Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ball, 2000

    Uploaded by

    Gabriela Bravo Gonzalez
    4 views22 pages
    Ball 2000

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ball 2000

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views22 pages

    Ball, 2000

    Uploaded by

    Gabriela Bravo Gonzalez
    Ball 2000

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    Ball,D. 1, &¢ Bass, (2000. interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning ‘ouach: Krowirg and wing natatics. In}. Bovis (Ed), Mallipe pepsias -covthe teaching and learaing of mathematics (pp. €2-108). Westport, 4 Interweaving Content and Pedagogy in Teaching and Learning to Teach: Knowing and Using Mathematics Deborah Loewenberg Ball and Hyman Bass INTRODUCTION! Suppose you posed four numbers—7, 38, 63, and 90—toa class and asked the sta- dents to identify which ofthe numbers were even, And suppose, further, that you ‘got this paper back from one of the stadents, with none of the numbers cicied: 7 38 6 90 ‘What would you make ofthis? Is this answer surprising or predictable? What might this student actualy know? What number of numbers would you pose next to find ‘out with more precision what the student thinks? Why would that selection be use- ful? “Thinking sbost this and figuring out what to do next this is one of many exam- ples ofthe kind of mathematical problem solving in which teachess regularly gage. Although no teacher we have ever met could not comely identify which ‘tumbers are even inthe preceding lst, understanding what there is to know about ‘even mumbess goes beyond being able to do this oneself ands crtiea! to teaching well. ‘Mentfying any even number entails knowing a definition for even numbers and ‘being able to use that definition for any number. Viable definitions include: Fair share: A number N is even if ican be divided into two (equal) parts with nothing leftover (algebraically, N= 2x Iie, k++. Pair: A gumber Nis even ifitcan be divided into owas (pairs) with nothing left over (lgebesically, N =x 25ie,24242+...+2 fkterms)) Altemasing: The even and odd numbers alternate ou the number line Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner, Further reproduction probibitad without permission, 84 DEBORAH BALL and HYMAN BASS Units digits A nurber is even if its units digits even (e.g, 712 is even because 2is even), Bat these definitions are not enough in themselves. One would need to know. first ofall, how to use them to consider and determine the status of specific aum- bers. Thisis particulary salient with the units digit definition. This criterion can be ‘easy lo use, for, because ane does aot have to worry about any digit other than the units one can deploy itroutinely. However. itis more subtle to explain Justifyingit requires understanding place value, for this definition is based on understanding the decomposition of a number represented in decimal form—that i, that 712.=7 x 10% 1 x 10'+2x 10°=700+ 10-+2, Kfone does not understand thatthisis the ba- sison which the definition is founded, one may get confused if one forgets the aigo- rithm; 712 can look ambiguous. for the 7 and the J are both odd. ‘Another important underscanding isto know the domain to which these defini- tions are usefully and conventionally applied. (Even the appreciation that this is = fundamental mathematical question about a definition isan important sensibility.) For example, are fractions typically categorized as even or odd? Is ze10? ‘Third. one should have good sense of when each definition might be useful. For example, the units digit definition is useful for large numbers; the alternating defi- nition is cumbersome for any but very narrow intervals i which one already bas an established referent (e.g. with smut! numbers, of with large numbers where some neighboring number is already known to be even) Finally, one would want to understand how the four definitions compare: Why 40 they cach work to identify the same set of numbers? How might one explain these comespondences mathematically? ‘Knowing and being sensitive toall these things, and being able tose them in the context of che student's response, can equip one to consider plausibfe reasons why a child might not mark any of the zmbers, Seven is not even, and, like the even/odd status of eacr of te digits, can be simply memorized as such. Thirty-eight includes ‘an odd digit as well a an even one, and one might consider it “mixed.” Sixy.chree isnot even, and child might consider it mixed (as 38) or might use onc ofthe other definitions to establish it a8 odd. Ninety packs a double mathematical issue: 9 is ‘odd and forthe same reason a5 38, might present difficulties. Moreover, Omight be considered odd, or nether even nor odd, ‘Knowing and being sensitive to al! these kinds of things and being able to use themis lsc critical to be able to manage otherkinds of situations that might aise, A child might ask why the units igi definition works. Another raightask whether 1/2 (or2/3)iseven. Children often wonder about the status of zero, Managing these real situstions demands a kind of deeply detziled kmowledge of mathematics and the ability to use itin these very teal contexts of practice. This chapter draws from work ‘we have been doing to understand the mathematical knowledge entailed by tesch- ing g., Ball, 1999; Ball & Bass, 2000). We bezin by looking backward, acknow- edging that this question is far from new and that our Work builds on substantial recent progress to address it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction probibited without permission Interweaving Content and Pedagogy 85 CHASMS IN KNOWING AND LEARNING PRACTICE ‘At the tura of the 20th century, John Dewey (1904/1968) articulated a funds- mental tension in the preparation of teachers—that ofthe “proper relationship of subject matter and method. At the tar of the 21st century this tension endures. In fact, many of the same questions persist. On the one han, to what extent does teaching—and hence, learning to teach—depend on the development of know!- edge of subject matter? On the other, to what extent does ittely onthe developmest cof pedagogical method? Clearly the answer must be, “it depends on both." Yet, across the century, this tension has continued to simmer, with strong views on both sides of what is unfortu- nately often sten as a dichotomy. Policymakers debate whether teachers should major in education or ina discipline. Others argue that what matters is caring for students as well as skills at working effectively with diverse learners. Dewey's (1904/1964) conception of the relationship of subject matter knowledge and method was sophisticated and subtle—so much so that 100 years later, his idea is still elusive, He wrote: ‘Scholastic knowledge is sometimes regarded a fit sere something quite irrelevant to method, When this atimade is even naconsciously assumed, method becomes an extemal atachmeet to knowledge of subject matter (p. 160) ‘This separation of substance from method, he antued, fundamentally distorted knowledge. How an idea is represented is pat of the ides, not merely ts convey- ance. Dewey also believed that good teachers were those who could recognize and ‘create “genuine intellectual activity” in students, and be argued that methods of such activity were intimately ied into disciplines. Subject matter, he Believed, was ‘theembodiment ofthe mind, the produet of hums. curiosity, inquiry, andthe search for truth, Teachers wito were accustomed to Viewing subject mans from the per- spective of its growth and development would be prepared to notice nascent intel- lectsal activity in learners. Such individuals would know subject matter in ways: ‘that prepared them to hear and extend students thinking. To do this, be argued, teachers would need to be able to stody subject matter in ways that took it back toi “psychical xoots” ¢. 162) Despite these prescient ideas thet intimately iterweave knowledge and learm- ing, teacher education across the 20¢h century has consistently been severed by & pessistent divide between subject matter and pedagogy. This divide has many traces, Sometimes it appears in institutional structures as the chasm between the arts and sciences and schools of education, or asthe gulf between universities and schools (Lagentann, 1996). Sometimes the divide appears as fissures in the prevail- ing curriculum of teacher education, separated into domains of knowledge, com- plemented by “experience’—supervised practica, student teaching, practice itself. Inall ofthese the gap between subject matter and pedagogy fragments teacher edu- cation by fragmenting teaching. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction probibited without permission, 86, (DEBORAH BALL and HYMAN BASS. In recent years, in yet another peculiar fragmentation, commitments to equity and concems for diversity ave often been seen asin tension witha focus on content in teacher education. Courses in molticultralism contend with subject matter ‘courses for space in the professional curiculura, Yee subject matter understanding, is essential in listening flexibly to others and hearing what they are saying or where they might be heading. Knowing content is also cricial to being inventive in creat- ing worthwhile opportunities for learning thet take learners’ experiences, interests, and needs into account, Conteading effectively withthe resources and challenges of a diverse classroom tequires a kind of responsibility to subject matter without which efforts to be responsive may distort students’ opportunities to leam (Ball, 3995), Moreover, the creativity entailed in designing instruction in ways that até at- tentive to difference requires substantial proficiency with the material. ‘The overarching problem across these many examples is that the prevalent con- ceptualization and organization of teachers’ leaming tend to splinter practice, and leave to individual teachers the challenge of integrating subject matter knowledge and pedagogy inthe contexts oftheir work. We assume tha the integration required 40 teach is simple ad happens in the course of experience, In fact, however, this oes not happen easly, and often does not happen ata QUESTS TO BRIDGE THE CHASM ‘Those chasms in our Ways of thinking about content and pedagogy have plagued researchers, teacher educators, aad policymakers. And although pethaps n0t in ‘these forms, these issues have plagued teachers as well, fot our incomplete under- standing of how conlent matters in practice has often left practitioners un- dder-prepared for their work, challenged by the problems and mysteries that arise with distressing regularity, ‘That teachers’ own knowledge of the subject affects what they teach and how they teach seems s0 obvious as tobe trivial. However, the empirical support for this “obvious” fact has been surprisingly elusive? And although conceptions of what is, ‘meant by “subject matter knowledge,” as well a valid measures thereof, have been developing, we lack an adequate understanding of what and how mathematical knowledge is used in practice. ‘Wiat are the weaknesses in current widely shared ideas about teacher content ‘knowledge? First, subject matter knowledge for teaching i often defined simply by the subject matter knowledge that students are to learn—that is, by the curricular goals for students. Put simply, most people assume that what teachers need to know: is what they teach. Many would also addto the list, arguing that feacters must know ‘more in order to have a broad perspective on where their studeats are heading, Nothing is inherently wrong with thisperspective. However, assume thatthis suf- fices sto assume thatthe enactment ofthe curriculum relies of no other mathemat- ical understanding or perspective. Furthermore, the use of mathematical knowledge in teaching is often taken for ‘granted, The mathematical problems teachers confront i their daily work—such Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Fusther reproduction probibited without permission Intenweaving Content and Pedagogy 87 a5 the simple. case at the beginning ofthis chapter —are left unexplored, the oces- sions that require mathermatical sensvity and insight unprobed. Hence, the con- ‘tent and nature of the mathematical knowledge needed in practice is insufficiently understood. Moreover, the role played by such knowledge isalsole unexamined, 1n 1986, Lee Shulman, Suzanne Wilson, Pamela Grossman, and Anna Richert {introduced “pedagogical content nowledge” tothe lexicon of research on teaching and teaches education (Shulman, 1986). The tera called attention toa special kind of teacher knowledge that links conteat-and pedagogy. In addition o general peda- gogical knowledge and knovledge of the content, argued Shulman and his col- leagues, teachers needed toknow things lie what topics children find interesting ot Giffcalt of the representations most useful for teaching a specific content idea. ‘These echolars identified and named a unique kind of knowledge tht intertwines aspects of teaching and learing with content “The introduction of pedagogical cantent knowledge brought to the Fore ques- tions about the content and nature of teachers’ special subject master understand- ‘ng. Consider the following example. As an experienced classroom teacher. Balt knows that figuring out what he fith graders kaow about decimals depends in part “omer knowledge of number systems and in part on her understanding ofthe kinds ‘of errors tat 10-year-olds typically make, For example, she knows that they will often confuse 5 with 05 and that they draw this confusion, in past, from their prior conviction that 5 and 05 are the same number. This nears that fifth-grade teacher needstounderstand alot about the base 10 number system and about positional no- tation. When a fifth grader asks, “Where isthe ‘oneths’ place?” a teacher needs to ‘be able to bear that this likely emanates from @ 10-year-old’s reasonable expecta- tion thatif theres «ones place tothe leftof the decimal point, and atens place tothe lft ofthat, there should be a symsveiry to the right ofthe decimal. In other words, ‘why is the place immediately to the right the tenths place, and aot “oneths” place? But being abte to hear this studeatis aot enough. Why isn’ there a“oneths” place? Answering ths for oneself requires a certain explicit understanding of place vaiue ‘and of the multiplicative structare of the base 10 system that goes beyond being able vo nara the places (ones, tons, hundreds, ete.) or read numbers. And then, be- yond being clear about the mathematics, helping fifth grader understand the miss- ing “oneths” requires an intertwining of content and pedagogy. or pedagogical content knowledge. This kind of understanding is not something a mathematician woutd have, but neither would it be part of a high school social studies teacher's knowledge. itis special to the teaching of elementary mathematics. Pedagogical content knowl- ‘edgo—representations of panicalar topics and how students tend to interpret and use them, for example, or ideas or procedures with which students often have iffi- cculty—describes a unique subject-specific body of pedagogical Knowledge thet highlights the close interweaving of subject matter and pedagogy in teaching. Bun~ dles of such knowledge are built up by teachers overtime as they teach the sazne topivs te children of certain ages, or by researchers as they investigate the teaching and leaning of specific matbermatieal ideas. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission, 88 DEBORAH BALL and HYMAN BASS Liping Ma (1999) describes the “knowledge packages” that are part of the knowledge of the 72 Chinese elementary teachers wihom she interviewed. These packages constituted a refined sense ofthe organization and development ofasetof ‘elated ideas in an arithmetic domain. The teachers inher study had cleatly artcu- lated ideas abont “the longitudinal process of opening up and cultivating such a field in students’ minds” (Ma, 1999, p. 114). Their knowledge packages consisted ‘of key ideas that “weigh more" than other ideasin the package, sxquences for devel- ‘oping the ideas, and “concept knots” that lnk ctucially elated ideas, Ma’snotion of “knowledge packages” represents a particularly generative form of and structure for pedagogical content knowledge. ‘Our work builds on pedagogical content knowledge by complementing what it ‘offers for practice. Pedagogical content knowledge is a special tem of knowledge that bundles mathematical knowledge with knowledge of learners, leaming. and pedagogy. These bundles offer a crucial resource for teaching mathematics, for they cat help the teacher anticipate what students might have trouble Yearning, and have ready alternative models or explanations to mediate those difficulties. Be- cause one big. challenge of teaching isto integrate across many kinds of knowledge inthe context of particulr situations, the fact that there are patteras in and predict- bility to what students might think, and tat chore are well-tted approaches to de- velop certain mathematical ideas, camlnclp manage this challenge. However, abody ‘of such bundled knowledge may not always equip the teacher withthe flexibility ‘needed to manage the complexity of practice. Teachers eso need to puzzle about the mathematics in a student's idea, analyze a textbook presentation, consider the relative value of two different representations in the face ofa particular mathemati- «al issue. To dy this, we argue, requires a kind of mathematical understanding that ispedegogically useful and ready, notbundled in advance with other considerations ‘of students or learning or pedagogy. Although pedagogical content knowledge provides a certain anticipatory re~ source for teachers, it sometimes falls short in the dynamic inisplay of content ‘with pedagogy in teachers' real-time problem: solving. No repertoire of pedagoei- cal content knowledge, to matter how extensive, cam adequately anticipate what it js that students tay think, how some topic may evolve in aclas, the need for anew representation or explanation for@ familiar topic. Moreover, more than one mathe- ‘matical issue or goal may be at play at once, requiring simultaneous consideration of different content within the pedagogical context. Thats, ax chey meet novel situ- ations in teaching, teachers must bring to bear considerations of content, students, Jeaming, and pedagogy. They must reason, and often eannot simply reach into a repertoire of strategies and answers, When teachers look at student work, choose a texttoread, design a task, or moderate a discussion they must attend, interpret, de cide, and make moves. Their thinking depends on their capacity to cal iaeo pay dif- ferent kinds of knowledge, from different domains. An endless barrage of situations —of what we are beginning to understand as mathematical problems to ‘be solved in practice—entails an ongoing use of mathematical knowledge. It is ‘what ittakes mathematically o manage these routine and nonfoutine problems that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reprod action prohibited without pen sion, Interweaving Content and Pedagogy 89 hhas preoccupied ourinterest as we seckto build on the groundbreaking research on pedagogical content knowledge.*Itis to this kind of pedagogically useful mathe- matical understanding thet we attend in our work. ‘This chapter draws on work that we—Bass, a professional mathematician, and ‘Ball, an educational researcher and elementary school teacher—beganir, 1996. We hhave been using our distinct disciplinary perspectives to probe the interplay of ‘mathematics and pedagogy in practice. The problem on which we have been ‘working s one that is central to bot professional education and instructional im- proverient: What mathematical knowledge is needed to teach elementary school ‘mathematics well? How must it be understood and held so that iis available for use? Working with primary reconts of teaching and learning —videotapes, student ‘work, curriculum materials, teacher notes*—we have been trying to analyzeand.ar- ticulate ways in which mathemotical insight, sensibilities, and knowledge are en- tailed by the practice of teaching mathematics.” ‘Our research turns the usual approach to this problem on its head. Rather than {identifying the mathematical knowledge ieeded for teaching by examining the cur- ‘iculum, orby interviewing teachers, we begin instead with an examination prac- tice itself, Examining the curiculura, although useful, is incomplete for it fats to anticipate the mathematical demands ofits enactment in classrooms. Interviewing teachers, though also valuable, is incomplete because it infers teaching’s mathe- ‘matical demands from teachers” account of wiat they think or would do, Without knowing whether the teachers interviewed are actually able to help all students ‘eam mathematics well, what they report remains in some significant ways unwar- ranted. In any case, neither ofthese approaches bridges the gap between knowledge ‘and practice, except indirectly through inference or report, “Wie seek complement dhe examination of curriculum and of what experienced teachers know with mathematical analysis of core activities of mathematics teaching. We intend with the phrase “core activites” vinclude such things as figur- {ng out what students now; choosing and managing representations of mathemati- cal ideas: appraising, selecting, and modifying textbooks; deciding among alternative courses of action; sicering a productive diseussion—and we seok to identify the mathematical resources entailed by these teacher activities Tinthis work, we see teaching as a practice embedded with both regularities and endemic uncertainties. For exemple, some topies—suck as arithmetic with inte~ gers, probability, ond fractions —are quite often difficult for students. Certain ways of approaching these topics—particular representations and methods of develop ment—ean help mediate these difficulties. Oft-used mathematical tasks can be ‘mappediby the eange of typical approaches used by students ofa given age (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Being prepared for these regularities of practice is enabled by ‘what we think of as “pedagogical content knowledge.” cesters that ernbed inowl- edge of mathematic, of students, and of pedagogy. However, no amount of peda- ‘gogical content knowledge can prepare a teacher forall of practice, fora significant proportion of teaching is uncertain, Many others have written about the uncertain- ties of teaching (Ball, 1996; Coben, in preparation; Lampert, 1985; Lampert & Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 DEBORA? BALL and HYMAN BASS Bali, £999; Lonie, 1975; McDonald, 1992), citing numezous sources of uncertainty and providing analyses of the consequences for teachers and their work. Sources of “uncertainty in teaching derive in part ftom is foundations: the impossibility ofkmow- ‘ng defintely what students know, and the necessarily incomplete nature of knowl- edge of teaching, and even the inherent indeterminacy of mathematical knowledge itself that is germane to a given instructional context (Ball, 1996). Because teaching practice is constructed in the interplay of mathematics, students, and pedagogy, con- siderable pars of teachers’ work are embedded with uncertainties. Acknowledging the uncertainty of teaching does not mean that teachers cannot be prepared to know in practice. Quite the contrary: Knowing mathematics for teaching musttake account of both the regularities and the uncertainties of practice, and must equip teachers to ‘know in the contexts of the real problems they have to solve, Because we are interested in the mathematical entalments of practice, we are interested not only in what teachers must know, but also how they must be able 10 use that knowledge (Cohen & Ball, 1999). “Knowing teaching is more than apply- ing prior understandings. It also depends fundamentally on being able to know things fr the situation” (Lampert & Ball, 1999, p. 38). ‘Our approach, a kind of "job analysis” of classtoom teaching, focused on the ac- tual work, is rooted in these premises about practice and sccks to locate and analyze ‘nathematicsasit is used in practice. Such a mathematical perspective onthe Work of teaching can extend what we currently understand about the mathematical re- sourtes needed for teaching, the role of such resources in practice, and, by impli tion, what opportunities for teachers and prospective teachers need to be developed for them to be prepared to teach mathematics well. KNOWLEDGE IN PRACTICE ‘We begin with two examples, each offering acloser look ata sliver ofthe work of teaching. Consider, ist, the work of examining and preparing to teach a mathemat- ies problem (Gelfand & Shen, 1993) ‘Write down a string of 8s. Insere some plu signs at various places o thatthe result- {ng sum is 1,000, At first glance, this problem may look trivial and uninteresting—one way of solving it entails simply adding 125 8's together. A closer Iook reveals that if sev- eral 8's are written together—888 or 88—many more solutions are possible. And ‘working on the problem a litle further reveals interesting and provocative patterns inthe sotution se. Figuring out how to organize the solutions isitself an interesting component of the work, and depending on how they are organized, different ele- ‘ments of the problem and its solutions are visible. ‘A weacher preparing to use ths task must contemplate: Would this be a good problem for my stadents? What would it take to figure oot the pattems and mu- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Farther reprodvetion prohibited withont peimission loterweaving Content and Pedagony o ances? Isit worthwhile in terms of what soadents might learn? AL leas, it would be important to know what the problem is asking, whether it has one or many solu tions, how the solutions might be found, HoW is it (or could it be) related to other parts of the curriculum? It seems obvious thatthe task entails some computa tion—-for example, vetifying any one solution —but wha i the mathematical po- tential ofthe task? Are there important ideas or processes involved in th: probtem? ‘What would it take to use this task well with students? It would help to know what ‘ight make the problem hard, and how students might get stuck, and anticipate hat the teacher teight do if they did. Would students find this interesting? What might it take to hook them on it? Perhaps, on looking ac this problem, a teacher would decide that it is interest- ing butabit too difficult forherstudents, Wat would ittake tomake a mathemati- cally Simitas problem that is a bit easier? At what grade levels would some :mathematically equivalent but simpler vetsion of this problem be accessible? “How might one rescale the problem, for example, for third graders? For ist grad- cers~—Could a similar problem structure be st up with Cuisensire rods? Suppose, ‘n contrast the teacher worries that this problem istoo easy. What would ittake to make a more challenging, but again, mathematically sinilar task? What happens to the problem if one replaces 1,000 with other numbers, or § with some ther digit? How might one modify the problem so that there are no solutions? Infi- aitely many solutions? This sort of analysis and preparation of a single math problem begins to reveat hw much significant mathematical reasoning is en- tailed within the work of teaching. ‘We turn aow to 2 second example, Unlike the preceding example. which pro- Vides a glimpse of the work of preparing to use a task with stadents, this example shows the work of using task daring class. In each example, we scek to remind the reader thatthe work of teaching, 100 often thought to be genic, is embedded with significant mathematical analysis and problem solving. Moreover, we seek to show thatthe mathematical resourées entailed in such analysis and problem solving may ‘notin fact te evideat on the surface ofthe school curriculum. Simply looking a the ‘math problem ar considering the content on which students are working does not lead toa sufficient appreciation ofthe specific mathematical knowledge or sensibil- ity that i takes to teach that problem or that content. ‘The fatlowinig example, drawn from Ball’s third-grade clas, centers on the chit- dren's work on subtraction of multidigit numbers, leamting the conventional place ‘value algorithm, and also using other procedures. We drop in near the beginning af class. The students are discussing solutions to the simple problem: Joshua ate 16 peas on Monday and 32 peas on Tuesday. How many more peas did be eat on Taesday than he di¢ on Monday? Several solutions ate offered. Sean goes tothe board and, counting up from 1610 32.0n the number line, explains, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner, Farther reproduction probibited without permission 2 DEBORAH BALL and HYMAN BASS Iwentsintoen...,1,2.3.4.5.6, 9,10, 11,12,13,14,15.16andl endedupo032. Lucy agrees with him, saying that she “got the same answer and did it the same way.” Riba concurs, and offers to "prove that his answer is right.” She explains: ibe: Because abalf of ... half of 32 would be 16. ‘Ball: Uh huis, And bow does that prove that his answer is ight? Riba: ., because «its... i’sabalf of 32. Sixjeen is half of32. That proves his answer Ball, not sure what to do with Riba’s idea. continues on. Betsy. speaking mostly 10 ‘Sean, says that she used beansticks' wo solve the problem and that she has gotten 15. She goes up to the overhead projector and lays out representations of 16 and 32: oO Oo o co} ° ‘Siw begins matching individual beans, and then trades a beanstick for 10 loose ‘beans. She continues matching individual beans with others and then one beanstick ‘rom each group, Mei objects to Betsy's method of representing both 16 an 32 beans on the overhead: ‘If youdo tha you'l...ifyov wanttodo 32take away 16 orsmething like that, you'lL rexdo take avay only 16 and...and you should tbe puting on 32nd 16 uptbere, Betsy tries to cxplain, She counts outher beans and sticks, saying tha the 16 “what ‘he ate on Monday" and the 32 was what he ate on Tuesday. Then she tries to justify ber method: 0, whatI'mdoingisT'm seeing how much mocehe ate by puting them together. And ‘when You putthem together, you're matching itupjustLike...justaboutthe same way ‘Sean would. But, see instead of adding ther together I'm putting them together lke this. And thea, since ittias a match, I'm puting it down here. So that means you don't ‘count these ones because those are che one thal have a natch. So, Lkeep... 2d this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner, Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interweaving Content and Pedagogy 93 and then see [can't take 4 away fron 10, So, what [601s take this infor 10 beans and then T match tse together, Then, J counted iow many (had, ‘Mei scems unconvinced. Betsy goes through her solution again, With the teacher's help, she narrates the placement of beansticks and what they represent. She ex- Plains the processes she is using to compare the to amounts: See, 'm aking these two beans and matching them With these Two beams. Pm aking these two beans and matching them with these two beans. These two beans and ‘matching them with them. Afler doing it slowly, with explanations, Betsy arrives atthe comtect answer, 16, ‘which she recognizes s inconsistent with her original answer. 15. Experiencing, in front ofthe class, as wel as in her own mind, the disequilibrium ofthis contradic~ tion, she proceeds, with the invitation of her teacher and indulgence of her class- mates, to reenact carefully the matching of the 16 beans with part ofthe 32 beans, and, once again, finds that 16 beans remain unmatched. At this point be places (a still stightly tentative) confidence in the answer, 16. Moreover she retracts her ear- lier notion thather solution i ike the method of “"sounting wp" on the umber Hine used by Sean. The class goes on to see yet another solution, presented by Cassan- dra, hers using te conventional subtraction algorithm. This prompts Sean wo offer 46 +16. 32 for another approach. By the end of class, the children have seon six different methods, ard worked back and forth between the symbolic representations and the concrete forms. They have discussed why some children used subtraction while others added, and they Ihave tried to identify similarities and differences across the methods. This appar cently simple word probtem has taken the teacher and the children deep into some significant mathematical territory, invisible of the sucface ofthe problem, How are subtraction and sidition sefated, in both symbolic and conecete models’? How ar the comparison and “take-away” intepretations of subtraction related”? How do the beanstick representations map onto the symbolic forms, and how do the processes used by cach child map onto each ofthese? How, for example, does Betsy's method ‘of matching compare with Sean’s “counting up” method? Was Me’s objection that Betsy should not represent both the 32 and the 16 legitimate? What is Betsy doing. and how can one reconcile it with Mei’s objection?” Whats Riba thinking when she seeks to "prove" Sean's answer by talking about 16 being “half of” 32? ‘When teachers hold class discussions, they make decisions about which (and whose) ideas to pick up and pursue and whieh (anid whose) to suspend or let drop. "The teacher formulates probes, pushes students, offers hints, and provides explasa~ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permissi 98 DEBORAH BALL and HYMAN BASS tions, Students get stuck: What does one do to help thea remobilize? None ofthese tasks of teaching can he carried out generically. No matterhow committed oneis cating for students, to taking students’ ideas seriously to helping students develop robust understandings, nome ofthese tasks of teaching is possible without making use in context of mathematical understanding and insight, Hlorein lesa fundamental dificulty in learning io teach, for despite its centrality, ‘usable mathematical knowledge is not something teacher education, in the main, ‘provides effectively. Although some teachers have important understandings ofthe

    You might also like