I often hear from students that they used to be good at math or they used to like math up

to middle school. The key word here is “used to”, which means they do not necessarily have

confidence in math anymore or they do not enjoy studying math anymore. One of the main

reasons for this is due to the abstract nature of high school math. When math becomes abstract

and hence when students lack genuine understanding, students perform math as operational

procedures. And when they learn math as procedural operation, learning only goes so far; in

other words, they will not easily retain the information.

This has been my question in my practice for awhile. I wanted to improve students’

genuine understanding of mathematical concept but the dilemma existed in the means to assess

students’ true understanding. Since typical math tests assess students’ knowledge of procedures

but rarely look at their understanding at all, I wanted to have a better evaluated means. The

solution I came up with was journal writing in a math class, hence I decided to research how

teachers in practice have used journal writings in teaching math, how they evaluated journals and

whether this approach made any significant difference or not. But then when I expanded my

thoughts, I thought students these days may react better to electronic journals such as e-blogging,

so I decided expand my research to electronic journaling in math as well. To find articles for this

paper, I searched the databases Academic Search Premier, ERIC, and Google Scholar for

keywords “journal”, “mathematics”, “writing”, “e-blog”, and “assessment”. I also tried to restrict

the articles written within past ten years.

The first study I looked at was “Facilitating student learning through math journals” by

Hari P. Koirala. The main focus that guided his research was “to explore the ways in which math

journals influence the teaching of mathematics to prospective teachers” (Koirala, 2002, p. 217 –

218). Koirala studied more than 200 university students at North Eastern University in the U.S.

who intend to be elementary school teachers and participants were asked to write 1 – 3 pages of
weekly journals. Over the period of two years, over 1800 entries were collected for analysis.

Koirala classified students’ journals in two categories: “[j]ournals that only described students’

attitudes and feelings and the journals that demonstrated student mathematical thinking”

(Koirala, 2002, p. 219).

The results showed that majority of the students chose to express their feelings and

beliefs through the journal instead of demonstrating their mathematical understanding. Koirala

also believes that “student responses in journals depend mostly on tasks assigned” (Koirala,

2002, p. 223); in other words, the teacher should carefully design the questions to be asked

depending on whether to test students’ affective domain or the actual mathematical concept.

Overall, this study strongly supports the effectiveness of writing in teaching math since journals

can be powerful means of communication and reflection.

As Koirala pointed out, careful designing of journal assignments is one of the important

tasks. J. J. Price in his article “Learning Mathematics through Writing: Some Guidelines”

suggests several key guidelines for written homework in math journaling (1989). Price believes

that our current math education lacks logical written exercises and “trains students to go home,

zip through their [homework] as quickly as possible … and hand it in with a sigh of relief”

(1989, p. 394). Price experimented journal writing with topics in elementary number theory at a

university math class and prior to his assignment, he emphasized the importance of following the

guidelines for journal entries. He emphasizes that reviewing common errors in journaling before

assigning journal assignment is very important. So his guideline states that:

• Avoid incorrect mathematics.

• Avoid poor English (grammar, punctuation).

• Communicate mathematically if possible with symbols and math signs.

• Honour equal signs

 • Use different letters for different variables i.e. be specific in choosing variables.

• Define terms – “state at the begging what your symbols mean” (Price, 1989, p. 398).

• Give reasons for your statements.

• Be explicit – Avoid vagueness

• Answer the question – go back to the question and see if the answer satisfies the original

question.

• Be aware of the format. – “Be considerate to the reader. Make your paper pleasant to

read” (Price, 1989, p. 400).

Although these guidelines are very useful, I noticed that his points are made more for

mathematical journal entries not necessarily for open-ended affective journal entries.

So far, the studies analyzed the effectiveness of journaling with regular students with no

major learning difficulties, but can journal writing be helpful for students with disabilities?

Joseph M. Furner and Mary Lou Duffy presented several suggestions to help prevent and reduce

math anxiety for students, especially students with learning disabilities. In their article “Equity

for All Students in the New Millennium: Disabling Math Anxiety” which was written in 2002,

several strategies are suggested such as use of manipulatives, cooperative group work, discussion

approach and so on, but one of them is the journal writing “for students to express their

understanding of mathematical concepts or to share feelings about and experiences with math”

(Furner and Duffy, 2002, p. 70). The authors strongly believe that teachers’ understanding and

feel for students’ frustration will improve through reading students’ journals.

But what if certain students experience difficulties with written languages? Furner and

Duffy suggest audio journal where students dictate their thoughts verbally instead of written

forms and this way, teachers still can benefit from students process of reflection even if certain

students have linguistic barriers. Another study done by Juliet A. Baxter was reported in her
journal “Writing in Mathematics: An Alternative Form of Communication for Academically

Low-Achieving Students”. Baxter’s focus question was: “what is revealed about students’

mathematical proficiency when they are encouraged to write about their mathematical ideas and

reasoning” (Baxter, Woodward, & Olson, 2005, p. 121)? It is apparent that the researchers value

the participation in class discussion, but they noted that the problem with class discussion occurs

since low-achieving students tend to be passive during the class discussions. For this reason,

Baxter et al. justifies writing as a form of communication for such passive low-achieving

students (Baxter et al., 2005).

This study included four seventh-grade participants, 2 boys and 2 girls from math B class,

where math B class was taught at a slower pace than math A class. Data was collected during the

school year through observations, student journals and interviews with the teacher. Then the

journals were classified as either expository or journal writing (Baxter et al., 2005). The first

result of the study showed that “all four target students were passive participants in class,” but

“three of the students” two girls and one boy, “tried to explain their mathematical reasoning and

feelings in their journals” (Baxter et al., 2005, p. 127). Another conclusion they drew was that

the “result suggest that students who did not actively participate in mathematics discussions

responded when asked to write about mathematical ideas” (Baxter et al., p. 130). The teacher was

convinced that the journal approach enhanced her understanding and knowledge of these

students. (Baxter et al., 2005).