Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education Edited by Richard A. Lesh * Eric Hamilton ¢ —_— * yi mat ertFOUNDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION Edited by Richard A. Lesh Indiana University Eric Hamilton US. Air Force Academy— Colorado James J. Kaput EA LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS 2007 Mahwah, New JerseySenior Acquisitions Editor: Naomi Silverman Editorial Assistant: Joy Tatusko Cover Design: Tomai Maridou Full-Service Compositor: MidAtlantic Books and Journals, Inc. Copyright © 2007 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 wwwerlbaum.com CIP information for this volume can be obtained from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-0-8058-6056-6—0-8058-6056-8 (case) ISBN 978-0-8058-6057-3—0-8058-6057-6 (paper) ISBN 978-1-4106-1482-7—1-4106-1482-4 (e-book) Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durabi Printed in the United States of America w98 7654321CONTENTS Preface Foundations for the Future in Engineering and other Fields That Are Heavy Users of Mathematics, Science and Technology ..+.cccevevsvseseesvevsvetseeseseeseees vii Richard Lesh PART 1 What Changes are Occurring in the Kind of Problem-Solving Situations Where Mathematical o Thinking Is Needed Beyond School? Eric Hamilton Chapter1 The Meanings of Statistical Variation in the Context of Work .. . 7 Celia Hoyles and Richard Noss Chapter 2_ Problem-Solving and Learning in Everyday Structural Engineering Work .. : julie Gainsburg Chapter 3 Modeling Without End: Conflict Across Organizational and Disciplinary Boundaries in Habitat Conservation Planning ..... 57 Bruce Evan Goldstein and Rogers Hall 37 Chapter 4 Mathematical Modeling ‘in the Wild’: A Case of Hot Cognition... ZZ Wolff-Michael Roth Chapter 5 Learning in Design ......2..0c0ssescseeeseeveteeeeeeeevees 9 David Williamson Shaffer Chapter6 The Cognitive Science of Mathematics: Why Is It Relevant Rafael Néiiez PART I_What Changes Are Occurring in the Kind of Elementary-but- Powerful Mathematics Concepts That Provide i 2 Richard Lesh Chapter7 Models, Simulations, and Exploratory Environments: ‘A Tentative Taxonomy oes ees ee sees eee sees eeeteee eens 161 judah L. Schwartz This one ee APCO-G52-RBEPiv__ CONTE Chapter 8 Technology Becoming Infrastructural in Mathematics Education . 173 Jim Kaput, Richard Lesh, and Steve Hegedus Chapter 9 Why Build a Mathematical Model? Taxonomy of Situations That Create the Need for a Model to Be Developed ............ 193 Maynard Thompson and Caroline Yoon Chapter 10 Cultivating Modeling Abilities . Caroline Yoon and Maynard Thompson Chapter 11_Discrete Mathematics in 21st Century Education: “An Opportunity to Retreat from the Rush to Calculus . joseph G. Rosenstein Chapter 12_ Formalizing Learning as a Complex System: Scale Invariant Power Law Distributions in Group and Individual Decision Making Thomas Hills, Andrew C. Huford, Walter M. Stroup, and Richard Lesh 225 Chapter 13_ Systemics of Leaming for a Revised Pedagogical Agenda ......_245 Andrea A. diSessa Chapter 14_The DNR System as a Conceptual Framework for Curriculum Development and Instruction 263, Chapter 15 Aspects of Affect and Mathematical Modeling Processes ....... 281 ‘Gerald A. Goldin to Develop New Levels and Types of Understanding and Ability? . Richard Lesh and Jim Kaput Chapter 16 Beyond Efficiency: A Critical Perspective of Singapore’s Educational Reforms .............00ceecceseeeeueeeeereeees 301 Mani Le Vasan, Richard Lesh, and Mardiana Abu Bakar Chapter 17_John Dewey Revisited—Making Mathematics Practical versus Making Practice Mathematical o Richard Lesh, Caroline Yoon, and Judi Zawojewski . 315 Chapter 18 The Use of Reflection Tools in Building Personal Models of Problem-Solving «... 2.0... s0eeceesercseeeceeseteteeeees 349 Eric Hamilton, Richard Lesh, Frank Lester, and Caroline YoonCONTENTS _V Chapter 19 Diversity-by-Design: The What, Why, and How of Generativity Walter M. Stroup, Nancy Ares, Andrew C. Hurford, and Richard Lesh Chapter 20 When the Model Is a Program . 395 Fred G. Martin, Margret A. Hjalmarson, and Phillip C. Wankat Chapter 21 Uncertainty and Iteration in Design Tasks for Engineering Students . Margret A. Hjalmarson, Monica Cardella, and Philip C. Wankat Chapter 22 Teacher Development ina Large Urban District and the Impact on Students... .. 431 Roberta Y. Schorr, Lisa Warner, Darleen Gearhar, and May Samuels Chapter 23 Directions for Future Research ......... sees eee eee neers 449 Richard Lesh, Eric Hamilton, and Jim Kaput Author Index . 6.6... eee ee eee » 455 Subject Index cee nes 463Copyrighted materialPREFACE Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education Richard Lesh Indiana University In fields ranging from aeronautical engineering to agriculture, and from biotech- nologies to business administration, outside advisors to future-oriented university programs increasingly emphasize the fact that, beyond school, the nature of prob- lem solving activities has changed dramatically during the past twenty 20 years. For example, powerful tools for computation, conceptualization, and communi- cation have led to fundamental changes in the levels and types of mathematical understandings and abilities that are needed for success in such fields. These obser- vations raise the following questions. What is the nature of typical problem-solving situations where elementary-but-powerful mathe- matical constructs and conceptual systems are needed for success in a technology-based age of information? What kind of “mathematical thinking” is emphasized in these situations? What does it mean to “understand” the most important of these ideas and abilities? How do these com- petencies develop? What can be done to facilitate development? How can we document and assess the most important (deeper, higher-order, more powerful) achievements that are needed: (i for injormed citizenship, or (ii) for successful participation in the increasingly wide range of professions that are becoming heavy users of mathematics, science, and technology? Authors in this book believe that such questions should be investigated through research—not simply resolved through political processes (such as those that are used in the development of curriculum standards or tests). We also believe that researchers with broad and deep expertise in mathematics and science should play significant roles in such research—and that input should be sought, not just from creators of mathematics (i.e., “pure” mathematicians), but also heavy users of mathematics (e.g., “applied” mathematicians and scientists). This is because the questions listed above are about the changing nature of mathematics and situations where mathematics is used; they are not simply questions about the nature of students, human minds, human information processing capabilities, or human development. Viiyili__ PREFACE The chapters in this book evolved out of a series of meetings that were held during the spring, summer, and fall of 2004. The first meetings were sponsored by Purdue University’s Schoo! Mathematics & Science Center; and, the later meetings were sponsored by Indiana University’s Center for Learning & Technology. The chief goal of these meetings was to develop key elements of a research agenda aimed at investigating the questions posed above. However, the following ques- tions also were considered. Why do students who score well on traditional standardized tests often perform poorly in more complex “rea! life” situations where mathematical thinking is needed? Why do students who have poor records of performance in school often perform exceptionally well in relevant “real life” situations? These latter questions emerged because many participants shared the experi- ence of encountering our former mathematics students when they appeared several years later in courses or jobs where the mathematics that we tried to teach them would have been useful. In some cases, we have been discouraged by how little was left from what we thought we had taught. On the other hand, we often were equally impressed that some students whose classroom performances were unim- pressive went on to develop a great deal from seeds that we apparently helped to lant. P Upon further reflection and research about the preceding issues, most of us gradually developed the opinion that, for most topics that we have tried to teach, the kind of mathematical understandings and abilities that are emphasized in mathematics textbooks and tests tend to represent only a shallow, narrow, and often non-central subset of those that are needed for success when the relevant ideas should be useful in “real life” situations. For example, in projects such as Purdue University’s Gender Equity in Engineering Project (Zawojeski et al., in press), when students’ abilities and achievements were assessed using tasks that were designed to be simulations of “real life” problem solving situations, the majority of understandings and abilities that emerged as being critical for success included were not among those emphasized in traditional textbooks or tests. Con- sequently, when we recognized the importance of a broader range of deeper understandings and abilities, a broader range of students naturally emerged as having extraordinary potential. Furthermore, many of these students came from populations that are highly under represented in fields that emphasize mathemat- ics, science, and technology; and this was true precisely because their abilities were previously unrecognized. Such observations return us to the following fun- damental question: What kind of understandings and abilities should be emphasized to decrease mismatches between: (i) the narrow band of mathematical understandings and abilities that are emphasized in mathematics classrooms and tests, and (ti) those that are needed for success beyond school in the 21st century? Many people assume that students simply need practice with ideas and abili- ties that have been considered to be “basics” in the past. Others assume that oldPREFACE _ 1x conceptions of “basics” should be replaced by completely new topics and ideas (such as those associated with complexity theory, discrete mathematics, systems theory, or computational modeling). Still others assume that new levels and type of understanding are needed for both old and new ideas. Examples include under- standings that emphasize graphics-based or computation-based representational media. My own perspectives lean toward this third option—without denying the legitimacy of the other two. But, each of these issues will be addressed later by authors throughout this book. So, no attempt will be made to resolve them here. Let me simply point out that, when such issues were discussed by authors in this book, three levels of students were given special attention. Undergraduate students preparing for leadership positions in fields, such as engineering, where mathematical and scientific thinking tend to be emphasized. Middle-school students who, with proper educational opportunities, could have the potential to succeed in universities such as Purdue or Indiana University, which specialize in a variety of fields that are increasingly heavy users of mathe- matics, science, and technology. Teachers (as well as professors and teaching assistants) of the preceding students. For K-12 students and teachers, questions about the changing nature of mathe- matics (and mathematically thinking beyond school) might be rephrased to ask: If attention focuses on preparation for success in fields that are increasingly heavy users of ‘mathematics, science, and technology, how should traditional conceptions of the 3R’s (Read- ing, wRiting, and aRithmetic) be extended or reconceived to prepare students for success beyond school in the 21° century? The book is partitioned into three sections. The first focuses on naturalistic observations aimed at clarifying what kind of “mathematical thinking” people really do when they are engaged in “real life” problem solving or decision- making situations beyond school. The second section shifts attention toward changes that have occurred in kinds of elementary-but-powerful mathematical concepts, topics, and tools that have evolved recently—and that could replace past notions of “basics” by providing new foundations for the future. This second section also ini- tiates discussions about what it means to “understand” the preceding ideas and abilities. Finally, the third section extends these discussions about meaning and understanding—and emphasizes teaching experiments aimed at investigating how instructional activities can be designed to facilitate the development of the preced- ing ideas and abilities. Overall, what the chapters in this book suggest is that, if our goal is to create a K-16 mathematics curriculum that will be adequate to prepare students for informed citizenship—as well as preparing them for career opportunities in learn- ing organizations, in knowledge economies, in an age of increasing globaliza- tion—then it is not likely to be sufficient to simply make incremental changes in the existing curriculum whose traditions developed out of the needs of industrial societies. Throughout this book, the challenge that was given to authors was not so much to state conclusions from our research, but rather to use results from our research to describe promising directions for a research agenda related to the questions posed in this introduction to the project.X__ PREFACE REFERENCES Zawojewski, J. S., Diefes-Dux, H., & Bowman, K. (Eds.) (in press). (under development). Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences forall studentsPART I What Changes Are Occurring in the Kind of Problem-Solving Situations Where Mathematical Thinking Is Needed Beyond School? Eric Hamilton United States Air Force Academy The chapters in Part A present ethnographies describing several workplace settings in which significant types of mathematical thinking are needed. This collection of ethnographies clarifies the nature of mathematics-rich thinking and problem- solving that these settings tend to emphasize. Ethnographies specialize in highlighting and analyzing structural relationships of a social system, in contrast to other approaches that focus on isolating and test- ing single variables within the system. The environments or systems under study in the following chapters involve factory statistical process control (Hoyles and Noss); architectural design (Shaffer); structural engineering (Gainsburg); a fish hatchery (Roth); and conservation biologists (Goldstein and Hall), Education requirements in each of these venues vary from high school level to advanced degree training. The mathematics most useful in modeling and solving problems varies as much as the environments themselves. Each author employs a different analytic framework. Hoyles and Noss and Roth anchor their respective studies in activity theory: Hoyles and Noss seek to expose multiple layers of statistical thinking involved in minimizing factory out- puts variances; Roth documents the mediating roles of emotion and identity in a technician's fish hatchery care. Gainsburg’s and Goldstein and Hall’s cognitive ethnographies trace structural engineers and conservation biologists’ mathematical modeling journeys when solving real life problems. Shaffer's structural ethnogra- phy describes and analyzes the induction of students in MIT’s Oxford Studio into mathematics-rich norms and practices of the architectural design community. In 12__ HAMILTON each study and more generally, one significant aspect of workplaces is that indi- viduals must master new technological tools and their interfaces. For example, suc- cessful preparation for the workplace typically includes mastering simple but pro- found tools such as spreadsheets, databases, and system-visualization software; mastering more sophisticated tools associated with specific professions; and find- ing new ways to model and analyze mathematics-related tasks. Part A studies also illustrate how understanding the limitations of modeling tools are now in each suc- cessful modern problem-solver’s repertoire. Examples in these chapters include software systems providing stress tolerance estimates (Gainsburg) or statistical sys- tems that report production variances (Hoyles & Noss). Knowing when and why tools such as these are riot useful is as important as knowing how to use them. In general, facility with complex tools, understanding and adapting to rapid changes in those tools, and communicating with them, are all part of what Hoyles call “techno-mathematical literacies” et al (2003). New tools imply modeling prob- lems or mediating problems in new ways. Problems themselves change as rapidly as the professions and social structures in which they are embedded change. No occupations in these ethnographies involve the same mathematical modeling char- acteristics required 10 or 20 years previously. Actoss virtually the full spectrum of occupations in early 21st century society, the paradox holds that jobs are both easi- er and more complex than 10 or 20 years ago—provided they even existed then. More accurately, they are fundamentally different. MULTIPLE MULTIPLES In addition to changes directly related to new technologies, teams often replace individuals as problem-solving entities. More than ever, this requires increased sophistication among team members’ contributions in formulating, expressing, and testing solutions. In particular, both Hoyles & Noss and Goldstein and Hall discuss the increasing need for individuals to develop broad conceptual models of full systems of operations, and to be knowledgeable about the priorities, emphases, tools and metrics of other parties in a team. This in turn entails sophisticated repre- sentational and “cross-model” communication competencies. Distributed problem- solving and effective communication skills are one trend in incorporating multiple perspectives into mathematical models, creating models reflecting multiple constraints and priorities (mostly non-mathematical), trying multiple paths and test iterations, and arriving at any of multiple potential solutions. Each “multiple” is a problem-solving feature that is increasingly prominent in real-world settings where tasks become more complex and interconnected and require distributed expertise, accountability and collaborative structures. ALL MATHEMATICS IS LOCAL Ethnographic approaches carry an especially compelling methodological value documenting mathematics needed beyond school. The chapters in Part A converge around the finding that mathematical problem-solving character in a real-world setting is inextricably intertwined with that setting’s structure. The five reported workplaces are distinctive. They collectively stress what mightbe considered a par- allel to the maxim that “all politics is local.” The best description of situated and context-dependent mathematical modeling nature outside schools may be: “All mathematics is local.” That is, Part A studies make clear that problem-solving suc- cess beyond school and workplace involves seeing and manipulating mathematicsWHAT CHANG ARE OCCURRING BEYOND SCHOOL? _3 within the unique systems and representation of objects, relationships, operations, and analytic tools of a specific workplace setting. Mathematical modeling and problem-solving beyond school is context-specific. Of course, not all mathematics is local or context-specific. The abstract sys- tems that comprise formal mathematics and that are structured by definitions, axioms, and theorems are anything but local or context-specific. Formal or pure mathematics occupies a mythic place; its aesthetic features, modeling power, and position as arbiter and language of physical science give it a unique role in human knowledge. These characteristics have engendered lively and enduring debate about whether mathematics was invented or discovered. Rafael Nuiiez, the final author in this section, does not directly enter this debate in his chapter, but he does provide a provocative analysis of mathematics and its mythic character. That analysis prefaces his argument that understanding the nature of mathematics requires understanding mathematical cognition and the human activity systems contributing to its development. Nuifez elaborates on something of a rubicon between abstract mathematics and mathematical cognition, arguing there is a striking difference between static formulations of formal mathematics and the dynamic nature of mathematical cognition and problem solving as it unfolds or develops in an individual. That is, abstract mathematical formalisms necessarily become decontextualized from the mathematical cognition systems originally giving rise to the formalisms. [t is not difficult to argue that decontextualized structures of formal mathe- matics have become the foundation for modern mathematics curricula. The steady and universally recognizable pattern of introducing mathematics concepts at the beginning of a textbook section, followed by word problem “containers” embed- ding those concepts in tailor-made situations is a sizable wager on adequately preparing learners for mathematical success beyond school. It is a wager we appear not to have won. There is little evidence suggesting, for example, that building text- book word problem solving proficiencies leads to improved proficiencies using mathematics to solve problems beyond schooling. We have assumed that by decomposing formal mathematics into 1,000-2,000 sequential stand-alone lessons concepts we can additively recompose those structures through 12-16 school years to produce mathematics-proficient adults. Perhaps the alluring aesthetic and power of formal mathematics as the end-point for mathematical development masks the crucial deficiency of formal mathematics as the starting point for nurturing mathematical cognition in youngsters There is a subtle irony about the relationship between formalisms and cognition: on one hand, as an individual's mathematical cognition and modeling competencies evolve upward they necessarily gravitate toward stability and power, successively subsuming formal mathematical structures. On the other hand, simply decompos- ing mathematics downward—and modern arithmetic to calculus curriculum sequences are indeed decompositions from calculus down to arithmetic—does not appear in itself to optimally yield effective instructional building blocks. It is quite possible, for example and as argued throughout this volume, to expose youngsters to problem situations before giving them all the mathematical tools they need to solve them, instead expecting them to invent their own versions of those tools after determining they are needed. Sherra Kerns (2005), a keynote panelist at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, was one of many reflecting on the competencies required of the so-called “Engineer of 2020” (NAE, 2004). “Why,” she asked, “do we assume that we have to teach every concept before a student can use it?” The question exposes two critical fault lines in4 __ HAMILTON mathematics education. The “concept-then-word problem” sequence of most cur- riculum approaches constrains problem-solving contexts to those that often artifi- cially contain and highlight the “concept of the day.” More importantly, this approach precludes allowing youngsters the opportunity to develop new constructs themselves, out of the necessity of solving a real situation. Instead, students know by experience that the constructs needed to solve textbook word problems don’t need to be invented or developed at all—they are instead the ideas that have just been introduced the student’s main challenge is the detective work in teasing those ideas out of the text of the problem. This is an unnecessarily impoverished approach to mathematical experience. The need to develop or invent new mathematics out of necessity is precisely what historically has driven the expansion of frontiers of applied mathematics. More modestly, it is precisely the kind of problem-solving experience studies in Part A demonstrate are needed to succeed beyond school. MATHEMATICS IS PERSONAL Each of this section’s ethnographers note sizable differences between school mathe- matics and how the individuals they studied practiced mathematics. Among the con- trasts is how each reported problem solver formulates a succession of conceptual models solving complicated problems, drawing on their own unique experiences and competencies. That is, they often create or invent mathematical structures their personal conceptual models require to solve problems, structures necessarily unique to their own experience and understanding. Julie Gainsburg identifies the “co-development” of mathematical ideas and their use in solutions to new problems as a salient characteristic of successful struc- tural engineers. Michael-Wolff Roth's “Hot Cognition” study also highlights per- son-specific mathematical modeling. Considering the fuller human experience wrapped around the cognitive systems needed to solve problems dimensions is unorthodox. Through Roth's prosodic and text analysis and observation, however, it becomes clear that cognitive processes of mathematical modeling behavior are mediated by personal aspirations, identity, motivation, and affective states. Shaffer describes one critical norm that the Oxford Studio’s architectural design community seeks to impart—to absorb critique and then engage in reflective judg- ment of design iterations—as a means of highly personalizing professional practice. By analyzing how the same process control requirements are conceptualized and acted upon by different players, team leaders, managers, and statisticians in a fac- tory, Hoyles and Noss stress how layered models of the same phenomenon reflect different roles and conceptual systems of individuals who hold those models. Goldstein and Hall emphasize how broad consequence models are almost never self-contained mathematical puzzles with single authors and docile readers. What is in/out of a model is an organizational question as much as a question for indi- vidual cognition. Therefore, model negotiation across organizational boundaries is an increasingly common scientific and technical work form. In other words, each author, in a different way, stresses mathematical modeling and problem solving beyond school is both person-specific and socially shaped. PREPARING FOR MATHEMATICAL SUCCESS BEYOND SCHOOL There is no shortage among policy-makers’ calls for mathematics education to better prepare learners for the workplace and life in a complex and technologicallyWHAT CHANGES ARE OCCURRING BEYOND SCHOOL? _5 charged society. Yet despite heated controversies about mathematics education over the past decades and impressive curriculum improvement efforts, classroom practice in mathematics is almost intransigently consistent and resistant to change (Hiebert, 1999) while the world around mathematics education is changing rapidly. Given that mathematics classrooms have proven highly resistant to change for decades and society and workplaces are changing rapidly, it is not surprising school mathematics and mathematics needed beyond school are diverging rapidly. It is beyond the scope of this short introduction to suggest comprehensive alter- native curriculum practices that might legitimately contend for the trifecta, for example, of satisfying proponents of both sides of the so-called math wars of the past 10 years and better preparing for success in mathematics outside of school. Yet the chapters advance an intriguing possibility. They suggest when mathematical problem solving is vital or meaningful or carries high stakes, as is the case when done “in the wild,” it cannot be separated from the fuller enabling dimensions of affect, identity, and social structures. Mathematical cognition does not separate well from the objects, operations, or relationship contexts it can model. Of course, formal mathematics can be and is separated from context, but translation to math- ematical abstractions loses important meanings and context, as Niiiiez argues. When abstractions rather than mathematics context drive problem solving, the context dynamics are necessarily lost. In each setting, whether the goal is assuring a buildings structural integrity, reaching a three part per million factory error rate, designing a living space, or raising a healthy coho stock, the context and its mean- ing are far more important to the actors than whether they possess the mathe- matical skills to reach the goal. It is through the unique, powerful human nature of adaptivity that actors develop, invent, or otherwise acquire the mathematics needed to reach problem-solving goals. Quite to the contrary of frantic newspaper polemicists who warn that letting youngsters invent mathematical ideas encour- ages “fuzzy” or “pseudo-math,” mathematics is quite safe from subversive danger. When humans invent mathematical constructs or systems to model real-world problems, they cannot create false systems that will withstand testing. That is part of mathematics’ enduring power and mystique. It must also be noted, though, that when individuals develop their own mathematics to solve a problem, they do not necessarily create fully stable or comprehensive systems. Instead, they create for the needs at hand. This requires responding to real-world constraints, working and re-working solutions involving mathematical adaptations, engaging others in com- plex reporting or collaborative relationships, and arriving at solutions that usually are one of countless possible outcomes that fit well, but not perfectly, their con- straints. The paradox is when context rather than mathematical concepts drives modeling, mathematical modeling and adaptivity flex their muscles, and new concepts arise with great potency. Of course, the dynamics of building mathematical understandings and adapting, to real world needs are not new to twenty-first century mathematical problem- solving. But the emergence of pervasive and accessible computational and com- munication tools has dramatically altered virtually every sphere of life. That is, an increasingly complex society possessing rapidly evolving tools has created a fun- damentally different context of mathematical thinking beyond school. And context matters. Modern context requires new adaptations and new ways of thinking about mathematics curriculum. These chapters suggest that in structuring the curriculum of the future, there is wisdom in re-thinking the traditional formulation of school mathematics as means to prepare for mathematical problem solving outside of school. In asking how schooling may best prepare youngsters for the workplace,© __ HAMILTON we may actually have the school /workplace relationship incorrectly positioned, or at least miss the most salient contrast between school and workplace mathematics. Mathematical problem solving beyond schooling may give singular insight into preparing mathematical curriculum for schooling. This chapter was supported in part by National Science Institution grant 04.33573. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The views in this chapter are those of the author and do not reflect those of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19. Hoyles, C., Noss,R., Kent, P. & Guile, D. (2003). Techno-mathematical literacies in the workplace. UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant L139-25-0119. Kerns, S. (2005). Innovation in engineering education. On ASEE board of directors panel, “Highlighting the Engineer of 2020.” (D. Giddens, moderator). Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Portland. National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new ecntury,CHAPTER 1 The Meanings of Statistical Variation in the Context of Work Celia Hoyles and Richard Noss University of London The changing nature of working practices and the ubiquity of computationally based systems has brought with it the need for many employees to develop understandings of the IT-based models that are increasingly part of their working practice. Our goal in this chapter is to sketch some of the categories of mathe- matical knowledge that characterize working practices in an era of ubiquitous technology, and to explore the meanings of this mathematical knowledge— specifically statistical variation—at the boundaries between the different commu- nities of actors within them. In his stark analysis of modern working practices, Reich (1991) classifies work- ing, practices into three types; symbolic analysts, who solve, identify and broker problems by manipulating symbols, in-person services (jobs based on interaction with people) and routine producers. His thesis is that only a relatively few workers will contribute materially to the knowledge economy, and he paints a picture of the kind of education that is appropriate for such workers: Symbolic analysts solve, identify, and broker problems by manipulating symbols. They simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, experimented with, communicated to other specialists, and then, eventually, transformed back into reality (Reich, 1991). We leave aside Reich’s broader economic concems here, as they fall squarely out- side of our expertise. Reich’s thesis is, however, broadly convergent with other analyses (see, for example, Zuboff, 1988). The implications of this thesis for the kinds of knowledge required by operatives within such workplaces are relatively clear-cut. A classic case is reported by Raizen (1994) who cites Lesgold’s work with USAF technicians: the more highly skilled mechanics differed from their less skilled colleagues, chiefly in their ability to hold better “mental models of the systems they were working with (how components work, what their functions are, and how they relate to the system as a whole)...” (p. 73). The key point about symbolic analysts is that they model the processes of work into abstractions that can be communicated to other specialists. Whether or not Reich is right in the detail, his central contention that it is the manipulation of symbols rather than things is beyond doubt. The question, however, is not8 _HOYLES AND NOSS only to understand what the symbol-analyzers need to know to develop useful symbolic representations of the workplace, but what the implications are for those who ‘consume’ the results of the symbol-analyzers. In particular, in the years that have elapsed since Reich proposed his analysis, the relationships and intersections between different layers of the workforce have shifted in significant ways. Part of our agenda in this chapter is to seek to reshape our understandings of who needs to know what, and the ways in which the knowl- edge takes on a different character in relation to the sub-communities of practice within workplaces. THE INVISIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AT WORK First we consider a major epistemological and methodological difficulty, which con- cerns the invisibilily of knowledge at work. From a socio-cultural point of view, the invisibility of knowledge required in modern work has been commented on by many authors (see, for example, Nardi and Engestrém, 1999). From this perspective, invis- ibility is seen to apply to entire swathes of working practices, such as cleaning or maintenance, rendering the individuals and communities concerned unnoticed and ignored, their place in the chain of work-related activity disregarded, For example, Bishop (1999) argues that distinguishing between visible and invisible work affords an understanding of the ways employment relations are emerging in post-industrial societies, and calls into question a set of implicit assumptions that all invisible work ‘should be made visible’. From a rather different orientation, Star and Strauss (1999) consider instances that exhibit a range of indicators of what counts as work and how it appears in different situations. These include the creation of a ‘non-person’ (in which the employee but not the work is invisible), taken-for-granted work that they characterize as ‘disembedded background work’ in which the workers are visible, but their work is not, and the abstraction and manipulation of indicators—a catego- ry that comes closer to our own concerns, in which both work and people come to be defined as invisible. This last class emerges in two cases: i. Formal and quantitative indicators of work are abstracted away from the work settings, and become the basis for resource allocation and decision- making. When productivity is quantified through a series of indirect indicators, for example, the legitimacy of work may rest with the manipulation of those indicators by those who never see the work situation first hand. ii, The products of work are commodities purchased at a distance from the setting of work. Both the work and the workers are invisible to the consumers, who nonetheless passively contribute to their silencing and continuing invisibility (Star & Strauss, 199). While questions of legitimacy and silencing are important and challenging facets of the invisibility of work, our concerns are primarily with the visibility of knowledge held by persons or communities (rather than of persons themselves or the products of their labor). Knowledge, of course, does not come out of nowhere: it is embedded in people, in contexts, and in situations. Nevertheless, there are, we believe, impor- tant aspects of the problem that cannot be captured without a corresponding focus on the ways that knowledge in general and mathematical knowledge in particular—not just people—has been transformed in the modern workplace.THE MEANINGS OF STATISTICAL VARIATION _9 Concems with the ways that mathematical knowledge is used in workplaces pre- dates the demographic and organizational shifts engendered by technology and has tended to pay more attention to the visibility or invisibility of the knowledge, in con- trast to research in the socio-cultural tradition, as mentioned above (for an overview of research in mainly non-technical settings, see Bessot & Ridgeway, 2000). Mathematical knowledge is judged as invisible as it tends to be deeply embedded within the representational infrastructures of the models, tools and artifacts of the workplace. Our own work with bank employees, nurses and engineers has evidenced this invisibility and has shown how mathematical knowledge in use is characterized by fragmented and pragmatic strategies intertwined with meanings of the mathemat- ical knowledge and situational “noise”; and that mathematical knowledge is trans- formed when it crosses boundaries between different situations or settings (Hoyles & Noss, 1996; Hoyles et al., 2001; Noss et al., 2002; Kent & Noss, 2002; fora summary see Noss, 2002). Others have reported similar outcomes following research in technical workplaces, such as the automotive industry (Smith & Douglas, 1997; structural engi- neering, Hall & Stevens, 1995, and Hall, 1999; and industrial chemistry laboratories, Wake & Williams, 2001, and Williams & Wake, 2002). It must also be noted that the invisibility of mathematical knowledge is compounded by the general perception that mathematical and technological competencies consist of sets of decontextualized skills or techniques, disconnected from each other, and from their context of applica- tion (see, e.g., Smith & Douglas, 1997; Clayton, 1999), an issue that may be genera- tional differences in interpretation (see Zevenbergen, 2004). Alll these studies have had to face the methodological challenge of making vis- ible the embedded mathematics of the practice in order to study and analyze it. Most have undertaken ethnographies, often focusing on “disruptions” in the rou- tines of work or on communication across different representational infrastructures (Hall, 1999; Noss et al., 2002). Yet despite its invisibility, Hall et al. (2002) have argued that what makes subject-matter knowledge systems powerful is also what makes them difficult to study; it is powerful knowledge that is both widely distributed and massively influential in shaping the ways people interpret their working activities, while at the same time, profoundly embedded in the represen- tational infrastructures that permeate working practices. From a methodological point of view, Hall et al—like us—regard enhancing the visibility of subject-matter knowledge as a crucial analytical challenge. We therefore now provide a brief overview of the methods used in our previ- ousand ongoing studies, which we use to provide the illustrative empirical data in this chapter. METHODS In each new study of a particular work sector or factory, we have established a modus operandi that consists of five main components: interviews (which may be telephone, audio-recorded) with site or technical managers, 's (involving work shadowing, and impromptu interviews where appropriate), iterative analy- ses (ongoing throughout the site visits), cross-factor analysis to draw out common components, and validation of analyses (with stakeholders within the work sector). Initially, a list of companies in a particular sector of work is drawn up following, consultation with and advice from the relevant professional organization, from which a sample for case study is selected by the project team to represent as far as possible the spread within the sector and geographical locations. It is worth noting