technologiesisparticularlytimely. Researchfindingsonchildren’searlymathematicalgrowth(e.g.,Baroody,Lai,&Mix, in press) together with the growing number of children who spend time in early childhoodprogramshascreatedanimpetusforthecreationofpolicies,curriculaand guidelines that support the development of early years care and education (OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment[OECD]2006)including mathematicalproficiency(Ball,2004;Clements,Sarama,&DiBiase,2003;National AssociationfortheEducationofYoungChildren[NAEYC],2002;NationalCouncil forTeachersofMathematics[NCTM],2000).Increasingly,digitaltechnologiesare impactingoneverydaylife;hence,children’smathematicalproficiencyneedstobe consideredinrelationtotheirlearningwithandfromthesetechnologies.Thus,the purpose of this paper is to examine the current status of peerreviewed literature pertainingtoyoungchildren’s(birthtoeightyears)digitalnumeracypracticesand engagementwithnewtechnologies.Theoutcomesofthisreviewwillestablishthe

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.241248.Seoul:PME. 2241 Fox scopeandadequacyoftheliteraturebaseandprovidedirectionsforfutureresearchon digitalnumeraciesintheearlychildhoodyears. 21 ST CENTURY CHILDREN, NUMERACY AND TECHNOLOGY Converging Trends Thepastdecadehasseentheemergenceofthreeunderstandings related to young children’smathematicallearninginthe21 st century.First,theearlyyearsoflifehave beenhighlightedasfundamentaltolifelonglearningandithasbeenacknowledgedthat longtermsuccessinlearninganddevelopmentrequiresqualityexperiencesduringthe “earlyyearsofpromise”(CarnegieCorporation,1998).Second,theNCTM(2000)has advocated the salient and powerful nature of mathematical proficiency stating that “mathematicalcompetencyopensdoorstoproductivefutures–alackofmathematical competencies keeps those doors closed” (p. 5). Contemporary views and theories acclaim that young children are capable of mathematical competencies that are extensive and impressive (Clements & Sarama, in press). Third, the influence of technologyonhumanlifeinthenewmillenniumhascreatedaworldcharacterizedby diverseandenergeticcommunication,vastamountsofinformation,andrapidchange. Technologyaffectsthedailylivesofeveryperson,directlyorindirectly(Williams, 2002). The coalescence of these three understandings (i.e., early learning, mathematicalproficiency, technology) indicates aneed to consider what we know aboutthedevelopmentofyoungchildren’sdigitalnumeracies.Asapreludetothe examination of the literature young children’s digital numeracy practices, a brief overviewof21 st childrenandtherelationshipbetweennumeracyandtechnologyis presented. 21 st Century Children and their Learning Mostchildrenofthewesternworldhaveaccesstotechnologyanddevicesthatimpact ontheirlives–whethertheybeforentertainment(eg.,Playstation©)ordaytoday living (e.g., microwave) or in school (e.g., computers). The range of these technologicaldevicesisexpandingandincludesconsolegames,digitalmusicplayers, videocams,mobilephones,andvariousdigitaltoys.Astherootsoflatercompetence are established long before school age (Bowman, 2001) and findings from neuroscience confirm the importance of the connection between young children’s experiencesandachievementslaterinlife(Bruer,1999),itisimportanttoconsider howlearningoccursfrombirthtoeightinavarietyofcontextsinadditiontoschool. Opportunities for mathematical experiences and interactionswith technology occur beforechildrenbeginschoolandinparallelwithschooling. Thus, research on the developmentofdigitalnumeraciesinyoungchildrenneedstospanvariousagesand learningcontexts. Numeracy and Technology Theskills,knowledge,andabilitiesneededtoparticipateandsucceedin21 st century societyarevastlydifferenttothoseneededinthepreviouscentury.Theamplifiedneed

2242 PME31―2007 Fox for numeracy is a result of the demands of the technologicallyoriented age (Her Majesty’sInspectorate,1998;NCTM,2000).Forexample,Steen(1997)arguesthat modernlifeisdominatedbytechnology,digitaltoolsanddevices,andthat“Numeracy is the currency of modern life” (p. xvii). Steen (2001) also credits the rise in quantitativedata,numbers,andinformationtotheuniversalincreaseintheusageof technology,computers,andtheinternet.CivilrightsleaderRobertMosesarguesthat mathematics has become a humanitarian issue stating, “children who are not quantitatively literate may be doomed to second class economic status in our increasingly technological society” (cited in Schoenfeld, 2002, p. 13). Clearly, numeracy is no longer the fortune of the elite but a requirement for all citizens. Similarly,Malcom(1999)subscribestotheopinionthatmathematicalachievementin a technological and global society will have a major impact on students’ career aspirations,theirroleinsociety,andeventheirsenseofpersonalfulfilment.Thus,the need to understand andtouse mathematics and technology is fundamental to 21 st centurylife. METHOD This paper reports on the status of peerreviewed literature that focuses on early childhood mathematics and technology through an investigation of contemporary literature in the Education Resources Information Center [ERIC] database and the annual conference proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education [PME]. ERIC was selected as widely accessible general databasethatprovidesfreeaccesstomorethan1.2millionbibliographicrecordsof educational journal articles and other educationrelated materials. The PME conference proceedings were selected because PME specialises in the exchange, promotion,andstimulationofscientificinformationandinterdisciplinaryresearchin thefieldofmathematicseducation(PME,n.d.).Bothinvestigationsspannedtheyears 2000to2005.TheaimoftheERICandPMEexaminationswastoidentifythearticles thatborereferencetoyoungchildren(birthtoeightyears),andthedevelopmentof digitalnumeraciesortheuseofnewtechnologies. Thetworesearchquestionswere: 1. Whatwastheproportionandscopeofarticlesontechnologyintheearlyyears publishedintheERICdatabasebetween2000and2005? 2. Whatwastheproportionandscopeofarticlesontechnologyintheearlyyears publishedinthePMEproceedingsbetween2000and2005? Thefirstquestionwasaddressedbyreportingononeaspectofalargerscalestudythat examinedthepeerreviewedliteratureonmathematicseducationandearlychildhood duringthe6yeartimespan.TheabstractsontheERICdatabaseonEBSCOhostwere the data sources for this study. Only articles from peerreviewed journals were included because they (a) reflect the interests and values of mainstream research communitiesand(b)haveadegreeofqualitycontrolandcredibilitythroughthepeer reviewprocess.Inessence,theresearchapproachconsistedofidentifyingadatasetof

PME31―2007 2243 Fox articles for review from the ERIC database, limiting the data set to include only relevantarticles,andascertainingtherepresentativeness of the literature through a thematic categorization of the articles. Categories were established that best representedthecontentthemeofthearticles.Theagecohortinvestigatedwasalso noted. The second question was addressed by reviewing the contents of the annual proceedingsofthePMEconferencesbetween2000and2005.ThePMEconference proceedings were included because they (a) represent a range of international interdisciplinaryresearchandscientificinformationinthepsychologyofmathematics education,and(b)arepeerreviewed,andhenceof a certaincalibre in relation to quality,researchsignificanceandinterest.ItshouldbenotedthatsomePMEpapers wereindexedinERIC.Theresearchapproachconsistedofexaminingthepublished PME conference proceedings to identify articles relating to technology and mathematics.Thedatasetwasthenfurtherinvestigatedtoascertainthethemeofthe article,andtheagecohortitaddressed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION What was the proportion and scope of articles on technology in the early years published in the ERIC database between 2000 and 2005? TheERICsearchidentified208articlesrelatingtoyoungchildrenandmathematics which,duetomultiplefociinsomearticles,resultedin311thematicallybasedcodings. Onlyfourteenofthe311codings(4.5%)focusedontechnology.Thehighestnumber ofarticlesfocusedonmathematicalconcepts(36%)andthelowestnumberofarticles focussedonproblemsolving(1.3%).Thelowproportionofarticlesontechnologyis surprising and a concern given the importance of technology in 21 st century mathematics.Eachofthetechnologyarticlesanalysedrelatedtoyoungchildren’suse of computers, software, and information technology and communications during mathematical experiences within a school setting. No articles referred to digitalnumeraciesinthepriortoschoolyears.Therewerealsonoreferencesfoundon newtechnologicaltoolsordevicestomathematicallearningintheearlychildhood years. What was the proportion and scope of articles on technology in the early years published in the PME proceedings between 2000 and 2005? The total manuscripts published in PME proceedings between 2000 and 2005 was 1857 .Ofthisfigureonly145(7.8%) peerrevieweditemscontainedareferenceto technologyandmathematics.Technologypaperswererepresentedinaplenarylecture, researchforums,discussiongroups,workingsessions,shortorals,posterpresentations andresearchreports(seeTable1).Themajorityoftopicsinmanuscriptspertainingto mathematicsandtechnologycoveredtopicssuchassoftware,interactivewhiteboards, CASbased algebra systems, mathematical learning aided by computers, ICT (i.e., information and communication technologies) environments and tools, pedagogy, graphicscalculators,attitudes,andgenderissues.Thetechnologythemedpapersinthe

2244 PME31―2007 Fox

PMEproceedingsaddressedvariousagecohortsfromupperprimaryschoolchildren through to preservice teachers with one exception on young children. This was a posterpresentationbyHoyos(2002)titled Computer-based mathematical games for preschool children.Thus,overa6yearperiodonlyonePMEpaper(0.05%)hadan earlychildhoodfocus. PME 24 PME 25 PME 26 PME 27 PME 28 PME 29 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Plenarylectures 1 Research 1 1 forums Discussion 1 1 1 groups Working Notheld 1 2 2 sessions Shortoral 3 15 7 4 8 6 communications Poster 1 7 6 7 5 5 presentations Research 9 13 10 11 9 8 reports TOTAL 13 38 25 25 23 21

Table1:PublishedpresentationswithatechnologyfocusinPMEproceedingsfrom 20002006. TheanalysesofERICandPMEpublicationsthataddresstheearlychildhoodyears, mathematicsandtechnologyrevealedsignificantlimitationswiththeliteraturebase. Proportionally,only4.5%ofERICarticlesand0.05%ofPMEarticlesfocusedonthis topicovera6yearperiod.Additionally,onlyonePMEpaperfocusedspecificallyon the priortoschool years, which are recognised as important for life outcomes. Moreover,noneoftheERICorthePMEpapersfocusedonnewtechnologies.Given thattoday’syoungchildrenaredigitalnatives,thatis“nativespeakersoftechnology, fluentinthedigitallanguageofcomputers,videogames,andtheinternet”(Prensky, 2001),researchisneededonthelearningopportunitiesanddemandsofthebreadthof technologicaltoolsandenvironments. TheseoutcomesofthereviewoftheERICandPMEare not exceptionalbutappearto berepresentativeoftheorientationsofprofessionalgroupsovertimewithrespectto the emphasis on technology and young children. For example, 10 years ago a technology-themed conference by the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia [MERGA] (Clarkson, 1986) published 80 manuscripts, of which seven

PME31―2007 2245 Fox referencedmathematicsandtechnology.However,noneofthesearticlespertainedto young children’s use of technology. Nearly a decade later, a review of research between 2000 and 2003 by the same professional community (Perry, Anthony & Diezmann, 2004) revealed an emphasis on technology in a chapter by Goos and Cretchley (2004). This chapter discussed the research on teaching and learning mathematicswithcomputerbasedtechnologies,andtheroleofcomputersinstudent learning.However,aswithresearchpublishedbyERICandPMEbetween2000and 2005,therewasscantattentiontotechnologyandyoungchildren.Onlyonestudyon young children and technology use (Lowrie, 2002) was identified in the MERGA review(Perryetal.,2003).Lowrie’sworkinvestigated6yearoldchildren’scapacity tointerpretandconstruct3Dlikeimagesincomputer environments. However, no researchwasreportedonchildren’suseofdigitaltechnologiesintheseearlyschool years.Additionally,noresearchwasreportedonanytypeoftechnologyuseinthe priortoschoolagerange. CONCLUSION The review of literature published in peerreviewed journals and PME conference proceedingsidentifiedresearchagendasinvestigatingprimaryandsecondarystudents’, andteachers’engagementwithcomputers,software,andwithinICTenvironments.In the past few decades a shift in perceptions about young children’s learning and mathematicsinadigitalagehasbeenwitnessed.However,thisshiftisnotmirroredin the literature. The review revealed a dearth of research on digitalnumeracy engagementintheearlyyearsandapaucityofresearchonyoungchildren’slearningin the priortoschool years. In our increasingly technological and informationbased society, mathematical proficiency isnecessaryforproductiveparticipationinlifeand success in public and private ventures. Hence, research needs to provide adequate guidanceonearlychildhoodmathematicseducationinordertoincreasethelikelihood ofchildren’ssuccessandtodevelopanumeratecitizenry.Asubstantialliteraturebase wouldinformpolicyandpracticeandfurthervalidatetheessentialnatureofearly childhoodmathematicsandtechnologybyprovidingconvincingevidenceabouttheir plausibleeffects(Slavin,2002).Additionally,suchresearchwouldalsocontributeto the void of knowledge surrounding the impact of new technologies on the mathematicalexperiencesofyoungchildren. Astechnologyusageandnumeracydemandsincreaseinsociety,itisessentialthatall participantsareconsideredwithspecialattentiongiventothegatekeepersofourfuture –thechildren.Inordertoparticipateandthriveintoday’sdigitalageandcontributeto tomorrow’s future society, individuals need to become digitallynumerate. For example, considerable mathematical knowledge and technological knowledge are requiredtomakeinformeddecisionsaboutthebestmobilephoneandplan.Theability tomakeinformeddecisionsaboutmathematicalsituationsdetermineswhetherornot theseindividualshavefirstorsecondclasseconomicstatusinsociety.Thus,research on children’s numeracy learning and digital technologies is not only timely but necessary.Childrenarethepioneersofthefuture–whattheylearn,howtheylearnand

2246 PME31―2007 Fox when they learn has 21 st digitalnumeracy connotations research agendas must acknowledge and respond to this actuality if we are to fulfil the responsibility of workingtowardsequityforall. References 21 st Century Literacy Summit (2002). 21 st century literacy in a convergent media world. Berlin: Author. Retrieved December 26, 2006 from http://www.infotoday.com/ MMSchools/mar03/murray.shtml Ball, D. L. (Chair) (2004). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic researchanddevelopmentprograminmathematicseducation.RANDMathematicsStudy Panel.RetrievedDecember14,2006,fromhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/ MR1643/MR1643.pref.pdf Baroody,A.J.,Lai,M.,&Mix,K.S.(inpress).Thedevelopmentofyoungchildren’searly numberandoperationsenseanditsimplicationsforearlychildhoodeducation.Toappear in B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.) Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (2 nd Ed.).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum. Bowman,B.(1998).PolicyImplicationsformath,science,andtechnologyinearlychildhood. In, Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education .(pp.40 49).Washington,DC:AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience. Bruer, J.T. (1999). In search of brainbased education. Phi Delta Kappan , 80, 648654, 656657. Carnegie Corporation ofNewYork(1998). Years of Promise: A comprehensive learning strategy for America’s children. Retrieved December 26, 2006, from www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/execsum.html. Clarkson,D.(Ed.)(1996). Technology in Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 19 th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Group of Australasia. Melbourne: MERGA. Clements,D.H.,Sarama,J.&DiBiase,A.M.(Eds.).(2003). Engaging young children in mathematics – Standards for early childhood mathematics education . Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Clements,D.H.,&Sarama,J.(inpress).Earlychildhoodmathematicslearning.InF.Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Greenwich, CT:InformationAgePublishers. Goos,M.&Cretchley,P.(2004).Computers,multimedia,andtheInternetinmathematics education. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in Mathematics EducationinAustralasia:20002003(pp.151174).Sydney,MERGA. HerMajesty’sInspectorate.(1998). The National Numeracy project: An HMI evaluation . London:OfficeforStandardsinEducation. Hoyos, V. (2002). Computerbased mathematical games for preschool children. In A. Cockburn&ENardi(Eds.)Proceedingsofthe26 th AnnualInternationalGroupforthe PsychologyofMathematicsEducationconference(Vol.1,p.348).Norwich:PME.

PME31―2007 2247 Fox

International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (n.d). About PME. RetrievedJanuary5,2006,fromhttp://igpme.org/view.asp?pg=about Lankshear,C.,Gee,J.P.,Knobel,M.,&Searle,C.(1997). Changing literacies. Buckingham: OxfordUniversityPress. Lowrie,T.(2002).Theinfluenceofvisualandspatialreasoningininterpretingsimulated3D worlds. International Journal of Computers for mathematics Learning , 7(30),301318. Malcom,S.(1999).Makingsenseoftheworld.In, Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education, (pp.8–13). Washington:AmericanAssociation fortheAdvancementofScience. Marsh,J.A.,Brooks,G.,Hughes,J.,Ritchie,L.,Roberts,S.,&Wright,K.(2005). Digital beginnings: Young children’s use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Retrieved December 26, 2006, from http://www.digitalbeginnings.shef.ac.uk/ finalreport.htm NationalAssociationfortheEducationofYoungChildren,&NationalCouncilofTeachers of Mathematics. (2002). Position statement. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Retrieved December 13, 2005 from http://www.naeyc.org/about/ postions/psmath.asp NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics.(2000 ). Principles and standards for school mathematics .Reston,VA:NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics. OrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment[OECD](2006).Startingstrong 2:Earlychildhoodeducationandcare.Paris:OECD. Perry,B.,Anthony,G.,&Diezmann,C.(Eds.),(2004). Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia: 2000-2003. Sydney:MERGA. Prensky,M.(2001).Digitalnatives,digitalimmigrants .On the Horizon, 9 (5),12.Retrieved December 14, 2006 from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20 Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20%20Part1.pdf Schoenfeld,A.H.(2002).Makingmathematicsworkforallchildren:Issuesofstandards, testing,andequity. Educational Researcher ,31(1).1325 Slavin,R.E.(2002 ). Evidencebasededucationpolicies:transformingeducationalpractice andresearch, Educational Researcher ,31(7),1521. Steen,L.A.(1997). Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America .New York:TheCollegeBoard. Steen, L. A. (2001). Mathematics and numeracy: Two literacies, one language. The Mathematics Educator, 6(1), pp.1016. Williams, R. (2002). Retooling: A historian confronts technological change . Cambridge, MA:TheMITPress.

2248 PME31―2007 TEACHING AND TEACHERS’ COMPETENCE WITH ICT IN MATHEMATICS IN A COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY AnneBeritFuglestad AgderUniversityCollege In the ICTML project the aim is to develop both mathematics teaching and the teachers’ competence with ICT and to perform research on all parts of the work. The research was situated in a social cultural framework. Teachers and didacticians worked together in learning communities inquiring into approaches for teaching and how computer tools can support inquiry in both teachers and pupils work. In this connection workshops at the university college played an important part. In this paper I will report from cases of workshops and how ideas for implementing teaching with ICT were developed and discussed in the learning community. BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Implementing use of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) into mathematics teaching has been a slow process. In spite of huge efforts from the Norwegianeducationalauthorities,theuseofICTtoolsisstillratherweakinmost schools(Erstad,Kløvstad,Kristiansen,&Søbye,2005).Alothasbeenachievedwith general use of computers, but less in specific subjects. Hardly any activity was reported in an evaluation of teachers’ implementation of the curriculum (Alseth, Breiteig,&Brekke,2003).Inmyownexperience,manyteacherslackknowledgeof how to utilise ICT tools in mathematics teaching and express need to see good examplesandlearnmoreaboutwaysofusingICT.IntheNorwegiancurriculumplan, ineffectfrom2006,thereisademandtouse“digitaltools”ineveryschoolsubject andspecificdemandsaregivenintheplanformathematics(KD,2006). TheprojectICTandmathematicslearning(ICTML)aimstomeetthechallengeof investigatinghowICTtoolscanbeutilisedinschoolmathematicsandinparticular howICTcansupportinquiryapproachesinteachingandlearning.ICTMLisbotha developmentandresearchproject,whereteachersand didacticians, i.e. researchers anddoctoralstudentsattheuniversitycollege,workcloselytogether.Furthermore, theprojecthasaclosecollaborationwithanotherproject,LearningCommunitiesin mathematics, (LCM) (Jaworski, 2005), with fundamentally a common theoretical framework.BothprojectsaresupportedbyTheResearchCouncilofNorway IthinkofICTtoolsinthiscontextascomputersoftwarethatisopenandflexiblenot tiedtospecifictopicsorlimitedtopredesignedtasks.Suchsoftwareprovidesways ofrepresentingmathematicalobjectsandrelationsandmakesitpossibletoworkon the representations. Thus ICT tools make it possible to investigate and experiment with mathematical ideas, discover patterns and relations and be stimulated in

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.249256.Seoul:PME. 2249 Fuglestad mathematicalthinking.Intheprojectwemainlyusespreadsheet,dynamicgeometry andgraphplottingprogram,andtosomeextentweusetheInternet. Theresearchpresentedinthispaperisconcernedwithhowteachersanddidacticians work together in workshops in the project and how teaching ideas and teachers’ competencedevelop.Whatkindofteachingideaswereexploredintheworkshops? What kinds of questions were raised in the discussions? Can we find evidence of inquiry in the workshops which suggest learning is taking place? An important question is if we can see inquiry approaches to teaching emerging from the workshops. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The research and developmental work in the project is situated in a sociocultural frameworkwiththeideasof learning community and inquiry askeyconcepts.The ideaoflearningcommunitybuildsonandextendsWengers’conceptcommunityof practice (Wenger, 1998) with three modes of belonging, engagement, imagination andcriticalalignmentaskeyconcepts(Jaworski,2006).Theparticipantsengagein the project activities at the university college and in schools, and develop ideas throughimaginationandcriticallyalignthemselveswiththeprojectcommunityby discussionandtestingoutideas,anddevelopingunderstandingofkeyconceptsand thegoalfortheproject.Furthermore,topracticeinquiryiskeyconceptindeveloping thelearningcommunityintoaninquirycommunity. Inquiry means to ask questions, investigate, acquire information, or search for knowledge.Anattitudecharacterisedbywillingnesstowonder,seektounderstandby collaboratingwithothersimpliesbeingactiveindialogicinquiry(Wells,2001).In theICTMLprojectaswellasforLCM,anaimisfortheparticipantsintheprojects to develop further into “inquiry as a way of being” which implies an attitude of askingquestions,investigatingandexploring–makinginquiriesintoalllevelsinthe project. Thisimplies inquiry into mathematics,intomathematicslearningandhow mathematicscanberepresentedandworkedonwithICTtools. ThewayICTisusedandimplementedinteachingcanbecharacterisedbyviewing theICTtoolasanamplifierorareorganiser(Pea,1987;Dörfler,1993).Theamplifier metaphormeansdoingthesameasbefore,moreefficiently but not fundamentally changingtheobjectsandtasksweworkon,whereasseeingICTtoolsasreorganisers implies fundamental changes in objects to work on, and the way we work. For example in using a graph plotting program as an amplifier the software produces quickly the graph as the end product, whereas seen as a reorganiser the function graphitselfisseenasanewobjectwhichcanbemanipulatedeitherdirectlyorby settingparameters.Useoftoolsasreorganiserimpliesamovefromdoingtowards planningwithimpliesworkonmetalevel.Inaspreadsheetforexample,amodelcan be implemented and later used for investigation trying various numbers. The calculationsarelefttothespreadsheetwhereastheuserneedstoplanthemodeland setupconnectionsbetweencells.InordertofullyutilisethepotentialofICTtools

2250 PME31―2007 Fuglestad suchreorganisingshouldaccordingtoDörfler(1993),beintendedandencouraged. This implies new kind of tasks and approaches to mathematics. Reorganising of cognitive processes can be seen when learners interaction with technology qualitativelytransformtheirthinking(Goos,Galbraith,Renshaw,&Geiger,2003). TheICTtoolsarenotpassiveneutralobjects,butcanaccordingtoGoosetal,re shapeinteractionsbetweenteachers,studentsandtechnologyitself. TheviewofICTtoolsaspotentialreorganisershasimplicationsforhowteachingis planned and carriedthrough. There isneed for new approaches to the work, new tasksandproblemsforthestudentstoworkonandperhapsnewwaysofworking together. This can be achieved by an inquiry approach towards ICT tools, mathematicsandhowmathematicscanberepresentedandworkedonwiththeICT tools. An inquiry attitude opens up possibility for teachers and didacticians not to know all the answers and to engage when new questions and problems arise. Teaching in this context is seen as a learning process; through inquiring into the variousactivities,mathematicsanduseofICT,andasteachingisplannedandcarried through, this implies learning through the activities (Jaworski, 2006). This will be partofthedevelopmentworkandresearchintheprojectwiththeaimtomeetthe challengeofreorganisingtasks,problemsandapproachestoteaching. THE ICTML PROJECT - KEY ACTIVITIES FourschoolstakepartintheprojectandthreeofthemalsoparticipateintheLCM project.Atthestartoftheprojectineachschoolteachersworkedtogetherinschool teamsdiscussingteachingideas,developingteachingandsupportingeachother. The ICTML project aims to support implementation of ICT in mathematics in schoolsguidedbyaninquiryapproachtoteachingandlearning.Byaskingquestions, investigatingandexperimentingwithmathematicalconceptsandrelationsthelearner, whetherastudent,ateacheroradidactician,developsknowledgeandinsightinthe subject area. For this we need to use ICT tools that afford this kind of activity. Inquiryonalllevelsoftheworkiscrucialtothe project. Inthe LCMproject, we inquireintomathematics,intoteachingmathematicsandhowtodevelopmathematics teaching(Jaworski,2005)–andadditionallyforICTMLparticularlyweinquireinto theuseofICTtoolsconnectedtoalltheselevels. Thesoftwareitselfdoesnotcreateinquiry,butthewayitisused,thekindoftasks and how they are presented can be crucial. For this reason design of tasks and teachingapproachesareimportant.Thedesigncyclecanbeseenasguidelineforthe work–toplan,act,observe,reflectandfeedbacktofutureplanning(Jaworski,2007). Theteacherteamsintheschools,perhapstogetherwithadidactician,planlessons andcarrythroughtheplanintheirclasses.Thelessonscanbeobservedbycolleagues ordidacticiansandreflectedoverinschoolmeetings.Feedbackcanbeprovidedfrom thisdiscussionorotherwisebylookingatvideorecordings.Thenanothercyclecan follow,revisingtheplanorfollowingupbyextendingtheteachingplan.

PME31―2007 2251 Fuglestad

Ateamof12didacticiansintheLCMandICTMLprojectsworktogethertodevelop theprojectsincludingplanningforworkshopsandresearch.Twodidacticianshave their work dedicated to ICTML, and additionally an experienced teacher, Otto, is employed part time to support development in schools and contribute to the workshops.InadditionseveralcolleaguesfromtheLCMprojectalsotakespartinthe ICTMLworkshopsandcontributetobuildingthecommunity. AttheworkshopsforICTMLweusuallystartwithasessioninthecomputerlab.The workshopwilloftenstartwithsomeshortintroductiontofeaturesofthesoftwareto workon,presentingtasksorteachingideasasexamplesofuse.Thenteachersand didacticiansworkinpairsorsmallgroupsonsuggestedtasks,investigatingfurther ideasorinventingnewapplicationsofthesoftware.Afterashortbreakwithsome refreshments,resultsfromtheworkinthecomputerlabarebroughtuponalarge screen, presented and discussed together with further ideas and various ways of approaching the problems. In some cases we also have reports from teachers’ experiencesandinnovativeworkfromtheirclasses. The intention is that experiences or discussions in the workshops should initiate furtherworkintheclasses.Wecanseetheworkshopsasprovidingbothcompetence developmentsfortheteachersoninquiryusingICTtoolsandasastartofplanning for teaching. In the project we see the workshops as an important activity in stimulatingfurtherdevelopmentandbuildingtheinquirycommunity. METHODOLOGY Theresearchmethodologyiscloselyconnectedtodevelopmentintheprojectwith the design cycle giving a framework for the activity. The research can be characterised as developmental and have roots in various other recent research methodologies, like action research, design research, learning study, lesson study (Jaworski,2004).Asthedesigncycleprovidesamodelforthedevelopmentitcould alsobecharacterisedasadevelopmentalcycle.Teachersareincludedaspartnersin theresearch,takingpartindiscussionsandtosomeextentengaginginobservations in classrooms with their colleagues; noticing issues that arise in the work and reflectingonexperiencesintheclassrooms.Theintentionisthatresearchinschools takeplaceinclosecooperationbetweenteachersanddidacticians. Theresearchislargelyqualitativeduetothenatureofthedevelopment,aimingat describingcharacteristicfeaturesofinquiryapproachesusingICTtools.Researchis carriedoutonalllevelsintheproject,includingdidacticians’workconceptualising and planning for workshops and other initiatives. Forthisreasonweusevideoor audiotorecordprojectmeetings,activitiesinworkshops,bothinplenaryandinsome groups, and observations in classrooms and school meetings. In addition we write fieldnotesandreflectionsfromobservationsandschoolmeetingsandcollectselected tasksandstudents’workincomputerfiles. The workshops are crucial to the developmental work and for building our community.Thestepsinacycleofdevelopmentarenotlimitedtotheschools.The

2252 PME31―2007 Fuglestad workshopactivitiescanprovideinputforthestartofthedevelopmentalcycleorcan playaroleinthereflectionandfeedbackpartofthecycle.Anotherpossibilityisto considertheworkofdidacticiansinacycleofactivities,forexampleaboutplanning andrunningtheworkshops,wherethestepcarryingthroughistheworkshop. Kennewell(2001)suggestsconceptsof affordances and constraints canbeusedto evaluate the implementation of ICT in teaching. The concept affordance was introducesbyGibsontocharacterisefeaturesoftheobjects,settinganenvironment which provides potential for actions (Greeno, 1994). Constraints can be seen as limitations,butarenotjustnegative,theyarerathercomplementarytoaffordances and equally necessary (Kennewell, 2001). Constraints are conditions and relationshipsthatcanprovidestructureandguidance.Iregardtheseconceptshelpful inanalysingtheICTMLwork. Due to limitations of this paper I will the analysis how a few of the tasks and problems posed in two workshops challengedtheparticipants, the outcome of the computerlabsessionanddiscussionofsolutionsintheplenarysessions. WORKSHOP ON ICT AND ALGEBRA InplanningfortheICTMLworkshopinJanuary2006thedidacticiansconsideredit valuable to follow up ideas from the previous LCM workshop which focussed on algebra.Thecloserelationbetweenthetwoprojects,wheremostteacherstakepartin both, makes it possible to make such links from an LCM workshop to the next ICTML workshop. The LCM workshop dealt with functions, number patterns and howtoexpressconnectionsandtheICTMLplanwastoinquireintohowICTcan supportworkonsimilarproblemsandwhataffordances and constraints ICT tools provide. Atthestart,Ottogaveanintroductiontohowthespreadsheetcanbeutilisedtomake numberpatterns,makingconnectionsbetweencells,formattingthesetuptomakea suitablelayoutandshowinghowformulaecanbehiddenandprotected. Astheparticipantsstartedworking on computers we observed various examples of tasks on the spreadsheet. Some made a number pattern, a number triangle, similar totheoneOttopresentedandothers used the features of hiding and protecting formulae to make other applications. Anexamplepreparedtoinvestigate numberpatternswastorevealwhat formulae are hidden behind the columns. This heading gives the

PME31―2007 2253 Fuglestad task:“Formulaeforgeometricalfigures.Canyoufindwhichone?”Thespreadsheet showsthreecolumnsofnumbersandthetaskforthestudentsistoinvestigatewhat geometricmeasuresarecalculatedinthesecolumns.Seethefigureabove. When the participants later were presented with this task in plenary session, one responsewas“itisarectangle”.Anothersaid“No,itiscircumference.”Aquestion arose: Could it be both? This was discussed, and provoked further inquiry: Is it possible that area and circumferenceof a rectangle, when calculated will give the samenumber?Forwhatrectangleswillthisbepossible?Couldthesamebethecase forotherfigures?Thediscussionprovokednewandmoregeneralquestionsthatcan befollowedbyfurtherinquiry. Althoughusingformulaeinaspreadsheethassomerelationtoexpressingalgebraic connections, in principle, a spreadsheet is an arithmetic tool and not particularly suitableforsymbolicmanipulations(Dettori,Garuti,Lemut,&Netchitailova,1995). Theformulaeusescellreferences,notxtoexpressvariables.Twoteacherswantedto challengethisandaskedifitispossibletousex.Duringtheirdiscussionandwith someinputonnamingcellstheymanagedtopresentthesamenumbertrianglewith figuresandwithx.Inthiscasetheteacherstriedtoinquireintothefacilitiesofthe spreadsheet,tryingtoworkaroundtheconstraintsofthesoftware. MORE THAN ONE TOOL In the next ICTML workshop a graph plotting software was presented in the introduction. The challenge was to use more than one of the ICT toolsavailable,spreadsheet,dynamicgeometryor thegraphplottertoinvestigatethetasks.Oneof the tasks presented was about making a rectangular shaped sports arena within an area determinedbythreeroadsformingarightangled trianglewiththesmallsides30and40metre.The questionishowtoplacetherectangleandfindthe maximum,withonesideintherectanglealongthe longestsideoralongthetwoshortsides. Various solutions were presented. A pair of didacticians presented their solution in the graph plotter,indicatingthattheywerequitesurprisedwhen theysawthesolution.Theyplottedgraphsforpossible placements of the rectangle. The graphs of the corresponding areas indicate that the maxima are the same.Couldthisbetrue?Theyshowedthattheyhadto use another method for confirming their result. They also prepared a solution in Cabri and found the same resultasindicatedinthefiguretotheright.

2254 PME31―2007 Fuglestad

Thereflectionanddiscussionconnectedtothistaskraisednewinquiry.Thetaskwas not specifically asking for area, could we consider circumference? What if the triangularareaisnotrightangled?Couldwefindthesameforanytriangle? WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE WORKSHOPS? Theworkshopsplayakeyroleindevelopingtheinquirycommunityrelatedtothe ICTML project. As teachers and didacticians engaged in investigations together in thecomputerlab,wecameclosertoeachotherandsometimesrevealedourlackof knowledgeoftheICTtools.Thisappliesequallyfordidacticiansandteachers.The experienceisthatthismakestherolesbalanced,andgivesarelaxedatmosphere.Itis allowednotalwaystoknowtheanswers,andquestionsthatarisewillleadtofurther inquiry.ButwithintheprojectcommunitywedohavesomeexpertiseonICTtoolsto provide support and suggest what further features to explore in the software. Althoughtheteachershavesomebasicknowledgeofspreadsheetstheygenerallydo lackknowledgeofdynamicsoftwareandgraphplotters. Theexperiencesfromthesummarydiscussionslookingatvarioussolutionsfromthe computer lab sessions confirm that inquiry took place during the lab session and analysisshowsthenatureofthisinquiry.Thereflectionscarriedoutinplenaryraised furtherquestionstoexploreandinvestigate.Reflectionsprovokedquestionsofwhat thesoftwarecanaffordandwhataretheconstraintsofthesoftware.Therewerecases ofutilisingtheconstraintstosupportinvestigations,likeinthetaskoffindingwhat geometricmeasureswerecalculated. Onotheroccasionstheconstraintsofthesoftwarechallengedcreativityandinquiry into the limitations of the software as in the triangle with symbolic expressions. Solving the same task with different ICT tools stimulated participants to look for connections,otheralternativesolutionstoilluminatethetasksanddeveloptasksin variousdirections.Inmanycasesquestionswereraisedconcerninghowtoextendor generalisethetasksfromthecomputerlab,likelookingatamoregeneraltriangleor look for other geometrical shapes that have the same measure of area and circumference.Otherquestionswereaboutthesoftware andwhat waspossible. In thiswayinquiryintobothaffordancesandconstraintsofthesoftwaretookplace. CONCLUSION Theworkshops,asexpected,gaveahugestimulationandengagementfortheworkin theprojectandforbuildinganinquirycommunity.InquiryintoICTtoolsandtheir use for mathematics was evident in the discussion with further more general questionsproposedandinvestigated. REFERENCES Alseth,B.,Breiteig,T.,&Brekke,G.(2003).EndringerogutviklingvedL97sombakgrunn for videre planlegging og justering matematikkfaget som kasus. Notodden: Telemarksforsking.

PME31―2007 2255 Fuglestad

Dettori, G., Garuti, R., Lemut, E., & Netchitailova, L. (1995). An analysis of the relationship between spreadsheet and algebra. In L.Burton & B. Jaworski (Eds.), TechnologyinMathematicsTeaching(pp.261274).ChartwellBratt. Dörfler,W.(1993).ComputeruseandtheViewsoftheMind.InC.Keitel&K.Ruthven (Eds.),LearningfromComputers:MathematicsEducationandTechnology(pp.159186). Springer. Erstad,O.,Kløvstad,V.,Kristiansen,T.,&Søbye,M.(2005).ITUMonitor2005.Påvei motdigitalkompetanseigrunnopplæringen.Oslo:Universitetsforlaget. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediatedlearninginsecondaryschoolmathematicsclassrooms.JournalofMathematical Behaviour,22,7389. Greeno,J.G.(1994).GibsonsAffordances.PsychologicalReview,101,336342. Jaworski,B.(2004).InsidersandOutsidersinMathematicalTeachingDevelopment:The designandstudyofclassroomactivity.InO.McNamara&R.Barwell(Eds.),(pp.322). BritishSocietyforResearchintoLearningMathematics. Jaworski, B. (2005). Learning Communities In Mathematics: Creating an Inquiry communitybetweenteachersanddidacticians.PapersoftheBritishSocietyforResearch intoLearningMathematics,ResearchinMathematicsEducation,7,101120. Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical Inquiryasamodeoflearninginteaching.JournalofMathematicsTeacherEducation,9, 187211. Jaworski, B. (2007). Developmental research in mathematics teaching and learning. Developinglearningcommunitiesbasedoninquiryanddesign.(inpress) KD(2006).LæreplaniMatematikk.InKunnskapsløftetOslo:Kunnskapsdepartementet. Kennewell, S. (2001). Using Affordances and Constraints to Evaluate the Use of Information and Communication Technology in Teaching and Learning. Journal of InformationTechnologyforTeacherEducation,10,101116. Pea,R.D.(1987).Cognitivetechnologiesformathematicseducation.InA.Schoenfeld(Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 89122). Hillsdale, New Jersey: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Publishers. Wells,G.(2001).Thedevelopmentofacommunityofinquirers.InG.Wells(Ed.),Action, talk,andtext:Learningandteachingthroughinquiry.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress. Wenger,E.(1998).Communitiesofpractice.Learning,meaningandidentity.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

2256 PME31―2007

STATISTICAL INFERENCE IN TEXTBOOKS: MATHEMATICAL AND EVERYDAY CONTEXTS IsraelGarcíaAlonsoandJuanAntonioGarcíaCruz UniversidaddeLaLaguna(Spain) VarioustermsinthefieldofStatisticalInferenceandtheirpresentationinsecondary school text books are examined. A comparison of these terms in secondary school textbooks is carried out against their meanings in everyday use as well as in the mathematicalcontextfromtwostandarduniversitytextbooksfromthefield.Weoffer evidencethatthemeaningsarenotnecessarilythesameandthatinsomecasesthe definitionwhichappearsinthesecondaryschooltextbookisclosertoitseveryday usethantoitsmathematicalone.Someimplicationsforschooltextbookwritersare derived.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Changesinmathematicssecondaryschoolcurriculum,includingstatistics,havetaken placeinseveralWesternEuropeancountries,suchTheNetherlandsandSpain,since thelate70´s.Somestatisticalconceptswhichwerepreviouslyintroducedduringthe earlyyearsattheuniversitylevelarenowbeingtaughtatthesecondarylevel,i.e. confidenceintervalsandhypothesistestingbasedonthenormaldistribution.Some recommendations have even been made to introduce basic concepts of statistical inferenceduringearlierschooling(NCTM,2000),butofcoursewithouttherequired sophisticationandformalizationseenattheuniversitylevels. Ampleresearchintothedifficultiesandobstaclesthatstudentsencounterwhenfacing statistical inference have also appeared lately. Vallecillos and Batanero (1997) identifieddifficultiesinthelearningandunderstandingofstatisticalinferenceinthe university context, especially with respect to the concepts of significance levels, parameters,andastatistic,amongothers,inadditiontoageneralunderstandingof thelogicinvolvedinhypothesistesting.MorenoandVallecillos(2002),researched thesecondaryschoolsetting.Theirstudyof15and16yearoldstudentsshowedthat studentshadmisconceptionsaboutstatisticalandcarriedincorrectinferences.They identify Representativeness as the key concept which presents the most difficulty (Kahnemann et al., 1982). Specifically, they point out that Representativeness is characterized by the belief that small samples must reproduce the essential characteristics of the population from which it has been taken. Students also find HypothesisTestingtobedifficult. Vallecillos(1999)indicatesthatstudentspossess different ideas about exactly what a hypothesis test is. GarcíaAlonso and García Cruz(2003)carriedoutastudyusingasampleof(n=50)studentswhosatforthe University Entrance Examination. They concluded that most students (86%) were unable to completely carry out those problems in the exam which dealt with StatisticalInference,eventhoughtheseexerciseswerenodifferentthanthetypical

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedingsofthe31 st Conferenceof theInternationalGroupfor thePsychologyofMathematicsEducation ,Vol.2,pp.257264.Seoul:PME. 2257 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz ones that were covered in their daily classes. Previous research into this subject confirms that an inherent difficulty is present in this topic based on the logical mathematicalpointofview.Howeverourresearchfocuses on the useof language and the effect that possible obstacles present could have on the students understandingofthetopic. Languageisanimportanttoolintheconstructionofmathematicalknowledge,and during lower secondary school, this language is no different than that used in an everyday context, except for some very specific terms. Higher levels of “technification”andabstractionarerequiredinuppersecondaryschoolmathematics. Hence,agreateramountofspecifictermsareneededintheirstudy,whichisalsothe caseforStatisticalInference.Shuard&Rothery(1984)indicatedthattwocontexts arepresentinthemathematicsclassroom:aneverydaycontextandamathematical context.Aneverydaycontextreferstocarryingouttypicalcommunicationfoundin day to day settings while a mathematical context only deals with mathematical communication.Theseauthorscategorizethetermswhichappearinthemathematics classroomaccordingtothesegroups:(1)thosetermswhichhavethesamemeaningin bothcontexts;(2)thosetermswhosemeaningchangesfromonecontextortheother, and(3)thosetermswhichareonlyseeninamathematicalcontext.Studentsshould nothaveanyproblemsunderstandingthetermsfoundincategory(1).Ontheother hand,alltermsfoundincategory(3)mustbedefinedsincetheyarenotpartofa students’vocabulary.Thetermsfoundincategory2maybedifficultforstudentsto understand. The role of textbooks was included in Discussion Group 7 at the 30 th PME Conference. The need to carry out research on European textbooks was identified, and one of the specific areas covered the need to understand how textbooks are prepared and used during the learning and teaching process (Pepin, Grevholm&Straesser,2006). Ourresearchintotextbooksisbasedonthe“apriori”approach.Thuswereviewthe termsrelatedwithstatisticalinferenceandanalyzethemwithintheircontext.They arethenclassifiedaccordingtothecategoriesgivenbyShuard&Rothery(1984) We wish to address the following questions: How are statistical inference terms presented in upper secondary school textbooks? Are there differences between the mathematical meaning of these terms and the ones from everyday use? Are the definitionsinthetextbookscorrect? OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY Thearetwomainobjectivesinourresearch: 1. TodetermineifthemeaningsofthetermsfoundinStatisticalInferenceis thesameinbotheverydayandmathematicalcontexts. 2. To compare these meanings with those developed in secondary school textbooks.

2258 PME31―2007 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz

Questionnaireswereadministeredtoagroupof37secondary schoolteachers who wereresponsibleforteachingthelastyearofanuppersecondaryschoolmathematics course.Teacherswereaskedtoidentifythepublisherofthetextbooktheywereusing. Thequestionnairealsorevealedaveryinterestingfact.Approximately30teachersin the survey used the textbook as a means to recall and/or review the statistical conceptsthattheirstudentswouldbeworkingwithinclass.Thisdecisionemphasizes theimportanceofthetextbookasakeyelementinteachingtraining. Wechosethefourmostpopulartextbooksaccordingtothesurvey.Thenumberin parenthesesrepresentsamountoftimesthisbookwas used among the four in the study.Thefourpublishersare:Publisher1(P1):Anaya(n=24);Publisher2(P2): SM(n=6);Publisher3(P3):Santillana(n=4);Publisher4(P4):Edelvives(n=2). WethenselectedallthetermsrelatedwithStatisticalInferenceineachpublisher´s version.Thenextstepwastoanalyzethemeaningofeachtermineverydayuseas well as in the mathematical context. The Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua Española (hereafter Diccionario ) was consulted for the definitions of the termsineverydaycontext.Twouniversitytextbookswereusedforthemathematics definitions:ME=Mendenhall(1982)andMO=Moore(2005).

Everyday context :TheSpanishlanguageisregulatedbytheRealAcademia de la Lengua.ThemissionoftheRealAcademiaistocollectalltermsandnewversionsof theirmeaningswhichhavebeenintroducedintothelanguagewiththepassingoftime. The Diccionario isanimportantresourcewhenstudyingthemeaningsoftermsfound andusedineverydaylanguage. Thedictionaryalsomakesareferencetotechnical terms,“tointroducethosewordswhichoriginatefromdistinctfieldsofknowledge andalsofromprofessionalactivitieswhosecurrentuse(...)hasexceededitsoriginal meaninginanothersetting,andconsequentlyhasextendeditsuse,eitherfrequently oroccasionallyfromeithercommonlanguageorinaculturalcontext”.

Mathematicalcontext: Theuniversitytextbooksareusedtoidentifythemathematical contextoftheterms,sincetheyarewrittenwiththeunderstoodmissiontoconveythe definitions of these terms and technical concepts to students. As mentioned previously,Mendenhall(1982)andMoore(2005)wereusedinourstudy.

TwodefinitionsforeachtermweretakenfromtheDiccionario .Thefirstdefinition istheonewhichappearsfirstinthe Diccionario .Theseconddefinitionistheone whichisclosesttothemathematicalcontext.Thedefinitionsfromthe Diccionario , the University textbooks and the secondary school textbooks which appear in this paper have been translated into English from the Spanish versions. The English translationofthestatisticalinferencetermsareprovidedtoguidethereaderthrough ourresearchmethodology. Now that the meanings of the terms from both the everyday and mathematical contextsareknown,thenextstepistocategorizethemaccordingtothecriteriagiven

PME31―2007 2259 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz in Shuard & Rothery (1984). If the definitions given in the Diccionario and the universitytextbooksarethesameorquitesimilar,thenthetermisplacedinthefirst category “samemeaninginbothcontexts”. Thethirdcategory“s pecificmeaningin mathematical context” is used for those terms that are only found in university textbooks. Category 2 “different meanings in both contexts” is the remaining category andis used forthoseterms whose meanings are not the same. The final stageofourresearchanalyzedthetreatmentofthesetermsinthetextbooksfromthe fourpublishers.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27termsrelatedtostatisticalinferencewereanalyzed.Eachtermwasgroupedintoits corresponding category. Each term was analyzed according to the procedure describedintheprevioussection.Someexamplesbycategoryfollow. Category 1: Same meaning in both contexts Fourtermswerefoundtobelongtothiscategory: Statistics,Population,Individual and Samplesize .Weusethe Population termasanexampleofhowwecarriedout ourstudy:

Term: POPULATION Diccionario UniversityTextbooks ME . Set of all measurements of interest to 1.Actandeffectofpopulating. thepersonwhoobtainsthesample. 2.Setofindividualsorthingssubjecttoa MO .Anentiregroupofindividualsofwhich statistical evaluation by means of wewanttoknowcertaininformationaboutis sampling. calledapopulation. PUBLISHERS P1.-“Apopulationoruniverseisthesetofallindividualsinourstudy”. P2.- “ is the set of all elements that possess a specific characteristic. Populations are generallyassumedtobeverylarge.” P3.- “when a statistical study refers to a group, set or collection of elements, this collectioniscalledthepopulation.” P4.-“ thehomogeneousgroupofpeople,animalsorthingsonwhichastudyistotake place”. A comparison of the four definitions reveals how the P4 version requires homogeneitywithinthegroup.Thisconditionisnotnecessary,sincethepurposeof the statistical study could be to study a homogeneous characteristic within the population, not a homogeneous group. Thus, we consider the inclusion of homogeneityinthedefinitiontobemisleading,andpossiblycausingconfusiontothe student.

2260 PME31―2007 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz

Category 2: Different meanings in both contexts The following terms are included in this category: Calculated Mean , Sample, Estimation,Infer,Distribution,Probability,Representative,Risk .

Term: SAMPLE Diccionario UniversityTextbooks 1. Part of a product or merchandise ME . A sample is a subset of selected which allows the quality of the measurementsfromthepopulationofinterest. goodstobeknown. MO . A sample is that part of the population 2. Part or chosen portion of a set by that we are currently studying with the methods which allow it to be objectiveofobtaininginformation. consideredrepresentativeofit. PUBLISHERS P1.- “a subset drawn from the population. A study of the sample helps to infer characteristicsoftheentirepopulation” .“However,ifthesampleisincorrectlychosen, (itisnotrepresentative)…” P2.-“asubsetofthepopulation”. If “astudyisgoingtobereliable,itiscriticalthatthe selectionofthesamplebecorrect,sothatitisclearlyrepresentativeofthepopulation”. P3.-“partofthepopulation,carefullyselected,whichissubjecttoscientificobservation asarepresentationofthesamepopulation.Itspurposeistoobtainvalidresultsforthe entire population”. In addition, “a sample is considered valid when it fulfils the definitionof (…)beingrepresentative ” P4.-“Subsetofthepopulation” . “Anappropriate selection ”shouldbemade. This term has equivalent definitions in both university textbooks. However, the definitionsinthe Diccionarioemphasizehowthesubsetmustberepresentativeofthe completeset.Thisrequirementdoesnotappearintheuniversitytextbooks . Exactlywhatisrepresentative?Twodefinitionsarefoundinthe Diccionario : 1.Torecallsomethingwithwordsorfiguresthattheimaginationremembers . 2.Tobetheimageorsymbolofsomething,ortoimitateitperfectly . Accordingtothisdefinition,ifasampleissaidtoberepresentative,itisindicating thatthesamplemust“perfectlyimitate”or“beanimage”ofthepopulation.These definitions lead to an incorrect idea of the term, and lead to Representativeness, describedinKahnemanetal.(1982). Representativeness isdefinedwhenthestudent expectsthatsmallsamplesreflectallofthepopulationproperties.Weknowthatits similaritywiththepopulationdoesnotvalidateoursample,butinsteaditsselection method. Itisalsoimportanttoremarkhowthe Diccionario indicatestheneedforthesample to be representative. This fact shows how an incorrect meaning in the everyday context applied to mathematics can produce an incorrect understanding of this technicalterm,andcreatebarriersforstudentsintheirunderstanding.

PME31―2007 2261 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz

Category 3: Specific meaning in mathematical context Category 3 contains the most terms of all the groups. The list includes: Statistic, Parameter, Random sampling, Sample mean, Population Mean, Confidence level, Standard deviation, Significance level, Inductive statistics, hypotheticaldeductive statistic,marginoferror,Normal,Bias,Efficiency,Sampleproportion. .

Term: STATISTIC Diccionario UniversityTextbooks 1.Belonging to or related MO. A statisticisanumberthatcanbecalculatedbasedon tostatistics. sampledatawithoutneedingtouseanyunknownparameter. 2.Person who exercises We typically usually use the term statistic to estimate an thestatisticsprofession. unknownparameter. PUBLISHERS P1. & P4.- Undefined. P2.- “anumericalvaluethatdescribesacharacteristicofthesample”. P3.- “[valuesormeasures]thatcharacterizeasample”. The mathematical meaning of the term Statistic is not given in the Diccionario . Thereforeitisincludedinthethirdcategory.Whenstatisticisdefined,itisdonewith referencestopopulationparametersinsteadofstatistics.Givenitsimportanceinthis concept, (statistical inference begins with this point), it is significant that some publishersexcludeitsdefinition,andthatothersintroduceitlateroninthetext. Term: CONFIDENCE LEVEL Diccionario UniversityTextbooks ME.- Theprobabilitythataconfidenceintervalwill includetheestimatedparameter. Undefined MO. A “C” confidence level represents the probabilitythattheintervalwillcontainthetruevalue ofaparameterinrepeatedsampling. PUBLISHERS P1.- “Startingwithasampleofsizenwecanestimatethevalueofaparameterofthe population(…)Resultinginanintervalinwhichweareconfidentthat thisparameter willbeincluded.(…)Findingtheprobabilitythatsuchathingoccurs.Thisprobabilityis calledtheconfidencelevel”. P2.- “the probability that an estimator for an interval covers the true value of the parameterwhichisbeingestimated.Itisnormallyrepresentedby1α.” P3.- “thelevelofconfidencethatwehavethatthepopulationmeanwillbelongtothe intervalis1α”. P4.-“Calculatethetwovalueswhereweexpectthatthesearchedforparameterwillbe found with a certain confidence level, which we will call 1α, where α is the pre determinedrisklevel” .

2262 PME31―2007 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz

NotethatpublishersP2andP3usetheprobabilitythattheestimatorisincludedinthe interval,butlateronintroducenewterminologytocompletethedefinition,namely thevalue:1α. Thevalueof αhasnotyetbeendefined.PublisherP4,however,states that αistherisklevel(significancelevel).Inotherwords,thedefinitionofoneterm isgivenusinganothertermwhichhasnotbeenpreviouslydefined. Publishers P2 and P3 present an example which barely explains the meaningof a confidencelevel.Noneoftheproposedactivitiesemphasizethisconcept.Publisher P1offerscommentsaboutthemeaningoftheconcept,butPublisherP4doesnoteven offeranexamplewhichwouldhelpexplainthemeaningofaconfidencelevel. Recallthatconfidencelevelisanewtermforsecondary school students. A clear understandingofitsmeaningisnoteasy,sincetheconceptofprobabilityisdropped andinsteadlevelsareintroduced,wherethemeaningofconfidenceappearsopposite tothemeaningofsignificancelevel,whichrepresentsan α error.Thissetofconcepts andtheirmeaningsarenotproperlyseparatednorexplainedinaconvenientmanner, therebycomplicatingtheirunderstandingbystudents.

CONCLUSIONS Ourresearchincludestheselectionofspecifictermsrelatedtoconfidenceintervals and their classification according to three categories, given their meaning in two differentcontexts:everydayandmathematical. Thefirstcategoryincludesthetermsfoundinthetextbookswiththe samemeaning in both contexts . Most of the publishers provided the correct definition of the terms, althoughtherearesomeexampleswherethedefinitionhasbeensignificantlyaltered. Thesecondcategoryismadeupoftermswith differentmeanings inbothcontexts. Hence,it ispossible that astudentcan incorrectly learn themathematical concept. Weobservedthatmostpublishersusetheeverydaydefinitionofthetechnicalterm, notthemathematicalone. The third category is made up of terms only found in the mathematical context. Someofthetextbooksdonotusethecorrectdefinitions.Wealsofoundexamples where terms were introduced and never referred to later on in the textbook. The presentationofthematerialinthiswaycanbeconfusingforstudents,orindicates thatthetextbookisinconsistent,sinceitisnotcontinuouslyusingtermswhichwere introducedatagivenmoment. Overall we have noticedhow some definitionsthat appearin thetextbooks donot correspondtotheirmathematicalmeaningbutinsteadtotheoneintheireverydayuse. Therearetimeswhenthedefinitionofthetermisincorrect,oritdoesnotemphasize thekeyelementsinthedefinition.Textbookswhichincludetheseerrorsareofgreat concern to studentsand teachersif we take into account that most professors use these textbooks to review the concepts related to Statistical Inference, and then

PME31―2007 2263 GarcíaAlonso&GarcíaCruz prepare their classes, as confirmed in the questionnaire we administered at the beginningofourstudy. Incorrectdefinitionsoftechnicalterms,ortheircompleteabsenceinthetextbookhas beenconfirmedinallfourpublishers.Sometimethetextbookalteredthemeaningof the term. These differences in the definitions are not easily found, and the errors wouldbeimpossibletodetectforstudentsoranyonewithoutapreviousknowledge ofstatistics.Wehaveconfirmedthatthetermsfoundinthetextbooksatthislevelare, for the most part, technical, and therefore the language used in their presentation shouldbeconsistentwiththeircontent.Itisdesirablethatthedefinitionsofthese technicaltermsbecorrectlydefined,leavingnodoubtabouttheirmeaning. Inouropiniontheresultsofourresearchareusefulforwritersoftextbooks,leading to more coherent efforts by the writers, and offering a final product which is an importanttoolforbothteacherandstudentalike.

BIBLIOGRAPHY R.A.E(2001): Diccionariodelalenguaespañola .Author:Madrid. GarcíaAlonso,I.&GarcíaCruz,J.A.(2003):“Algunosresultadossobrelaactuacióndelos alumnosenlascuestionesdeestadísticaenlaP.A.U.”. ActasdelasXIJornadassobreel AprendizajeylaEnseñanzadelasMatemáticas(JAEM) ,733738. Kahnemann,D.,Slovic,P.&Tversky,A.(1982): Judgementunderuncertainty:Heuristics andbiases. CambridgeUniversityPress. Mendenhall,W.(1982): Introducciónalaprobabilidadylaestadística .WadsworthInt. Moore,D.(2005): Estadísticaaplicadabásica. AntoniBoschEditor,Barcelona. Moreno, A. J. & Vallecillos, A. (2002): “Exploración heurística y concepciones iniciales sobreelrazonamientoinferencialenestudiantesdesecundaria”. EducaciónMatemática. 14(1),6284. N.C.T.M.(2000):Principlesandstandardsforschoolmathematics. Reston,Virginia. Pepin,B;B.Grevholm&Straesser.(2006).DG07:ThemathematicstextbookACritical Artefact?InNovotnáetal. Proceedingsofthe30 th ConferenceoftheInternationalGroup forthePsychologyofMathematicsEducation, CharlesUniversityinPrague,Facultyof Education,Vol1,p.193. Shuard,H.&Rothery,A(Eds)(1984):Childrenreadingmathematics .London:Murray. Vallecillos, A. & Batanero, C. (1997): “Conceptos activados en el contraste de hipótesis estadísticasysucomprensiónporestudiantesuniversitarios”. RecherchesenDidactique desMathématiques, 17(1),2948. Vallecillos, A. (1999): “Some empirical evidences on learning difficulties about testing hypotheses”. Proceedingsofthe52 nd SessionoftheInternationalStatisticalInstitute. Vol. 2TomeLVIII,201204.TheNetherlands:ISI.

2264 PME31―2007 PRE-SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ EXPERENCES WITH THE PROCESS OF CREATING PROOFS SoheilaGholamazad MinistryofEducation,Iran This research examines students’ participation in the process of creating proofs. In this study I adopt the communicational approach to cognition based on the work of Sfard, according to which thinking is a special case of activity of communication. Participants in this study are pre-service elementary school teachers. I encouraged students to write down the dialogue that they have with themselves while they are thinking and trying to create a proof. The results show the method of proving through writing a dialogue would be practical heuristic for involving students in the process of creating a mathematical proof. Proofisanimportantpartofnotonlymathematicalpractice,butalsoofmathematical learningandteaching(Hanna,1989).However,researchhasrepeatedlyshownthat proofsandtheabilitytounderstandandgenerateproofsisdifficultforstudentsin general(Hoyles,1997)andforpreserviceelementaryschoolteachersinparticular (Gholamazad,Liljedahl,andZazkis,2003;Martin&Harel,1989;Simon&Blume, 1996).Themainproblemwithmanyofthestudentsisthattheyusuallydonotseethe necessityofpresentinganargumentforagivenstatement(Harel,1998).Indeed,they donotreallyunderstandwhattheyareexpectedtodoandwhy.They,mostly,consider some confirming examples as a proof (Gholamazad, et al, 2003; Martin & Harel, 1989). Studentsusuallyworkwiththefinalproductofaprovingprocess.However,"thefinal proofwillhardlyreflecttheprocessofgeneration"(Heinze,Reiss,andGroB,2006,p. 275).Thequestionishowcanweencouragepreserviceelementaryschoolteachersto beinvolvedintheprocessofcreatingproofs?And,whatarethefactorsthatimpede preserviceelementaryschoolteachers'participationintheprocessofcreatingproofs? Insearchingforamethodforteachingproof,Iexaminetheengagementinwritinga dialogueasameanstowardscreatingproofs.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE In this study, I adopt the communicational approach to cognition, based on the learningasparticipationmetaphor,andconceptualisationofthinkingasaninstanceof communication(Sfard,2001).Inthisapproach,learningmathematicsisaninitiationto acertaintypeofdiscourse:literatemathematicaldiscourse(SfardandCole,2002). Literatemathematicaldiscoursesaspurposefulgoalsofteachingandschoolingare distinguishedfromothertypesofcommunicationthroughfourcriteria:(1)theirspecial vocabulary,(2)theirspecialmediatingtools,(3)theirdiscursiveroutines,and(4)their

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.265272.Seoul:PME. 2265 Gholamazad particularendorsednarratives(Sfard,2002;BenYehuda,Lavy,Linchevski,andSfard, 2005). ThecommunicationalapproachisdeeplyrootedinVygotskiantheory.Inthisapproach priority is given to communicative public speech rather than inner private speech (Vygotsky, 1987). Therefore, better understanding of public discourse deepens our insightintoadialoguethatoneleadswithoneself. Consideringtheideathatthinkingisakindofcommunicationthatonehaswithoneself (Sfard,2001),inthisresearch,Iencouragedstudentstowritedownthedialoguethat theyhavewiththemselveswhiletheywerethinkingtounderstandorcreateaproof. Themainpurposeofthiskindoftaskwastosatisfytheconvincingaspectof astudent generatedproof,notonlyforthewriterbutalsoforthethirdpersonthatmightreadit. Therefore, such dialogue should answer all the possible questions related to mathematicalpropertiesorargumentsusedinaproof.Writingdownthedialoguemay providestudentsanopportunitytoreflectontheirthinkingprocessandtoorganizeitin a convincing way. In this perspective, the dialogue can be considered as an intermediate stage between having an overview of a proof and writing a formal mathematicalproof.

STUDY Participants Participantsinthisstudywere83preserviceelementaryschoolteachersenrolledin the course “Principles of Mathematics for Teachers”, which is a core course in a teachereducationprogram.Thegoalofthiscourseistopromotetheunderstandingof mathematicalconceptsandrelationships.Itconcentratesoninvestigating why wedo somethinginmathematicalactivitiesratherthan how wedoit. Proof as a dialogue Tointroducetheideaofwritingproofthroughadialoguetheparticipantsreceiveda sample of adialogue. The sample dialogue was between two imaginary personas: EXPLORER,theonewhotriestoprovetheproposition,andWHYer,theonewhoasks all the possible questions related to the process of the proof. The main idea of designing these two personas was to consider two aspects of the character of an individualwhoisprovingamathematicalstatement. Thesampledialogueaddressestheproposition:‘Thedifferenceofanoddnumberand anevennumberisanoddnumber’.Themainpurposeofgivingthesampledialogueis to show the students how many reasonable questions the proof of such simple statement might bring up. Because, in my opinion, the main problem with naïve students’ selfdialogue is that many of the reasonable questions in the process of provingarenotusually‘aquestion’forthem.Hence,Iwantedtoencouragethemto posequestions.Ibelievedwritingdialoguewouldalsocultivatetheartofquestion posing,andafterawhilethatwouldbecomeapartofthecultureoftheirmathematical thinking.

2266 PME31―2007 Gholamazad

Theparticipantsinthisstudywereexposedtoseveraltasksofcreatingdialoguefor eitherprovingastatementorexpandingagivenproof fornumbertheorypropositions. Basedonthepurposeofthetasks,theydidtheminagrouporindividually.Givingthe pagelimitationofthisreport,Ifocusononeofthetasks. The task Inthegiventasktheparticipantswereaskedtowriteadialoguetowardsaproofforthe followingproposition: Let a, b,and cbewholenumbers.If aand carerelativelyprime,and band care relativelyprimethen ab and carerelativelyprime. Thestudentswereaskedtoperformthistaskindividually.Thistaskwasadministered aftertheycompletedthesectionofnumbertheoryinthecourse. Theyhadaccessto theirtextbooksandotherknowledgesources,andthetimeforcompletingthetaskwas notlimited. Results and analysis: students’ dialogues Thesourceofdataforthestudyisthestudents’writtendialogueforprovingthegiven proposition.Areasonableandconvincingdialoguewasprovidedby35ofthestudents (almost 40%). In these dialogues, students presented convincing arguments by describing related vocabulary, choosing appropriate representations as mediators, manipulatingthemcorrectlybyimplementingmathematicalroutines,andinterpreting theresultsbysupportingthemwithappropriateendorsednarratives. InthisreportIhaveorganizedallthedialoguescreatedbystudentsaccordingtothe communicationalframework.FortheanalysisIexaminedthefourabovementioned componentsofaliteratemathematicaldiscourseinstudents'arguments. The mathematical vocabulary: Thedatarevealedthatalltheparticipantsbegantheir dialoguebyrecallingthedefinitionofthewordsrelatedtothepropositionsuchas ‘relativelyprimenumbers’.Themajorityofstudents,however,sawthenecessityto situatetheconceptofrelativelyprimenumbersinrelationwithotherssuchaswhole number,primenumber,factor,andthegreatestcommonfactor.Thefollowingexcerpt ispartofadialogue. WHYer:Couldyoutellmewhatisa whole number ? EXPLORER:Sure,awholenumberisamemberofthesetofpositiveintegersandzero(0, 1,2,3,4,andgoon). Integers aredefinedasthesetofnumbersconsisting ofthe counting numbers (thatis,1,2,3,4,5, …),theiropposites(thatis negative numbers ,1,2,3, …),andzero. WHYer :Andwhatis ?Canyoushowsomeexamplesofprimenumbers? EXPLORER:Someexamplesofprimenumbersare1,3,5,7,and11.Aprimenumberis anumberthatcannotbedividedevenlybyanyothernumberexceptitself andthenumberone. WHYer:Howmanyofthesenumbersyoumighthave? EXPLORER:Infinitelymany.

PME31―2007 2267 Gholamazad

WHYer:Fine.Butwhatisa relatively prime number ? EXPLORER:Twointegersarerelativelyprimeifthereisnointegergreaterthanonethat dividesthemboth(whichmeansthattheirgreatestcommondivisorisone). WHYer: OK.Whatis greatest common divisor ? EXPLORER:Thegreatestcommondivisor isthelargestfactortwonumbershavein common. Recallingallthedefinitionsintheaboveexcerptshowsthatthewriterdidnottakeany one of the mathematical words for granted. In this situation, a written dialogue providesthestudentswithabigpictureofrelatedvocabularyforfurtheruseintheir argument. It also offers the researcher access to students’ possible misuse or misunderstanding of the concepts. As can be seen in this dialogue, the student incorrectlyconsidered1asaprimenumber,andexcluded2fromthesetofprime numbers. Mediators and routines: For presenting their arguments, students had recourse to different types of visual means that serve as communication mediators, such as numbers, verbal explanation, algebraic representation, and set theory symbols and diagrams.Inaccordancewiththechosenmediatortheyimplementeddifferentformof routines. Thecommonaspectofallthedialogueswasempiricalverificationoftheproposition. Indeed,wecansaythatnumericalexampleisthemostcommontypeofmediatorsfor preservice elementary teachers to communicate their ideas. Research repeatedly showedthehighrelianceofstudentsonempiricalverificationasanacceptableproof (Gholamazad,etal,2003;Martin&Harel,1989).Theresultsofthisstudy,however, showedthatonly10%ofthestudentsfinishedtheirargumentinthisstep. Here,Iwouldliketodistinguishbetweentwodifferenttypesofexamplesthatstudents presentedintheirdialogue:numericalexamplethatjustverifiesthepropositionanda genericexample.Bygenericexample,Imeantheexamplethattacitlyexpressesthe processoftheproof.Indeed,insuchcasesstudentscompensatetheirlackofaccessto appropriatemediatorbyrecoursetonumbers.Forexample: Whyer:Canyougivemeanexample? Explorer:Sure,let’susethenumbers15,16,and7. abeing15, bbeing16,and cbeing7. 15isthusrelativelyprimewith7and16isrelativelyprimeto7. Whyer:Howis15and16relativelyprimeto7? Explorer:Whenbreakingdown15thefactorsare3and5,andwhenbreakingdown16 theyare2 4 .Thesenumbersarenotequaltothebreakdownof7whichis7. Whyer:Iunderstand!Butwhen aand bmultipliedtobe ab thenhowdoesthiswork? Explorer: Well when 15 and 16 are multiplied together it equals 240 but the prime factorisationstillremains2 4 ×3and5.Thustheprimefactorswillnever equalto7. Whyer:Whydoesthisalwayshappenagain? Explorer:Thisisthefundamentaltheoremofarithmetic.

2268 PME31―2007 Gholamazad

Whyer:Doesthisproveyourstatement? Explorer:Indeed,itdoes!You’llrememberthatIstatedthat aand cdonothaveany commonprimefactorsand band cdonothaveanycommonprimefactors. Thereforewhen aand baremultipliedandbecome ab theirprimefactors willnotbethesameas c. Ascanbeseen,thestudentdrewaconclusionbychoosingrandomrelativelyprime numbers and applying the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic to their prime decompositions.Thisargument,eventhoughitisnotamathematicalproof,illustrates thelogicthatthestudenthasinherreasoning. Anotherexampleoflogicalderivationthatdoesnotrelyonmathematicalformalism canbeseeninresponsesof9%oftheparticipantswhousedtheverbalexplanationasa mediatorandusedtheircommonsenseasaroutineforadministeringtheargument.For example: Sara2:Sononeofthefactorsthatmultiplytogethertoform aarethesameasanyofthe numbersthatmultiplytogethertoform c. Sara1:that’scorrect! Sara2:andnoneofthefactorsthatmultiplytoyield barethesameasthefactorsthat multiplytogethertocreate c. Sara1:exactly! Sara2:Sohowdoesthatprovethat ab isrelativelyprimeto c? Sara1: ab arecombinedfactorsof aand bbecausethefactorsofthetwonumbersare combinedwhentheymultiply.10 ×5=50=5 ×2×5×1. Sara2:Whatdoesthattellme? Sara1:Sincefactorsof‘ a’andthefactorsof‘ b’havenooverlapwiththefactorsof c,this istrueforthefactorsof ab .Therefore ab isrelativelyprimeto c. Themajorityoftheparticipants,followingempiricalverification,triedtouseakindof representationintheirargument,suchasalgebraicnotations,settheorysymbols,or diagrams. Around 65% of participants used algebraic representation for prime decompositionofawholenumber.However,attimes,theirpoorbackgroundinusing algebraic notations and algebraic routine procedures,ledalmosthalfofthemtoa superficialpresentation.Forexample,inthefollowingdialoguethestudent,afteran empiricalverification,continues: Aye:So,arewedone? Myself:No,becausewehavenotproventhepropositionyet,wehavejustseenthatone exampleworks.Toprovetheexample,wehavetogobacktousingletters, whichrepresentallpossibilities. Aye:soundsgood. Myself:Tostart,wewillexpress a, b,and casaproductoftheirprimessuchthat a=p1,p2 …pm , b=q1,q2 …qn and c=r1,r2 …rq .Therefore ab=p1q1,p2,q2 …pmqn . SincetheFundamentalTheoremofArithmeticstatesthateachcomposite numbercanbeexpressedastheproductofprimesinexactlyonewayand

PME31―2007 2269 Gholamazad

weknowthat ab=pmqn and c=rq ,wecanstatethat ab and carerelatively prime. Aye:Andthatwasallweneededforproof? Myself:Yes! Endorsed narrative: Theendorsednarrativesaretheproductionofdiscursiveactivities andmathematicalroutines(BenYehudaetal,2005).Inadeductivereasoningallthe claimsshouldresultfromlegitimateroutinesorbesupportedbythenarratives,suchas definitions,postulates,andtheoremsthatareacceptedbythemathematicalcommunity astrue.Therefore,theprocessofprovingcanbealsoconsideredasproducingachain ofendorsednarrativesthatleadstheargumenttothedesiredconclusion. TheFundamentalTheoremofArithmeticisanendorsednarrativethatcansupportand guidethewholeprocessofaproofforthegiventask.Inseveraldialogues,however,it was observed that students made a claim about the prime factorisation of whole numberswithoutreferringtothistheorem.Thefollowingexcerptisanexampleof suchpresentations. Me:Right.Let a, b,and cbeexpressedastheirproductofprimesasfollows:

a = p 1 p 2 …p t b = q 1 q 2 …q f c = r 1 r 2 …r y Myhead:Whatdoesthistellus? Me:Thisshowsthat aand carerelativelyprimebecausetheirproductsofprimesdonot haveanycommonprimes.Italsoshowsthat band carerelativelyprime becausetheytoodonothaveanycommonprimes. Myhead:Butthenhowdoweknowthat ab and carerelativelyprime?

Me: We know this because ab = (p 1 p 2 …p t )( q 1 q 2 …q f ) and these do not have any commonprimeswith c,( r 1 r 2 …r y ).Therefore ab and carealsorelatively primebecausetheirgreatestcommonfactoris1. Myhead:Socanwenowsaythatweprovedthestatement? Me:Yes,byexpressing a, b,and castheirproductsofprimeswehaveshownthatif a, b, and carewholenumbersand aand carerelativelyprimeand b and c are relatively prime, then ab and c are also relatively prime because their greatestcommonfactoris1. Inthisdialogue,thestudentsmadetheconclusionsimplybasedontheappearanceof theselectedlettersforprimefactorisationof a, b ,and c.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this report, I have introduced the notion of dialogue as a tool for involving preserviceelementaryschoolteachersintheprocessofcreatingaproof.Heretwo legitimatequestionsmightemerge:Whatkindofdialogue?Howcouldthedialoguebe helpful?AsImentionedabove,bydialogueImeanaselfdialogueoraconversation thatapersonhaswithoneselfwhiles/heisthinking.Therefore,writingthedialogue providesstudentswithanopportunitytoreflectontheirthinkingprocess,tocorrectthe mistakes and fill the gaps in their argument, and to organize it in the form of a convincing mathematical discourse. It also provides a good source of students’

2270 PME31―2007 Gholamazad discoursesforeducatorsandresearchers.Indeed,itoffersanopportunityforeducators toexaminestudents’arguments,andbyposingmoreappropriatequestionsleadthe studentstorefineandstrengthentheirarguments. Thebenefitofwritingdialogueisthatitencouragesstudentsto‘explain why and how todo’insteadofjustdoing.ThisiswhatSchoenfeld(1994)callsmathematicalculture, where discourse, thinking things through, and convincing are important parts of students engagement with mathematics. He believes in such environment “proofs wouldbeseenasanaturalpartoftheirmathematics(whyisthistrue?It’sbecause …) ratherthanasanartificialimposition”(p.76). Havingclearunderstandingofthemathematicalvocabularyandusingitappropriately isveryimportantcomponentofamathematicaldiscourse.Thestudydemonstratesthat explainingmathematicalwordsisacommonpartofthedialogues.Themajorityofthe studentshaveposedquestionsregardingtheexplanationandapplicationofwordsor symbolsandtheyansweredthem.Thatistosay,writingdialogueledthemtomakeall therelateddefinitionsavailableandengagedthemintheprocessoftheproof. Oneofthecommonquestionsinallthedialogueswas(indifferentphrases):“Doesa numericalexampleprovetheproposition?”90%oftheparticipantsanswered‘no’, whichisapromisingresultofthestudy.Theycontinuedtheirargumentingeneralby usingdifferentformofmediators.Theresultshowedwritingdialoguewasusefulfor changingstudents’attitudetowardempiricalproofthatwasacognitiveobstaclein theirunderstandingofproof.Indeed,itprovidedthemwithachancetofacetheconflict ofwhethersomelimitednumberofexamplescanguaranteethevalidityofastatement ingeneral. However,pooraccesstoappropriatemediators,especiallyintheformofalgebraic representationandpoorskillindiscursiveroutines,arestillthemainchallengefor preserviceelementaryschoolteacherstopresenttheirargumentmathematically.The resultsrevealedthatthemaindifficultythatstudentsexperiencedincreatingaproofis thattheydonotknowhowtocommunicatetheirideamathematically.Nevertheless,I wouldliketoacknowledgestudents’abilitytoimplement,andinsomecaseseven invent,differentkindsofmediatorstopresenttheiridea. Indeed,theparadigmofdialoguesprovidedpreserviceelementaryschoolteachers withaflexibleenvironmentwheretheycouldcultivatetheirreasoningintheformofa literate mathematical discourse. Also, having a close look at students discourses, presentedintheformofaselfdialogue,underthelensofcommunicationalframework provided the researcher with indicators for recognising the factors that impeded studentsintheprocessofcreatingaproof. Thisstudyisapartofanongoingresearchonusingdialogueforteachingproof.Based ontheresults,Ibelievethatcreatingadialogueisahelpfulintermediatestagetowards writing a proof. Further research will explore additional implementation of this method.

PME31―2007 2271 Gholamazad

References BenYehuda,M.,Lavy,I.,Linchevski,L.,Sfard,A.(2005).Doingwrongwithwords:What bars students’ access to arithmetical discourses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ,36,3,176247. Hanna,G.(1989).Morethanformalproof. For the Learning of Mathematics ,9,2023. Harel,G.(1998).Twodualassertions:Thefirstonlearningandthesecondonteaching(or viceversa) . American Mathematical Monthly ,150(6),497507. Heinze, A, Reiss, K., & GroB, C. (2006). Learning to prove with heuristic workedout examples.InJ.Novotna,H.Morava,M.Kratka,&N.Stehlikova(Eds.)Proc. 30th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.3,pp.273280). Prague,CzechRepublic. Hoyles,C.,(1997).Thecurricularshapingofstudents’approachestoproof. For the Learning of Mathematics ,17,716. Gholamazad,S.,Liljedahl,P.,&Zazkis,R.(2003).Onelineproof:Whatcangowrong?InN. A.Pateman,B.J.Dougherty,&J.Zilliox(Eds.), Proc. 27th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.2,pp.429435).Honolulu,USA: Martin,W.G.andHarel,(1989).Proofframesofpreserviceelementaryteachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ,20,4151. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994) What Do We Know About Mathematics Curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior ,13,5580. Sfard,A.(2001).Thereis moretodiscoursethan meetstheears: Lookingatthinkingas communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46,1357. Sfard,A.(2002).Learningmathematicsasdevelopingadiscourse.InR.Speiser,C.Maher, &C.Walter(Eds.), Proc. of the 21 st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 2344). Columbus, OH: ERICClearinghouseforScience,Mathematics,andEnvironmentalEducation. Sfard,A.,Cole,M.(2002).Literatemathematicaldiscourse:Whatitisandwhyshouldwe care?RetrievedAugust2004fromhttp://communication.ucsd.edu/lchc/vegas.htm Simon,M.A.andBlume,G.W.(1996).Justificationinthemathematicsclassroom:Astudy ofprospectiveelementaryteachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior ,15,331. Vygotsky,L.S.(1987). Thinking and Speech .InR.W.Rieber,&A.C.Carton(Eds.),The collectedworksofL.S.Vygotsky.(pp.39285).NewYork:PlenumPress.

2272 PME31―2007

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF KEY CONCEPTS OF LINEARITY CaroleGreenes,KyungYoonChang andDavidBenChaim BostonUniversity,USA/KonkukUniversity,Korea/UniversityofHifa,Israel

Developing students’ understanding of key concepts of linearity and their various representations is a major focus of first courses in algebra for secondary school students. Students’ difficulties with problems involving linearity on Massachusetts high stakes tests motivated an in-depth study of the nature and causes of these difficulties. The study population expanded to include more than 4000 students in Algebra I in the USA, Korea and Israel. A written test and clinical interviews were designed and administered to the population. Clinical interviews were conducted to gain greater insight into solution methods to selected test items. The study was an activity of the Focus on Mathematics project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF/ EHR-0314692).

INTRODUCTION Several attributes of a line, such as slope, yintercept and equation of a line are consideredtobecoreconceptsinthesecondaryschoolmathematicscurriculum.They are understood to have simple internal structure and they are taken to be the “foundations”outofwhichmorecomplexconceptssuchasfunctionaredeveloped,or relatedto,asinthecaseoftherelationshipbetweentheconceptsofderivativeand slope. The NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics state that “Studentsshouldbeabletouseequationsoftheform y= mx + btorepresentlinear relationships,andtheyshouldknowhowthevaluesoftheslope(m)andtheyintercept (b)affecttheline.”(NCTM,2000,p.2267).Thestudydescribedheredemonstrates thatwearefarfromachievingthisgoal,notonlyintheU.S.butalsointernationally. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY Increasingly,schooldistrictsthroughouttheUnitedStatesarecallingforalgebraforall secondary students (NCTM, 2000; National Mathematics Advisory Panel: StrengtheningMathEducationThroughResearch,2006).Concomitantwiththecall arearticlesreportinghugestudentfailureratesinAlgebraI.Thisnationalproblemwas particularly noticeable in Massachusetts with secondary school students’ poor performance on linearity items on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests (Massachusetts DOE, 2000 – 2006). Identifying students’ difficultieswithlinearityconceptsandskillsanddevelopingstrategiesforaddressing those difficulties was the work of the Curriculum Review Committee (CRC), a committee of the Focus on Mathematics Project. In 2004, the CRC consisted of mathematics and mathematics education faculty from Boston University and mathematics curriculum coordinators from five school districts in the Boston

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Lew,H.C.,Park,K.S.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.273280.Seoul:PME. 2273 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim metropolitan area. In 2005, the committee was joined by mathematics education facultyfromKoreaandIsrael. Tobegintheirwork,theCRC“unpacked”eachMCASitemdealingwithlinearityto identify the type of displays and formats that students had to interpret, and the mathematicalconcepts,skillsandreasoningmethodsstudentswererequiredtobringto bear to solve the problems. The CRC also speculated about reasons for students’ difficulties. To verify conjectures about the nature of student difficulties, the CRC designed,conductedandvideotapedinterviewsofstudentssolvingselectedMCAS problems and describing their thinking. Interviews were analysed and “real” difficultieswerecomparedwiththeCRC’sspeculations.TheCRCwasontargetabout 60%ofthetime;manystudentdifficultiesweretotallyunsuspected.Togainmore informationaboutthedifficulties,theCRCdevelopedawrittenassessmentinstrument aswellasaclinicalinterviewtoprobestudents’difficultieswithselecteditems.

TEST INSTRUMENTS Tobesuccessfulwithalgebra,expectationsarethatstudentsunderstandfunctionsboth as input/output rules and know how they are represented in graphs and tables; understand that linear functions are characterized by constant slope, and can plot graphsoflinearfunctionsgiveninthegeneral ax + by = cform;canrelatetheslopeof alinearfunctiontothespeedofanobjectrepresentedinatimevs.distancegraph;and understandthesignificanceofthesignoftheslopeofalinearfunctionintheprevious context.Itwasthissetof“understandings”thatformedthebasisforthedesignofthe MiniAssessmentTest(MAT). TheMiniAssessmentTest(MAT)consistsofsevenitemsthatusethesameformats (essay,shortanswer,andmultiplechoice)astheMCAStests.ForeachitemInthe MAT,scoringdirectionsweredevelopedtotakenoteofspecifictypesoferrors. Essay Response (1 item): Given coordinates of a point and the equation of a line, students determine if the point is on the line and describe their decisionmaking process.(#1inthetest). ShortAnswer (3Items):1)Givenanequationofalinewithanegativeslope,students createatableofvalues(coordinates)ofpointsontheline.(#2inthetest).2)Givena graphofaline,studentsidentifytheslopeofthe line. (#4inthe test). 3) Givena distancetime graph, students identify the part (one of three) of the graph that representsthecarmovingslowest(PartA).;theslopeofanotherpartofthegraph(Part B).;andthecar’sspeedinthatotherpartofthegraph(PartC).(#7inthetest). MultipleChoice (3Items):1)Givenatableof( x, y)valuesrepresentingpointsona line,studentsidentifyoneoffourgraphsthatcontainsallpoints.(#3inthetest).2) Givenatableofvaluesshowingarelationshipbetweennumberofweeksandnumber of cars sold, students identify one of four linear equations that represents the relationship.(#5inthetest).3)Givenalinearequationthatisnotinslopeintercept

2274 PME31―2007 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim form,studentsidentifyoneofthefivepossibilitiesforthevalueoftheyintercept.(#6 inthetest).

SUBJECTS In the US, one week after students completed the MCAS tests in May, 2005, classroomteachersinthefivedistrictsadministeredtheMATto752Grade8students andscoredthetests. InKorea,405Grade8studentsfromfiveschoolsinSeoulsimilarinsocioeconomic statustotheUSschoolstooktheKoreanversionoftheMATinOctober2005. InIsrael,sincelinearityisintroducedtoGrade9students,575Grade9studentsfrom sevenrepresentativeschoolstooktheIsraeliversionoftheMATinApril2006. RESULTS FROM 3 COUNTRIES Sincethetestconditionsandthegradelevelsofthesubjectswerenotequivalentacross countries,datawereanalysedtoidentifytrends. Theresultsof%correctbycountryareshowninFigure1. 100 80 60 40 %Correct 20 0 11AAAA1 11BBBB 2 2 3 34 4 5 5 6 6 7 77AAAA 8 7 7BBBB 910 77CCCC Problem # 계열1USGrade8 계열3KoreaGrade8 계열5IsraelGrade9 Figure1:FOMAlgebraTestResults%Correct Findingsrevealedthatacrossthethreecountries,studentshaveminimalunderstanding oftwomajortopics:pointsonalineandslope. Withregardtopointsonaline,manystudentsdidn’tknoworweren’tsurethat:1) coordinatesofpointsonagraphofalinesatisfy the equation of the line, and 2) coordinatesofpointsonalinethatarepresentedintabularformsatisfytheequationfor the line, and when plotted, produce a graph of the line. In a study conducted by Schoenfeld,SmithandArcavi(1993)similarresultswerefound.Theyassertedthat thismisunderstandingiscausedbytheabsenceofwhatthey calledthe “Cartesian Connection.” With regard to slope, students in all countries demonstrated maximum difficulty determiningiflinesshowninthecoordinateplanehavepositiveornegativeslopes. Particulardifficultywasnotedwhenlineswithpositiveslopeswerepicturedinthe

PME31―2007 2275 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim thirdquadrantofthecoordinateplane.Ascanbeseeninwhatfollow,inmanycases thedifficultiesencounteredbythestudentsareinaccordwithAcuna’s(2001)claim thatthevisualinformationinthegraphisanimportantpartofgraphcomprehension. The students use their own “gestalt” relation that takes place on the visual identificationleveldespiteprevioustrainingorknowledgeofthedefinitionofslope. AnothermisconceptiondemonstratedbythestudentsisinlinewithSchoenfeldetal’s (1993) claim that “students can treat the algebraic and graphical representational domainsasthoughtheyareessentiallyindependent.” Intheremainderofthispaper,discussionwillfocusontheconceptofslope. Difficulties with the concept of slope Many students had difficulty identifying slopes of lines from graphs of the lines (Problem4and7B)andrecognizingtherelationshipbetweenslopeandspeedinatime versusdistancegraphinProblem7,partsAandC.Fromourqualitativeanalysisand comparisonofsubjects’incorrectanswerstothetwoproblems,severalerrorpatterns wererevealed: • Some students did not attend to the direction of the x value change. For example,studentscountedtheyvaluechangefromthepointontheYaxis, and identified a negative slope (3/1) in Problem 3 and a positive slope (90/3=30(90iswrong))inProblem7B.(SeeFigure2) • Studentsdidnotnoticetherelationbetweenthedirectionofalineandthesign ofitsslopeandonlyconsideredthechangesofxandyvalues.Theypresented positive and negative slopes for lines slanting in the same direction, seeminglyunconcernedwiththisinconsistency.AsshowninFigure3,one studentproducedatableofvaluesandcalculatedtheydifferenceas3and gavetheansweras3. • Students’ calculations were often based on their visual judgement. For example,asshowninFigures2and3,studentsusedtheestimatedcoordinate (1,30)insteadofthecorrectlatticepoint(3,120)tocalculatetheslopeofRin Problem7B,andgaveananswerof30. • StudentsdidnottakeintoconsiderationthescalefactorontheYaxis(each unitrepresented30miles)incalculatingslope.Manystudentsanswered4/3to Problem7Binsteadof4x30,or120/3)asshowninFigure4 • FromdifferentresultsanddifferentsolutionprocessesforProblem7Band7C, itisclearthatmanystudentsdidnotrealizetherelationshipbetweenslopeand speedinthedistancetimegraph.(SeeFigures2,3,and4). • Somestudentsconfusedlinearitywithproportionality.Forexample,S 4 wrote “Sincetheslopeis(incrementof y)/(incrementof x),andxvalueandyvalue ofpointAare3and5respectively,theslopeis5/3.”Thestudentpresented thecorrectanswerforProblem7B:“Inthisgraph,slopeisspeed,andspeedis (distance)/(time).Therefore120/3=40.”(Figure5)

2276 PME31―2007 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim

Figure2:Student’sResponseS1toProblems#4and#7B

Figure3:Student’sResponseS2toproblems#4and#7B

PME31―2007 2277 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim

Figure4:Student’sSampleResponseS3toProblem#4and#7B

Figure5:Student’sSampleResponseS4toProblem#4and#7B Tovalidatesuspicionsaboutthenatureoftheerrorsonthetest,theCRCconducted tapedinterviewsofgrade8studentssolvingselectedMATproblems;onetodetermine theslopeofalinefromitsgraphandtheothertointerpretslopeinanapplication problem.Thedifficultiescitedabovewereconfirmedintheinterviews.

2278 PME31―2007 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim

The CRC next approached the problem of identifying factors that might be contributingtostudentdifficulties,includingproblemformat,thegradelevelofthe students,andthetypeofinstructionalprogram.Forexample,intheoriginalproblem #4,nogridlineswereshown,andalthoughtheaxeshadhashmarks,thescaleswere notindicated.TheCRCbelievedthatthelackofgridlinesandtheunmarkedaxes presentedanewsituationforthestudents,oneforwhichtheywereunprepared.To check out this hypothesis, three forms of that problem were developed and administeredto1000grade8students.Oneoftheformswastheoriginalpresentation oftheproblem,asecondshowedgridlines,andathirdshowedgridlinesandscaleson theaxes.Scoreswereanalyzedandnosignificantdifferencebyformatwasfound. Similarresultsofnosignificantdifferencewereobtainedforthefactorsofgradelevel andinstructionalprogram. Aptitude-Treatment Interactions (ATI) With regard to slope, two kinds of AptitudeTreatment Interactions (ATI) were revealedamonggroups:1)InProblem4andProblem7Band2)inProblem7Band7C. OnetypeofATIwasindifficultyidentifyingslopesoflinesinProblem4andin Problem7B:1)USstudentsshowedthesamelevelsofdifficultywithProblem4as withProblem7B,2)KoreanstudentsshowedgreaterdifficultywithProblem4,and3) IsraelistudentsshowedhadgreaterdifficultywithProblem7B.

100 계열US 1 Grade 8 계열Korea4 Grade 8 80 75.3 계열Israel7 Grade 9 68.4 65.9 60 58.6 58.3

49.9 48.3 43.5 %Correct 40 40 39.5 33.8 32

20

0 Problem#1 47A7B 2 37C 4 Figure6:FOMResultsonProblem4,7A,7B,and7C AscanbeseeninFigure6,additionalATIwereshownindifficultycalculatingslope andspeedfromthedistancetimegraph:1)USandIsraelistudentsshowedgreater difficultywithcalculatingslopeinProblem7Bthanwithcalculatingthespeedofacar fromthedistancetimegraphinProblem7C,but2)Koreanstudentsshowedgreater

PME31―2007 2279 Greenes, Chang & Ben-Chaim difficultycalculatingthespeedofacarfromthedistancetimegraph(Problem7C) thanwithcalculatingtheslopeofaline(Problem7B). ATI might reflect the curriculum and instructional program for linearity in each country,aswellasthemethodsandofintroducinglinearityandtheextentof connectingconceptstotheirapplications. CONCLUSION OurresultsareinagreementwiththeassertionofSchoenfeldetal(1993)“thatsome aspects of the domain that we take to be trivial are major stumbling blocks for students”. Knowing what the underlying skills and perspectives actually are, has implicationsformathematicscurriculaandcanserveasaguidetodevelopingcurricula. Infact,theCRChasstartedthisyeartolookattheelementaryschoolmathematics curriculumwiththeintentofinsertingintroductorymaterialthatwillenhancestudents’ understandingoftheimportantkeyconceptsoflinearity.Anotherrecommendationis relatedtostrategiesusedtoteachthoseconcepts.Toenablestudentstobuilddeepand meaningful understanding of the key concepts of linearity, it is recommendedthat teachers use the spiral method and devote much more time to teaching and systematicallyreviewingconceptsofslope,yinterceptandtheconnectionbetweenthe algebraicandgraphicalrepresentationofaline.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Theauthorsthanktheteachersandstudentswhoparticipatedinthestudyandthe membersoftheCRC.TheyareKathleenBodie,DonnaChevaire,CharlesGarabedian, AnnHalteman,EileenHerlihy,SteveRosenberg,DanWulf,andKevinWynn.

REFERENCES Acuna, C. (2002). High school students’ identification of equal slope and Yintercept in differentstraightlines.InA.D.CockburnandE.Nardi(Eds.), Proceedings of the 26 th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education .(Vol.2,pp.28).Norwich,UK:PME. Massachusetts Department of Education (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system : Grades 8, 9 and 10 .Malden,MA:State DepartmentofEducation. www.doe.mass.edu/mcas NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics(NCTM).(1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston,VA:NCTM. NationalCouncilofTeachersofMathematics(NCTM).(2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston,VA:NCTM. National Mathematics Advisory Panel: Strengthening Math Education Through Research (December,2006).http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/factsheet.pdf Schoenfeld,A.H.,Smith,J.P.,&Arcavi,A.(1993).Learning:Themicrogeneticanalysisof onestudent’sevolvingunderstandingofacomplexsubjectmatterdomain.InR.Glaser (ed.) Advances in Instructional Psychology .(Vol.4,pp.55175).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

2280 PME31―2007 MATHEMATICAL BELIEFS IN PICTURES AND WORDS SEEN THROUGH “MULTIPLE EYES” StefanHalverscheid andKatrinRolka UniversityofBremen/UniversityofDortmund When students create a picture on what mathematics is for them and explain their works in a text, this data can be examined regarding mathematical beliefs. A research design for investigating pictures and texts on mathematical beliefs is carried out by pre-service teachers. They work as raters who classify the students’ works according to established categories of instrumentalist view, Platonist view, and problem-solving view. The agreement of the ratings of the students’ works according to these categories turns out to be satisfactory. Correlations between the rated categories and certain criteria for the classification of the works are considered.

MOTIVATION The research field of beliefs has a long tradition and is well established (Leder, Pehkonen&Törner,2002).However,researchersmainlyemployquestionnairesand interviewstoinvestigatemathematicalbeliefs(Hannula,Maijala&Pehkonen,2004; Op‘tEynde&DeCorte,2003).Evenifthisresearchhasprovidedmeaningfulinsights inthiscomplexconstruct,thedifficultiesandconstraintsregardingthesemethodshave also been largely discussed. Recently, we have developed and explored a research designtoinvestigatestudentbeliefsaboutmathematicsbyusingotherthantheabove mentioned methods to collect data (Halverscheid & Rolka, 2006; Rolka & Halverscheid,2006).Wefirstaskedthestudentstoexpresstheirviewsonmathematics bydrawingapictureandthentoexplaintheirpicturebywritingatext.Incasethatthe information based on these two data sources remained unclear, we additionally conducted an interview with the students in question. This procedure to employ “multiplesourcesofevidence”inthesenseoftriangulatingthemethodsisemphasized bySchoenfeld(2002,p.463)asonesourceoftrustworthinessofscientificresults.The analysisofthisrichbodyofdatawasguidedbyErnest’s(1989;1991)categoriesto describemathematicalbeliefs. However,ascontinuingtheanalysiswithaconsiderablylargeamountofpictures,the question arises how objective the interpretations of the pictures are. In fact, this problem was brought up by participants in the presentation of the method to use picturesandtextsatPME30inPrague.Toexplorethisquestionwedevelopedadesign thatfollowstheprinciple“multipleeyesonthesamedata”(Schoenfeld,2002,p.463) another criterion that Schoenfeld considers necessary for the trustworthiness of scientificresults.Thismeansthatseveralanalystsweretrainedinordertocheckthe independencyoftheinterpretation.Thispaperdealswithpresentingourprocedure.

2007.InWoo,J.H.,Park,K.S.,Lew,H.C.&Seo,D.Y.(Eds.).Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education ,Vol.2,pp.281288.Seoul:PME. 2281 5 7 Halverscheid & Rolka

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Beliefsareoftenconsideredasaconstructcomposedofdifferentcategories(Dionne, 1984; Ernest, 1989; 1991; Grigutsch, Raatz & Törner, 1998). Even if different researchersusedifferentnotions,themeaningofthecategoriesismoreorlessthesame. WeemploythenotionsofErnestandusethissectiontorecallwhatisunderstoodby them.Further,wegiveanexplanationwhatthecategoriesmeaninthecaseofpictures and texts. Hence, we extended an existing theoretical framework that was mainly created and justified for questionnaires and interviews to other methods, namely pictures and texts. A detailed description and example pictures that illustrate the categoriescanbefoundinHalverscheidandRolka(2006)aswellasinRolkaand Halverscheid(2006). Intheinstrumentalistview,mathematicsisseenasausefulbutunrelatedcollectionof facts, rules, formulae, skills and procedures. Transferredtopicturesandtexts,one important feature is the disconnectedness of mathematical objects. There are no connectionsmadebetweendifferentideasmentionedintheworks.Thepicturesoften consistofanunrelatedenumerationofobjectsthatarenotorderedtoamathematical statement. In the Platonistview, mathematics is characterized as a static but unified body of knowledge where interconnecting structures and truths play an important role. Comparedtothefirstcategory,thestudentsheretrytoconnectdifferentelements.One student,forexample,referstoPythagoras’theoremasgeometryandstatesthat“itis fascinating that one can make geometry with algebra”. However, students in this category do not create mathematics. The view on mathematics remains static and relatedtohistoricaltruthsandlinksbetweenthem. Intheproblemsolvingview,mathematicsisconsideredasadynamicandcontinually expandingfieldinwhichcreativeandconstructiveprocessesareofcentralrelevance. Studentsinthiscategoryproducemathematicswiththingsfromtheirenvironmentthat theyuseasstartingpointformathematicalthoughtsandactivities. The following criteria were worked out as typical for the instrumentalist view, Platonist view and problemsolving view (Halverscheid & Rolka, 2006; Rolka & Halverscheid,2006). Instrumentalist view: • Disconnectednessoftheobjects • Nodynamicalviewonmathematics • Nomathematicalstatement • Usefulnessofmathematics

2282 PME31―2007 Halverscheid & Rolka

Platonist view: • Mathematicaltopicsarerepresented • Elementsareconnected • Nostoryistold,nomathematicalactivitiesareshown • Historicalinterest,famousmathematicians Problem-solving view: • Mathematicalactivitieswithpaintedobjects • Mathematicsasadynamicfield •Studentsparticipateactivelyinthecreationofmathematics These criteria were obtained by independent interpretations of works by the two authors.Ifjustoneofthesecriteriaismet,thisdoesnotnecessarilyimplythatthe accordingcategoryisappropriate.Theindividualcharacterofeachworkmakesitonly possible to give a catalogue of typical properties; the classification task remains interpretative.Theratingprocedureshouldalsogivesomeideaofwhetherthereisa correlation between the classification as the established categories and the criteria which are thought to be indicative for mathematical beliefs. Methodologically, it would be important to know if there is a correlation between the criteria and the classificationaccordingtocategoriesofmathematicalbeliefs.

METHODOLOGY Asalreadymentioned,ourresearchwasguidedbythequestiontowhatextendthe interpretationofthestudents’productsareindependentofthejudgmentsofdifferent raters. According to Schoenfeld (2002), it is therefore common to compute the interraterreliability“toidentifythedegreetowhichindependentresearchersassignthe samecodingtoabodyofdata”(p.463).Inordertochecktheinterraterreliability,we firstpresented22picturescreatedbyfifthgraderstoagroupof16preserviceteachers. Theywereaskedtoanswerthefollowingprompts: • Whatischaracteristicforthepicture? • Whatisthemathematicalideainthepicture? • Whatwouldyouasktheartistinordertounderstandthepicture? • Doyouhaveanyadditionalremarks? For every picture, 150 seconds of consideration were given. Subsequently, each preserviceteacherhadtoputthepicturesthat–inhisorhereyes–seemtoexpressa

PME31―2007 2283 Halverscheid & Rolka relatedideaintogroups.Inanessay,everygroupwasdescribedindetailandforevery ofthe22pictures,ithadtobeexplainedwhyitwasclassifiedintherespectivegroup. Then, the participants took part in training in order to prepare them for the interpretationofthepicturesandtextsaccordingtoErnest’scategories.Theywere shownexamplepicturesofeachcategoryandreceivedthetypicalfeatureslistedabove whichhelptoidentifythecategory.Thistrainingcoveredawholelesson.Inthenext lesson,thesefeatureswerebrieflyrecalledandwethenpresentedsixpicturesandtexts outofthe22forcategorizationtothestudents.

FINDINGS Participants’ notes on pictures without text Theparticipants’commentsonthepicturesweremadeatastagewhenthetexthadstill beenunknowntothem.Theirremarksshowthatitwasnotthatdifficultinmanycases torecognizewhatobjectsareillustrated.Inmostcases,themathematicalcontentofthe pictureisfortheobserversrestrictedtothesymbolsandobjectsshown. Since,atthatmoment,thepreserviceteachershadnottakenpartinthetraininghowto classifytheobjectsaccordingtothecategoriesofmathematicalbeliefs,itwasour intentiontoseewhichquestionstheywouldliketogetansweredbythestudents. Thepreserviceteachersweregivendeliberatelyalotoffreedomtomakeremarkson theworks.Thismakesitdifficulttorelatetheremarkstothecategoriesestablished later.However,theytendtohaveformulatedmorequestionsonworks,whicharerated laterasbelongingtoPlatonistview,orproblemsolvingviewthantothoseclassifiedas instrumentalistview.Often,concerningthosepicturesnoquestionsareaskedatall. Furthermore,manyquestionslookfortheconnectionbetweencertainelementsonthe picture. Occasionally, as a feature, which is not represented in the established categories, affectsplayarole.“Ismathematicsfun?”or“Doyou like calculating?” is asked; anotherpreserviceteachernotesthatacertainpicturedescribesmathematicswithin natureandsuggestsinterviewingthestudenttofindoutwhetherthisisrelatedtothe student’s feelings on mathematics. The participants also broach the issue of links betweenmathematicsasascienceandatschool. Essays on categorization of works Inthisstep,thepreserviceteachersweregivenbothpicturesandtextstoworkout categoriesforclassifyingthe22works. Themajorityofpreserviceteachersusecategoriesdescribingobjectsortopicswhich arequiteexplicitlycontainedinthepictures.Themostfrequentlymentionedcategories involve mathematical objects (like numbers or geometric figures, which are often takenasseparatecategories),theusefulnessofmathematics(mathematicsineveryday life or mathematics in professions), relations to other sciences or the history of

2284 PME31―2007 Halverscheid & Rolka mathematicsandscience(includingexamplesofmathematiciansandscientistslike AlbertEinstein). Otheraspectsofcategorizingpresentinthepreserviceteachers’descriptionsreferto socialrelationsandmathematics:Mathematicsatschool,philosophicalapproachesto mathematics,andmathematicsinrelationtopeople.Affectivecomponentsareusedin twocases,wherepersonalfeelingsaboutmathematicsandthefunorfrustrationwhile learningmathematicsarediscussed.Threepreserviceteachersconsidertheroleofthe students to distinguish how they look at mathematics: They take categories like: Associations with mathematics, mathematics as part of a personal philosophy, mathematicsinthelifespan. Data analysis of the rating Theratersclassifiedeachworkincludingpictureandtextaccordingtotheestablished categories of instrumentalist view, Platonist view, and problemsolving view. The interraterreliabilitycanbemeasuredwithCohen’skappa(Cohen,1960).Itwasonly possibletoconsider10raterswhoparticipatedinalltrainingandratingunits.Cohen’s coefficientisdeterminedforeachpairofraters,andthemedianofallcoefficientsis givenhere.Themedianis κ = 0.71 ,whichisconsideredtoindicateagooddegreeof reliability(Fleiss&Cohen,1973). In the classification in Halverscheid and Rolka (2006), criteria are elaborated as indicative for instrumentalist, Platonist or problemsolving view. Six criteria were giventotheratersbecausetheseareconsidereddistinctivefortheclassification.We listthesecriteriabelow;inbracketsCohen’skappa(consideredineachcaseseparately onlyfortheaccordingcriterion)isgivenforthereliabilityofthiscriterion.

 Workshowsseveral,rathernotconnectedelements(κ = 0.4 )

 Usefulnessofmathematics( κ = 0.33 )

 Mathematicalactivitieswithpaintedobjects( κ = 0.18 )

 Descriptionofmathematicsasadynamicfield( κ = 0.67 )

 Elementsareconnected( κ = 0.31 )

 Interestin(historicalortheoretical)developmentofmathematics( κ = 0.33 ) If a work appears as a sample of rather disconnected elements, this is regarded, accordingtoHalverscheid&Rolka(2006),asanindicationofaninstrumentalistview. Infactthecorrelationoftheobservationthattheworkshowsmanyratherdisconnected elementsandoftheclassificationoftheworkasinstrumentalistis0.52. Iftheutilityorusefulnessofmathematicsisstressed,thisisconsideredasanindication foraninstrumentalistview.Thecorrelationofthesecategoriesisonlyweak:0.13.It seems that the criterion for disconnectedness is much more indicative for the instrumentalistviewthanthatofusefulnessofmathematics.

PME31―2007 2285 Halverscheid & Rolka

Inthecatalogueofcategoriesadifferencewasmadebetweenthedisconnectednessof elementsandthepropertythatacontextofmathematicalelementsisdepicted.These categories were treated as different categories, and not only as opposite elements which negate each other. The category describing that a mathematical context is constructedcorrelatespositivelywithproblemsolvingview(0,23)andwithPlatonist view(0,11),whereasitcorrelatesnegativelywithinstrumentalistview(0,33).

DISCUSSION Interpreting pictures without texts Theratersclassifiedeachworkincludingpictureandtextaccordingtotheestablished categories. The first step of the rating shows how difficult it is to get reliable informationfrompicturesalone.Itisoftenclearwhichobjectsarepresented,butlinks betweencertainelementsandotherinformationarehardtoextract.Theaffectiveside ofmathematicsandadiscussionofexistingormissinglinksbetweenmathematicsat schoolandintherestoftheworldcomeupalreadybyjustlookingatthepictures.This could be an indication that the role of affects for mathematical beliefs could be examined more closely. It also would be interesting to understand better the differencesbetweenbeliefsofmathematicsandofthelearningofmathematics. Different approaches to classifications Ernest’s wellestablished classification has been examined intensively in many situations.Adifferentquestioniswhetherthetasktodrawapictureandtoexplainitin atextcanbeextendedtofurtherresearchquestions.Categoriesthatraisethetopicof differentsocialrolesof(thelearningof)mathematicsandofaffectivecomponentsof mathematicsappearworthwhileconsidering.Theaffectivesideoftheworksplaysa rolewhentheworksatdifferentgradesareconsidered(Rolka&Halverscheid,2006). Interestingly,severalcriteriaforinstrumentalistviewareconsideredbymostofthe preserviceteachers.ForthePlatonistview,thehistorical category is often found. However,problemsolvingviewandPlatonistviewwerenotdistinguishedaslongas theywerenotpresented.ThisisanotherindicationthatPlatonistviewandproblem solving view are difficult to distinguish. One reason why itdidnot appearinthe preserviceteachers’classificationscouldbethefactthatbothappearquiterareand thattheinstrumentalistviewisclearlydominant. Implications of the rating procedure Theresultsontheagreementoftheratingsindicateagoodinterraterreliabilityofthe interpretationoftheworksaccordingtotheestablishedcategoriesbyErnest.Sincethe ratertrainingofthepreserviceteachersdidnottaketoomuchtime,itcouldbehoped that the method of using pictures and texts simultaneously for investigating mathematicalbeliefscouldbeextendedtoamethodwhichisnotonlyapplicableby specialists.

2286 PME31―2007 Halverscheid & Rolka

The criteria suggested in Halverscheid and Rolka (2006a)showalowerdegreeof reliability.Still,theinterratercoefficientsreachfromweaklypositivetopositive.The criteriacanbeunderstoodasacataloguewhichcharacterizesthecategories,butthere arenoautomaticimplications. Foraninterpretativetask,itisalsonotsurprisingthatthecorrelationsbetweenthe criteria and the classification indicate a lower degree of correspondence. The disconnectednessofpresentedelementsappearsasthemostsignificantindicatorforan instrumentalistview.Cohen’skappafordisconnectednessindicates,however,thatit mightbedifficulttodecidewhetherthecriterionismet. Althoughthemethodsofdatacollectionappliedheredifferverymuch,thequalityof theratingproceduremighthaveimprovedbygoingtothreesteps–similarlytothe studentswhohadcreatedtheirworksinseveralsteps,too.

OUTLOOK Themethodoftrainingtheratersandevaluatingtheirclassificationsisusefultocheck theconsistencyofthemethodology.Theagreementof the ratings of the students’ works according to the categories of instrumentalist view, Platonist view, and problemsolving view turns out to be satisfactory. For an interpretative task, this consistencyofthemethodisanimportantstepfortheimplementationofthetheory.It allowsclassifyingworksbyatrainedrater. Averydifferentquestioniswhethertheestablished categories describe the works extensively.Forthisquestion,moreopen,interpretativemethodshavetobeconsidered. Theclassificationsoftheworksbypreserviceteachers indicate that affective and socialaspectscouldberichsourcesforfurtheranalyses. References Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 10 (1) ,3746. Dionne,J.J.(1984).Theperceptionofmathematicsamongelementaryschoolteachers.InJ. M.Moser(Ed.), Proceedings of the 6 th annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 223228). Madison(WI):UniversityofWisconsin:PMENA. Ernest,P.(1989).Theknowledge,beliefsandattitudesofthemathematicsteacher:amodel. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15 (1),1333. Ernest,P.(1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Hampshire,UK:TheFalmer Press. Fleiss, J. L. & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and psychological measurement 33 ,613619. Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1997). Einstellungen gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathematiklehrern. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 19 (1),345.

PME31―2007 2287 Halverscheid & Rolka

Halverscheid,S.&Rolka,K.(2006).Studentbeliefsaboutmathematicsencodedinpictures and words. Proceedings of the 30 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 233240). Prague, Czech Republic: PME. Hannula,M.S.,Maijala,H.,&Pehkonen,E.(2004).Developmentofunderstandingand selfconfidenceinmathematics;Grades58.InM.J.Høines&A.B.Fuglestad(Eds.), Proceedings of the 28 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.3,pp.1724).Bergen,Norway:PME. Leder, G. C., Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (Eds.) (2002). Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers. Op‘tEynde,P.&DeCorte,E.(2003).Students’mathematicsrelatedbeliefsystems:design and analysis of a questionnaire. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association ,April2125,Chicago. Rolka, K. & Halverscheid, S. (2006). Pictures as a means for investigating mathematical beliefs.InS.Alatorre,J.L.Cortina,M.Sáiz&A.Méndez(Eds.). Proceedings of the 28 th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mérida, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional(Vol.2,pp.533539). Schoenfeld,A.H.(2002).Researchmethodsin(mathematics)education.InL.English(Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp.435488).Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

2288 PME31―2007