Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1

Kerry East Nugent

Assignment One – Mathematics Teaching in Middle School

and Journal for Research in Mathematical Education

National University

January 14, 2017

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2

Abstract

In this paper I discuss an article found in Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,

entitled Connecting Measurement and Architecture: Building an Inflatable by Elizabeth D. Gray

and Denise Tullier-Holly. The article documents a 7th grade mathematics program that

collaborated with an art teacher and a local architect in building three dimensional models. I also

discuss an article found in the Journal for Research in Mathematical Education entitled Spatial

Visualization and Gender Differences in High School Geometry by Michael T. Battista. The

article reports on research conducted to investigate the role that spatial visualization plays in

gender differences and performance in high school geometry.

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 3

In the article, entitled Connecting Measurement and Architecture: Building an Inflatable,

authors Elizabeth D. Gray and Denise Tullier-Holly describe how a 7th grade mathematics

program in Hammond, Louisiana incorporated measurement, geometry, ratios and proportions,

symmetry, art and architecture to develop and construct a room sized inflatable to be used as an

art display.

The classroom geometry teacher, Elizabeth Gray, collaborated with the art teacher,

Denise Tullier-Holly, and a local architect to get the 7th grade students more involved in building

three-dimensional models. According to Gray and Holly, “The result was a collaborative

project that required six class periods: one for planning; one for calculating measurements; and

four periods for actually cutting, drawing, and constructing. The materials and cost were

minimal, at less than $140 (2007, p. 144-145).”

The students built mini-inflatables from black plastic trash bags and clear 2-inch tape.

The scale models were constructed from Visqueen clear plastic sheeting and clear 2-inch tape. A

hair dryer was used to inflate both of these smaller models. The full sized inflatable was

constructed using duct tape, 6 millimeter Visqueen clear plastic sheeting for the walls and

doorway flap, additionally, 8 millimeter Visqueen clear plastic sheeting was used for the floor

area. A box fan was used to inflate the “soft” architecture, inflatable, to enable the students to

draw art on the walls for displaying inside the inflatable. Students and visitors would use a door

slit to enter and exit the inflatable.

The students and architect discussed ways to make construction easy for cutting and

assembly and decided on a prism. The inflatable was shaped as a rectangular prism, measuring

15 feet wide, 10 feet long and 10 feet tall at the center and 5 feet tall on the sides with sloped
 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 4

sides of 7 feet to connect the sides to the roof. The force of the air against the Visqueen sheeting

rounded out the shape when inflated.

Gray and Tullier-Holly explained that, “the objective of the lesson was to have the

students determine the linear measures, the surface areas, and the volumes for scale models of

the original design. The lesson began with a discussion of length, area, and volume (p. 146).”

The students were led through a discussion about dimensions for building mini-inflatable

models. Using ratios and proportions, students decided to construct mini-inflatable models at

1/10 of the original linear measurements of the inflatable. They used Dienes base-ten blocks to

construct scale models with length, area, and volume at 1/10 the measurements of the mini-

inflatable models. Students calculated the linear measures, the surface areas, and the volumes

for the large inflatable and realized that the inflatable would be 1000 times bigger in volume than

the scale model made of Dienes base-ten blocks. Students were adhering to California Common

Core State Standards, 7.RP.1 and 2 in making these calculations (2013, p. 48).

Ms. Tullier-Holly, the art teacher, led the students through choosing an art style for

drawing on the plastic sheets before they were taped as walls. Students were impressed by art

created by Vasily Kandisky entitled, Several Circles (1926). The students drew various circles

as did Kandisky and added student silhouettes onto the walls.

Once completed, “the inflatable was placed on display at a community art exhibit where

the students and their teachers discussed their project with the public and then installed in the

school library where younger students, college students and their professors were encouraged to

experience the space (p. 148).”

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 5

“During this project, middle school students had the opportunity to see several

connections among measurement, geometry, art, and architecture (p. 148).”

The hands on approach of the experience kept the students enthusiastic and persevering

in the calculations. By bringing in a local architect to discuss the construction process and

needed decisions, students were challenged with a real life scenario that made the lesson

interesting. The efforts of the students’ were validated when visitors came to view their creation

and admire their hard work and dedication to the build and all of the measurement, mathematical

calculations, construction and art work that went into the design and build.

The lessons and the hands on model building adhered to Standards of Mathematical

Practice as shown below.

MP.1 as they persevered through numerous design scenarios and calculation in devising

the plan and the models.

MP.3 as the students discussed, debated and eventually agreed on the design, the

dimensions and on construction details and artwork.

MP.4 as the students made three sets of models that demonstrated the agreed upon

dimensions.

MP.6 as the students worked on precise dimensions for the construction of the models.

The implications for future classroom practice is that now the students see and

understand that math can be applied to real life situations. The students will be more willing to

engage in their mathematics classes and to continue finding ways that they can participate in

mathematics in the real world.

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 6

In the article, entitled Spatial Visualization and Gender Differences in High School Geometry,

author Michael T. Battista describes that, “The goal of the present study was to investigate the

role that spatial visualization plays in performance and gender differences in high school

geometry (1990, p. 47).”

Battista states that there is,

A great deal of physiological evidence that indicates that the two hemispheres of the

brain are specialized for different modes of thought processing. In general, the left

hemisphere is specialized for analytic/logical thinking in both verbal and numerical

operations; it excels at sequential tasks, logical reasoning and analysis of the components

of a stimulus. Language is processed in the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere, on

the other hand, predominates for spatial tasks, artistic endeavor, and body image (p. 48).

It is hypothesized that language abilities and spatial abilities are demonstrated more

bilaterally in females than in males. S. P. Springer and G. Deutsch (1981) further hypothesize,

“that greater lateralization of function (i.e., specialization to one of the brain) may be essential

for high spatial performance but less lateralization more important for verbal performance, so

males should be superior in spatial tasks and females in verbal tasks (p. 123).”

The study investigated three types of questions: 1.) How do spatial visualization and

logical reasoning and the difference between them affect performance in geometry? 2.) What is

the nature of gender differences in geometry performance? Do males and females differ in

achievement, problem solving or both? 3.) Are the teachers and their instruction effecting the

processes students use in problem solving?

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 7

The study included 145 high school geometry students from one school in a mid-western

middle class community. The students, 75 male and 53 females, were taught by one of two

teachers (one male and one female) in the school. Students were administered a paper and pencil

test to determine how they performed on a test and the processes the students used to solve the

problems. The tests were scored for spatial visualization (SV), logical reasoning (LR), geometry

achievement (GEOM), and geometric problem solving (PS). Students indicated what processes

they used to answer the test problems in one of four ways: use of drawing strategy (D),

visualizing without drawing (V), non-spatial strategies (N), or correct drawings made (DRAW).

The spatial visualization (SV) problems measured if a student had the ability to mentally

visualize rotating of objects in space. The belief was that males would do better on the SV

portion of the test. Logical reasoning (LR) problems assessed students’ ability to draw

conclusions in logical reasoning problems. The belief is that females would score higher on

these LR problems. Geometry achievement tested students’ knowledge of geometry for basic

concepts, techniques and principles. It was believed that males would score higher on geometry

(GEOM) problems. The last category of problems was the Geometric Problem

Solving/Strategies and it assessed students’ ability to solve geometric problems and by which

strategy the student used. Again, males were predicted to use the correct strategy more often and

to then get more of the problems correct.

Students self-reported their strategies in solving the problems on the test. They either

used a drawing strategy (D), visualizing without drawing (V), non-spatial strategies (N), and then

the study totaled the number of times a student used drawings correctly to assist in the problem

solution (DRAW). It was hypothesized that males would use more visualization (V) and females
 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 8

would use more drawing (D) strategies to answer problems. Students reported choosing an

approach and then staying with it, rather than try other methods for solving problems.

The results were very much like the researchers expected. Battista reported that, “Spatial

visualization and logical reasoning were significantly related to both geometry achievement and

geometric problem solving for males and females (p. 52).” On SV, out of 20 questions, males

scored a mean of 11.79 and females scored at 7.83. On LR, out of 19 problems, males scored a

mean of 11.95 and females scored at 12.15. On GEOM, out of 33 questions, males scored a

mean of 28.33 and females scored 24.32. On PS, out of 9 problems, males scored a mean of 3.17

and females scored a 2.13.

Battista reports that,

The greatest difference between males’ and females’ geometry scores occurred

for students whose logical reasoning (LR) score was much greater than their spatial

visualization (SV) score. The percent of females that had logical reasoning (LR) much

higher than special visualization (SV) was two and one half times that of males, whereas

the percent of males that had spatial visualization (SV) much higher than logical

reasoning (LR) was five times that for females (p. 55).

The results on which strategies (D, V, NN or DRAW) students preferred to use, showed

that females were more likely to use a drawing (D) to assist in the problem solving then did

males. It also showed that females were more likely to us visualization without drawing (V) then

were males. Research also determined that males were more likely to use non-spacial strategies

(N) then were females. When drawings (DRAW) were used, research showed that males and

females were just as likely to have the correct answer to the problem. The females seemed to use
 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 9

the drawing techniques, or a visual level in the van Hiele hierarchy and males seemed to use a

more analytic and logical reasoning approach at a higher level on the van Hiele hierarchy.

The study then turned to the Teacher Effect and questioned whether the gender of the

teacher or the way they taught could have had an effect on the students’ abilities. Teacher 1, the

male, stated that he felt that visualizing was more important in solving geometric problems. He

admitted that he was not very good at visualizing in geometry. It was conjectured that Teacher 1

minimized demands on students’ visualization skills. Teacher 2, the female, stated that she felt

that visualizing was very important as well as drawings and emphasized visual thinking in her

class. It was conjectured that Teacher 2 placed heavier demands on students’ spatial skills.

Battista concludes by stating that, “this study suggests that instructional variables may be

critical factors in understanding interrelationships between ability variables, gender differences,

and geometry learning (p. 59).”

My thoughts on the study were that it COULD have been a more valuable study if they

had used more students, and if more of the students were higher achievers in geometry or if the

questions were more appropriate (not sure which) for the students. The students scored an

average of 29% to 61% on the portions of the test. In my mind, these overall low scores

invalidate the findings that the females score below the males. It seems that none of these

students are using strategies that successfully show their ability to perform geometric problem

solving or logical reasoning. Battista states that the males that use spatial visualization rather

than drawing are using a higher level of the van Hiele hierarchy than the females that rely on

drawings to solve the problems. The author, Battista, then goes on to say that the male, Teacher

1, did a better job with his female students because he did not challenge their visual skills, due to
 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 10

the teacher feeling his own visual skills were lacking. He then states that Teacher 2, the female,

taught her class that it was essential that students visualize problems. Battista felt that Teacher 2

placed heavier demands on students’ spatial skills and it was a handicap for her female students.

Battista wants the students to use spatial visualization but if the teacher (the female teacher),

teaches it and expects students to use it, then he feels it is a disservice to the students. Frankly,

the tone of the article and the notions of the research are rather gender biased and not very

helpful. I found the article to be tone deaf in the aspect of male superiority and the lack of

strategies to better teach the low achieving students geometry. I find it interesting that the

students were not comfortable in trying other strategies when faced with problems they did not

understand. The teachers should have been better equipping their students with varying methods

to solve geometric problems and logic reasoning problems.

 Mathematics Teaching in Middle School and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11

References

Battista, Michael T. (January 1990). Spatial Visualization and Gender Differences in High

School Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics, 21(1), 47-60.

Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749456

California Common Core State Standards: Mathematics, Electronic Edition. (2013).

California Department of Education. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from

https://nu.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-2677043-dt-content-rid-

6663285_1/courses/TED602-019153/California%20CC%20Standards%20Math

Gray, Elizabeth D. and Tullier-Holly, Denise. (1 October 2007). Connecting Measurement &

Architecture: Building an Inflatable. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 13(3), 144-149. Available from:

http://www.jstor.org.nuls.idm.oclc.org/stable/41182514?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents