2001 Kazemi Stipek Conceptual Thinking

Promoting Conceptual Thinking in Four Upper-Elementary Mathematics Classrooms
Author(s): Elham Kazemi and Deborah Stipek

Source: The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Sep., 2001), pp. 59-80
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002169
Accessed: 03-01-2017 17:23 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002169?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Elementary School Journal
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:23:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Promoting Conceptual Abstract
Thinking in Four Informed by theory and research in inquiry-

based mathematics, this study examined how
Upper-Elementary classroom practices create a press for conceptual
learning. Using videotapes of a lesson on the ad-
Mathematics dition of fractions in 4 primarily low-income
classrooms from 3 schools, we analyzed conver-
sations that create a high or lower press for con-
Classrooms ceptual thinking. We use examples of interac-
tions from these fourth- and fifth-grade lessons
to propose that a high press for conceptual think-
ing is characterized by the following sociomath-
Elham Kazemi ematical norms: (a) an explanation consists of a
mathematical argument, not simply a procedural
University of Washington description; (b) mathematical thinking involves
understanding relations among multiple strate-
gies; (c) errors provide opportunities to recon-
Deborah Stipek ceptualize a problem, explore contradictions in
Stanford University solutions, and pursue alternative strategies; and
(d) collaborative work involves individual ac-
countability and reaching consensus through
mathematical argumentation.
For over a decade, the mathematics educa-

tion community has encouraged teachers to
shift their classroom practices away from an
exclusive focus on computational accuracy
and toward a focus on deeper understand-
ings of mathematical ideas, relations, and
concepts (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Lam-
pert, 1991, National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, 1989, 2000). Implementing
recommendations from research in the
classroom is a complex task for teachers.
The NCTM standards (1989, 2000) ask
teachers to create conditions of learning for
their students and to engage in practices
that most teachers did not experience them-
selves as students and were not initially
The Elementary School Journal trained to do as teachers (Cohen & Ball,
Volume 102, Number 1
1990; Fullan, 1991).
? 2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0013-5984/2001/10201-0004$02.00
Studies of teacher learning have dem-
60 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
onstrated that teachers are often able to im- vividly how teachers can promote student
plement some aspects of reform-minded participation in a classroom community
mathematics instruction. They give multi- where conceptual understandings are val-
level problems that are connected to real- ued and developed.
world experiences, provide manipulatives Drawing from the work of Cobb and
for students to use, and offer opportunitiesYackel and their colleagues, we differentiate
for children to work collaboratively in pairsbetween social norms and sociomathemati-
and small groups. They ask students to cal norms. Social norms refer to the general
present their strategies and solutions to the ways that students participate in classroom
class, and they try to make mathematics ac-activities. Sociomathematical norms are spe-
tivities interesting. To go beyond superfi- cific to students' mathematical activities
cial implementation of the NCTM stan-(Cobb, Wood, & Yackel, 1993; Cobb & Yackel,
dards, however, it is important to stimulate 1996; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). For example,
students' conceptual understanding ofwhereas explaining one's thinking is a social
mathematics (e.g., Ball, 1993; Cobb, Wood, norm, what counts as a mathematical expla-
& Yackel, 1993; Cobb, Wood, Yackel, & nation is a sociomathematical norm (Yackel
McNeal, 1993; Cohen, 1990; Fennema, Car-& Cobb, 1996). Similarly, although the more
penter, Franke, & Carey, 1993; Prawat, superficial practice of discussing different
1992). The more superficial changes men- strategies is a social norm, comparing the
tioned above are necessary, but they are not
mathematical concepts underlying different
sufficient for helping students build so- strategies is a sociomathematical norm. Fi-
phisticated understandings of mathemat- nally, working on tasks in small groups is a
social norm; requiring students to achieve
ics. Many teachers find it easy to pose ques-
tions and ask students to describe their consensus using mathematical arguments is
a sociomathematical norm.
strategies; it is more challenging pedagogi-
cally to engage students in genuine mathe- The distinction between social and so-
matical inquiry and push them to go beyondciomathematical norms is useful for study-
what might come easily for them ing (Ballhow& classroom practices move beyond
Bass, in press; Chazan & Ball, 1995; Fennema
superficial features of reform. We sought to
et al., 1996; Franke, Carpenter, Fennema, identify
An- the sociomathematical norms in
sell, & Behrend, 1998; Heaton, 1993). classrooms that promote students' engage-
In this study we examined ways ment inin conceptual mathematical thinking
which classroom practices press students and conversation. We draw examples from
for conceptual mathematical thinkingfour (Blu-classrooms to generate hypotheses
menfeld, Puro, & Mergendoller, 1992). Thethe ways in which subtle differences
about
study was guided by a sociocultural theoryin teaching practices can affect students' op-
of learning, which asserts that one can un-
portunities to engage in conceptual thinking.
derstand individual learning by studying In many respects, the lessons we ob-
served were similar. The social norms of de-
how the social environment is organized
and how individuals participate in scribing
social and sharing strategies, accepting
practices (Forman, Minick, & Stone, errors
1993; as a normal part of learning, and
Moll, 1990; Rogoff, 1997; Vygotsky, working
1978). collaboratively with classmates ex-
The theoretical framework contrasts with isted in all four classrooms. A closer look at
classroom talk, however, revealed subtle
approaches that focus on specific teaching
techniques. A sociocultural perspective can
but important differences in the quality of
help researchers examine whether teachingstudents' engagement with mathematics.
practices engage learners in purposeful and
We use examples of classroom exchanges to
in-depth inquiry (e.g., Rogoff, 1994). The
suggest how sociomathematical norms gov-
erned classroom discussions.
primary goal of this study was to describe
SEPTEMBER 2001
CONCEPTUAL THINKING 61
Method on the basis of a description of the practices

Data Source associated with each dimension. From the
This study involved four teachersresults

in of a factor analysis, the dimensions
were
grades 4 and 5, all teaching the same lesson collapsed into composite variables,
on the addition of fractions. The teachers which yielded scores from 1 to 5.
were selected from a larger project of reform- Two composite variables were used to
minded mathematics instruction, the Inte- select classroom cases for this study. The
grated Mathematics Assessment (IMA) pro- first was labeled "press for learning." Scores
on
ject (see Gearhart et al., 1999; Saxe, Gearhart, this composite variable reflected the de-
& Seltzer, 1999; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & gree to which teachers engaged students in
MacGyvers, 1998; and Stipek, Salmon, et al., mathematical thinking, specifically, how
1998). The project was designed to study the much they (a) emphasized student effort
role of curriculum and professional support (e.g., encouraging students to work through
in enhancing students' opportunities to learn difficult problems and find multiple solu-
mathematics with understanding. The larger tions); (b) focused on learning and under-
project included 23 upper-elementary teach- standing (e.g., emphasizing the develop-
ers from schools in a large, ethnically di- ment of better understandings, asking
verse, urban area in California. All of the students to explain their strategies); (c) sup-
teachers taught in schools serving predomi- ported students' autonomy (e.g., encourag-
nantly low-income children. ing student self-evaluation, giving students
choices, encouraging personal responsibil-
Selection of Classroom Interactions ity); and (d) deemphasized performance
(e.g., getting answers right). Quantitative
All four teachers selected for this
findings, reported elsewhere, showed a sig-
study had experience implementing re- positive correlation between the de-
nificant
form-oriented curricula and a variety gree ofof press in the observed lessons and
practices consistent with the social norms growth in students' conceptual understand-
of mathematics reform. Ms. Carter and Ms.
ing of fractions (r = .51, p < .05) (see Stipek,
Martin both taught in the same school. Both Salmon, et al., 1998). The positive affect scale
had master's degrees and 22 years of teach- was not significantly related to change in
ing experience. Ms. Andrew and Ms. Reed conceptual understanding.
taught in two other schools. Ms. Andrew The press for learning scale came closest
had a bachelor's degree and 2 years of to reflecting the substantive focus on math-
teaching experience. Ms. Reed had a mas- ematical understanding that we wanted to
ter's degree and 17 years of teaching expe- investigate further. Thus, we selected the
rience. (All names are pseudonyms.) two lessons that scored the highest in press
Videotaped lessons were originally (Ms. Carter, 4.4; Ms. Martin, 4.63), and two
coded using a scheme guided by research on lessons that were lower in press (Ms. An-
effective motivational strategies for engag- drew and Ms. Reed, both equaling 3.31). We
ing students in instruction, and the class- purposefully did not select cases that were
room cases for this study were selected coded lowest in press because we were in-
based on scores from the motivation coding terested in capturing subtle differences
scheme (see Stipek, Salmon, et al., 1998, for among lessons that appeared to adhere to
a full description of coding schemes and some of the superficial features of inquiry-
data set). The lessons had been coded relia- oriented mathematics.
bly on nine motivation dimensions by two The second motivation composite we
raters. For each dimension, lessons were used to select cases was labeled "positive
rated on a scale from 1 ("not at all like this affect" because it conveyed the degree to
teacher") to 5 ("very much like this teacher") which the classroom appeared as a positive
social environment. Itfourwas composed

classrooms by drawing from of the
Cobb and
following dimensions, his colleagues' use of the construct "social to
which reflected
what extent teachersnorms." We propose that the
(a) displayed notion of
a positive
norms provides
demeanor toward students the basis
(e.g., for a more de-
sensitivity,
respect, interest); (b) displayed
scriptive framework thatenthusiasm
allows us to cap-
and interest in mathematics; and
ture the differences in (c) fos-
mathematical con-
tered a nonthreatening versationsenvironment
in the classrooms. We begin (e.g.,
by
conveying that mistakes enumerating are okay,
the social provid-
norms evident in all
ing scaffolding for four children
cases that we having diffi-
argue are necessary but
culty, not tolerating notstudents
sufficient to achieve putting one
conceptual think-
another down). The component ing and learning. Theseof fourfostering
norms are re-
a supportive environment flected across overlaps
both the positivewith the
affect and
social norm of allowing mistakes
press for learning dimensions: (a)to be a
students
normal part of learning. To thinking;
describe their ensure that
(b) students findthe
comparisons focusedmultiple on differences in
ways to solve problems, and they the
mathematical normsdescribe (roughly represented
their strategies to their classmates
by the press for learning and teacher;subscale) and
(c) students can make were
mistakes,
not confounded with the
which general
are a normal part of themotiva-
learning pro-
tional climate, we selected cases for this cess; and (d) students collaborate to find so-
study that all had high scores on the posi- lutions to problems. Those social norms are
tive affect scale (Ms. Carter, 4.00; Ms. Mar- consistent with the NCTM standards for
tin, 4.33; Ms. Andrew, 4.25; Ms. Reed, 4.17). mathematical inquiry. Together they pro-
The high-press cases were both fifth-grade vide the opportunity for students and
classrooms, and the low-press cases were teachers to create an intellectual climate that
fourth-grade classrooms. We were initially values exploration of challenging mathe-
concerned that the differences in grade matical concepts.
would interfere with the study's purpose.
Yet, our goal was not to measure students' The Lesson and Tasks
understandings of fractions but the nature of
All four teachers independently shaped
mathematical conversations. Although it
and adapted their lesson on the addition of
may be reasonable to expect fifth-grade stu-
fractions from Seeing Fractions (Corwin,
dents to know more than fourth-grade stu-
Russell, & Tierney, 1990), a replacement unit
dents, it is also reasonable to expect that both
designed to be consistent with California's
fourth and fifth graders could engage in con-
mathematics framework (California State
ceptual conversations about mathematics.
Department of Education, 1992). The lesson
The coding scheme used in these quan-
involves the partitioning of brownies. The
titative analyses reduced complicated and
unit plan provides one sample problem that
subtle differences among classrooms to a
the teacher may present to the entire class,
simple five-point scale. The rating scales
provided scores based on the kinds of in- followed with three similar problems that
teractions teachers and students had in the students solve independently or in small
groups. A sample problem reads as follows:
classroom, but they could not provide a de-
tailed or vivid picture of classroom talk and
were therefore not useful in illustrating the I invited 8 people to a party (including
subtle differences in the ways in which me), and I had 12 brownies. How much
classroom talk could move beyond super- did each person get if everyone got a fair
share? Later my mother got home with 9
ficial features of explaining and comparing more brownies. We can always eat more
solution strategies.
brownies, so we shared these out equally
We recast the similarities among these too. This time how much brownie did
SEPTEMBER 2001
each person get? How ing much brownie

student strategies; and (c) did
concluding
each person eat altogether? (p. summaries
the lesson. We created 76) of small-
group interactions using the following cate-
By working on the gories:
problem,
(a) nature of students
the activity and (b)grap
na-
ple with equivalence. Teachers may
ture of teacher monitoring choose
and feedback.
to distribute sheets ofIn thepaper with
second phase, 16
transcripts frompre-
all
drawn squares for students to use in solving
of the student-focused tapes were reviewed
the problems. The incurriculum
detail. Summaries wereguide en-
created using
courages teachers tothe
allow
following students to work
categories: (a) the nature of
in pairs or small groups.
student-student interactions during small-
The brownie lesson uses an area model
group activities and (b) the effects of teacher
of fractions as a way for students to develop
feedback to pairs or groups of students.
understandings of part-whole relations,
We analyzed summaries from the first
equivalence, and the addition of fractions
and second phases for similarities and dif-
(Gearhart et al., 1999; Saxe et al., 1999). The
ferences among the cases. We created a
brownie problems ask students to partition
chart to compare first the teacher's role and
areas into fair shares and add areas that are
then the students' roles in classroom con-
partitioned differently. Students often draw
versations on the following dimensions: de-
out their solutions and thus must link their
veloping the mathematics lesson, the use of
graphical representations to appropriate
numerical ones. mathematical language, any modifications
the teacher made to the original Seeing Frac-
tions unit, questions posed, and the enact-
Data Analysis
ment of classroom discussions. Next, we an-
The study involved qualitative analyses
alyzed the students' level of engagement in
of videotaped instruction. Graduate stu-
the mathematics lesson. We noted the depth
dents working on the project focused one
camera on the teacher and another camera and breadth of student participation during
whole-class segments, the interactions
on several groups of students throughout
among students during whole-class and
the lesson. The authors were not present
small-group discussions, and evidence of
during the taping. Transcripts were created
student frustration or persistence.
for each tape. All of the teachers taught the
The summaries and charts allowed us to
lesson over 2 days, except Ms. Reed, who
become familiar, in a detailed way, with the
taught it in 1 day. Each day of instruction
lasted approximately 1 hour, creating interactions
2 during the lessons. The content
of summaries and charts was then related
hours of videotape per teacher per day.
to the social norms that we identified. We
We analyzed transcripts of the video-
used our summary notations as well as ver-
taped lessons systematically in several
batim exchanges from the transcripts to
phases. In the first phase, transcripts from
make a final compilation of classroom in-
all of the teacher-focused videotapes were
teractions and events that revealed what
read line by line. Notes were taken in the
margins to keep a running record of what happened when students (a) described
was occurring during the lesson. We then strategies, (b) compared strategies, (c) made
created formal summaries on teacher mistakes, and (d) worked together. We
moves and teacher-student interactionslooked across cases to develop our charac-
terization of the sociomathematical norms
during whole-class and small-group activi-
that derived from each of the social norms.
ties. The summaries served as a descriptive
overview of the lesson. Whole-class discus- We looked for both confirming and discon-
sions were summarized using the following firming evidence by examining each type of
categories: (a) setting up the lesson; (b) shar-
interaction captured by the videos.
Results ing in a classroom. We cannot claim that the

patterns of discourse were consistent in
A casual observer of the lessons we video-
each classroom. Nor do we claim that every
taped would have seen students working
interaction followed a similar pattern for
together, led by positive, supportive, caring
each teacher in the lesson we observed.
teachers. On the surface, students appeared
to be focused on understanding mathemat- There was, however, a clear pattern of dif-
ferences in exchanges between the two sets
ics. A deeper analysis of these lessons, how-
ever, revealed important differences in theof classrooms in the nature and quality of
quality of mathematical discourse. We mathematical conversation, which we de-
scribe next.
found exchanges in which students were
engaged in deeper mathematical inquiry,
using mathematical arguments to debate An Explanation Consists of a
and test strategies, in two of the four lessons Mathematical Argument
(Ms. Carter's and Ms. Martin's classes). A fundamental focus of inquiry-based
Analyses of the differences between mathematics
the is that students explain their
thinking. Many classrooms are governed by
high- and low-press teacher-student inter-
that norm. But, students can describe the
actions suggested that the higher standard
was achieved by sociomathematical norms steps they took to solve a problem without
that corresponded to the social normsexplaining
we why the solution works mathe-
matically.
identified: (a) an explanation consists of a To push students' conceptual
mathematical argument, not simply athinking,
pro- teachers should ask students to
cedural description or summary; (b) math-
justify their strategies mathematically.
ematical thinking involves understanding High press. In high-press exchanges, stu-
relations among multiple strategies; (c)dents
er- went beyond descriptions or sum-
maries of steps to solve a problem; they
rors provide opportunities to reconceptual-
ize a problem, explore contradictions inlinked
so- their problem-solving strategies to
mathematical
lutions, or pursue alternative strategies; and reasons. In whole-class set-
(d) collaborative work involves individual tings, teachers expected presentations of
accountability and reaching consensus
strategies to include both explanation and
through mathematical argumentation. justification. This is illustrated in the follow-
ing excerpt, in which Ms. Carter asked
Our argument here is that our high-
press examples demonstrated how the so-Sarah and Jasmine to describe how they di-
ciomathematical norms were enacted. We vided nine brownies equally among eight
cannot demonstrate how these norms were people and to explain why they chose par-
established, but we can show what it means
ticular partitioning strategies (see Fig. 1).
for them to be in place during classroom
conversations. Using descriptions and tran- Sarah: The first four, we cut
scripts of classroom activity, we describe them in half. [Jasmine
next how each of the sociomathematical divides squares in
half on an overhead
norms was evident in high- but not low-
transparency.]
press exchanges, drawing distinctions be-
tween whole-class discussions and small- Ms. Carter: Now as you explain,
could you explain
group activity settings when appropriate. It why you did it in
is important to note that we elaborate on the half?
sociomathematical norms by using illustra- Sarah: Because when you put

it in half, it becomes
tive exchanges in each of the four cases. We
... eight halves.
use these cases to hypothesize about the
Ms. Carter: Eight halves. What
kinds of conversations and interactional does that mean if
patterns that can promote conceptual think- there are eight halves?
SEPTEMBER 2001
1/2 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 mean by that? I heard

the words, but ...
[Jasmine shades in 1/8
of each of the five
1G.3 4 6 7among eight people brownies not divided
in half.]
Jasmine: Person one would get
this ... [Points to one
eighth.]
Ms. Carter: Oh, out of each
brownie.
Sarah: Out of each brownie,
one person will get 1/8.
Ms. Carter: 1/8. Okay. So how
much then did they
get if they got their
fair share?
FIG. 1.-Sharing nine brownies among eight people
Jasminel
Sarah: They got a 1/2 and 5/8.
Ms. Carter: Do you want to write
Sarah: Then each person gets that down at the top,
a half.
so I can see what you
Ms. Carter: Okay, that each per- did? [Jasmine writes 1/2
son gets a half. [Jas- + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8
mine labels halves 1-
+ 1/8 at the top of the
8 for each of the eight overhead projector.]
people.]
Sarah: Then there were five
The
boxes [brownies] left. exchange among Sarah, Jasmine, and
We put them in Ms. Carter highlighted the conceptual focus
eighths. of the lesson on fair share. Ms. Carter asked
Ms. Carter: Okay, so they divided
them into eighths. Sarah to explain the importance of having
Could you tell us why eight halves and the reason why the parti-
you chose eighths? tioning strategy using eighths made sense.
Sarah: It's easiest. Because
After Jasmine gave a verbal justification, Ms.
then everyone will get
Carter continued to press her thinking by
... each person will
asking her to link her verbal response to the
get a half and [whis-
pers to Jasmine] appropriate
How pictorial representation by shad-
many eighths? ing the pieces, and to the symbolic represen-
Jasmine: [Quietly to Sarah]
tation 1/8.
by writing the sum of the fractions.
Ms. Carter: I didn't know why Examples from Ms. Martin's teaching
you did it in eighths.
That's the reason. Ialso illustrated the norm that descriptions
just wanted to know needed to consist of a mathematical argu-
why you chose ment. This norm was evident in whole-class
eighths. discussions, seen below as a pair of boys
Jasmine: We did eighths be- presented their solution to a problem:
cause then if we did
eighths, each person
would get each Luis: There were six crows, and we
eighth, I mean 1/8 out made, like, a color dot on them...
of each brownie. There were four brownies, and we
Ms. Carter: Okay, 1/8 out of each divided three of them into halves
brownie. Can you and the last one into sixths. One of
just, you don't have to the crows got 1/2 and 1/6.
number, but just Chris: Each crow got 1/2 and 1/6. In our sec-
show us what you ond step we had three brownies
and we divided them in half. So Sam: They're very clear, and you
each crow got 1/2. /2 plus 1/6 equals can see exactly what they
%. So we have 1/2 and 1/6 and right wanted you to see.
here is %. [He points to two Ms. Martin: What did they want you to
squares, one divided into half and see?
then 3/6 and the other into sixths. Sam: How they added /2and 1/6.
% had been shaded in each Ms. Martin: And what do you see about
brownie; see Fig. 2.] the adding of the /2and 1/6?
Luis: Just to prove that it's the same. Carrie: [They] shaded it in.
Then % is what they got here, plus Ms. Martin: Okay, they shaded it in.
1/2. And 1/2 is equal to 3/6. %/6 plus 3/6 What do you notice about
is equal to one whole and 1/6. the parts that are shaded in?
The /2 plus the 1/6 and the %?
Do you see anything? No.
Luis interjected into Chris's explanation a [Waits.] Jamie, you had your
drawing of equivalent areas (replicated in hand up, what do you see?
Jamie: The first section is the same
Fig. 2) to show their method for proving
as the first step, it shows 1/2
their conclusion. The example suggests that and 1/6. They divided the 1/2
students understood that they needed to be into sixths and they got 3/6.
prepared to demonstrate their mathemati- They added % plus /2. They
cal argument for equivalence graphically asdid an equivalent fraction
for it. The first section is the
well as verbally.
same as the first step, and
After the two boys presented their so-the second section is the
lution, Ms. Martin asked the class to com- same as the second step
ment on the pair's drawings. She invited [showing] how much each
everyone, not just the students at the board, crow got.
to think about how the students had solved Sam: All of the parts they made
are equal and [they showed]
the problem. The teacher initiated a discus- both of the steps that they
sion that required students to 'focus on the took to add the portions.
mathematical concept of equivalence andMs. Martin: So their diagrams and illus-
its relation to the process of adding frac- trations are accurately rep-
resenting the fractional parts.
tional parts. It was not enough for students
And what did they actually
to notice the clarity of the drawings or how do with the 1/2 and the 1/6?
they were shaded. What was the process they
were doing?
Sam: They were adding.
Ms. Martin: What can you tell me about
their drawings to represent
/2 plus 1/6 equals %? Similar patterns of interaction were evi-
dent in small-group discussions in other
high-press exchanges. While students were
Step 1: 4 brownies, six crows divided into small groups, Ms. Carter asked
them their reasons for agreeing or disagree-
ing with a solution, not just whether they
agreed or disagreed. Verification was an in-
tegral part of group activities during the les-
to show that 1/2 and 1/6 equal 4/6 son, as is illustrated in the exchange below.
Ms. Carter began by asking the group to re-
peat how much each person received in
each step. They eventually agreed that each
person received two whole brownies, 1/2 and
FIG. 2.-Sharing four brownies among six crows1/s of a brownie.
SEPTEMBER 2001
Ms. Carter: So they got two

brownies andamong
equally they gotand de-
six crows
a 1/2 and 1/8. Oh, you
termined that did a received 7/6 of a
each crow
good job drawing that. But
brownie.got
then you say they Their strategy
two (shown in Fig. 3) in-
and 2/8 ... I see the two. volved dividing each brownie into sixths
Carmen: Uh huh. That's what he said and distributing one-sixth of each brownie
[referring to Edgar], and I to each of the six crows. In the first part of
told him, "Why did we get
22/8? /
the problem the crows found four brownies,
Ms. Carter: Why don't you agree with and in the second part of the problem they
that? found three more brownies. The girls had
Carmen: I don't know. Because this is combined 3/6 and % to arrive at their solution
1/2 [points to half shaded on of 7/6.
square], and you put a little
piece [draws next to half what
looks like /s], and that's /8. Ms. Martin: You need to prove this
Ms. Carter: I see. So that's 1/2 and 1/s, and [pointing to 7/6, their an-
you're saying that's not a pic- swer].
ture of 22/8. Or what are you Katey: How?
saying? I'm not quite sure. Ms. Martin: I don't know.
Carmen: I don't know. I told him, Katey: 'Cause we counted 1, 2,
"How [did you get] the an- 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 [pointing to
swer 22/8s?" one-sixth from each of
Edgar: I thought that ... the seven brownies].
Carmen: And I told him, and he said, Ms. Martin: This is a brownie here?
"Because I know." [She outlines one
Ms. Carter: Remember the one thing I al- brownie. The group had
ways need is that I need you drawn two brownies
to be able to explain it. stuck together, shading
Edgar: I thought that at first we %/6 in one and 3/6 in the
would add these two [refer- other; see Fig. 3.]
ring to numerators] and then Katey: Yeah.
take the biggest number from Ms. Martin: You need to show it in
the bottom [denominator]. one brownie. This just
shows %/6 plus 3/6.
Katey: We have to make an-
Carmen was already thinking that the another brownie?
swer 22/8 did not match the area of 1/2 and /8. Ms. Martin: There are two brownies.
She was not satisfied with Edgar's justifi-

cation of "I know." She knew the classroom
Each crow gets 1/6 from each brownie
norm that required Edgar to justify his ac-
tions. Ms. Carter went on to ask the group
how they could prove the correct solution
by referring to their graphical representa-
tions. She brought the group back to the
conceptual focus of the brownie problems
to link the adding of fractional pieces to the
area they represent rather than relying on
the arbitrary rule that Edgar had created.
In high-press interactions, students Solution: 4/6 and 3/6 equal 7/6
learned that they could justify their actions
by triangulating verbal, graphical, and nu-
merical strategies, further illustrated by the
following exchange. Ms. Martin approached
a group of three girls who had divided seven FIG. 3.-Sharing seven brownies among six crows
Katey: Should they be, like, do not ensure conceptual thinking. Wha
separate?
Ms. Martin: You need to show in one important about the above exchange is t
Ms. Martin was not satisfied with the
Ashley: Oh, like in one brownie group's correct solution. They had arrived
that [pointing to %], in at their answer, had explained that they
one brownie that [point- counted the number of sixths that each crow
ing to 3/6]?
received, and they had drawn their solution
Ms. Martin: No.
Stephanie: No, you need to split the Yet the teacher pressed them to think how
brownies in half. They else they could conceptualize 7/6, and without
can't be together. providing them with the answer, she asked
Ms. Martin: You sure you have to a pivotal question, "How can you show me
split them in half?
this in a different way, using one brownie?"
Stephanie: No.
Ashley: Okay, so this is one The question helped the group conceptual-
brownie and that's one ize the 7% visually, label it with the appropri-
brownie. ate fractional name, and justify mathemati-
Ms. Martin: Well, how could you cally why 11/6 and 7/6 were equivalent.
show me this in a dif-
ferent way, using one
In summary, in high-press examples
brownie? teachers pressed students to give reasons
Stephanie: That's hard. for their mathematical actions, focusing
Katey: Well, it would be a their attention on concepts rather than pro
weird form of brownie,
cedures. Teachers asked questions in sus
but you could make like
tained mathematical exchanges with stu
/6. Cut off this [pointing
to the sixths not shaded dents. Teachers also engaged the whole
in] and make these into class in a conversation about a particular
sixths. And then it'd be
student's problem, thus increasing how
a brownie with some- much each student was involved in math-
thing hanging off the
ematical thinking.
edge, actually.
Ashley: Like make a tiny Low press. In low-press exchanges,
brownie... teachers engaged in the same social practice
Katey: It'd be like a brownie, of having students describe their thinking.
it'd be like one whole
brownie and ... ohhh.
But the mathematical content was very dif-
[Smiles.] ferent from the high-press exchanges. Stu-
Ms. Martin: One whole brownie and dents described solutions primarily by
summarizing the steps they took to solve a
Katey: 1/6. problem, as demonstrated in the following
Stephanie: 1/8. exchange in which Raymond described his
Katey: 1/6, 1/6 [affirming the right
answer]. solution for dividing 12 brownies among
Ms. Martin: And do you think that's eight people. Ms. Andrew had drawn 12
the same as 7/6? squares on the chalkboard.
Kateyl
Stephanie: Yeah. [Raymond divides four of the brownies in half.]
Katey: Yeah, 'cause if these Ms. Andrew: Okay, now would you like
were sixths, you could to explain to us what ...
loud ...
go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [count-
ing the sixths], plus one Raymond: Each one gets one, and I
is 7. give them a half.
Ms. Andrew: So each person got how
Ms. Martin: Can you show me that?
much?
Raymond: One and /2.
Ms. Martin sustained this exchange Ms.for 3 1/2?
Andrew:
minutes. Sustained exchanges allow for but
Raymond: No, one and /2.
SEPTEMBER 2001
Ms. Andrew: So you're

know? saying
Can you prove that each
that to me? Am I ask-
one gets one and 1/2. Does
ing too much?" With another group who
that make sense? [Chorus
of "yeahs" from students; had offered ? and 2/8 as a solution to a prob-
the teacher moves on to an- lem, Ms. Reed asked, "Could you have
other problem.] found a way to combine those to make one
number? Or is that part going to make you
Ms. Andrew did not ask students to justifytoo stuck?" Ms. Reed seemed reluctant to
why they chose a particular partitioning press students to think conceptually about
the central ideas of the fraction lesson.
strategy. Instead, in the lessons we video-
taped, both Ms. Andrew and Ms. Reed During small-group activity, both Ms.
asked questions that required a show of Reed and Ms. Andrew were primarily con-
hands or yes/no responses, such as: "How cerned with managerial and procedural in-
many people agree?" "Does this makestructions, making sure that each group had
sense?" or "Do you think that was a good the materials they needed and had started
answer?" There was no evidence that the working. As they stopped to talk to each
teachers were looking for detailedgroup, re- they listened to a group's solution,
sponses; rather, they accepted global,praised
su- them for their good efforts, and
perficial nods of agreement or disagree- moved on to a new group. Below, Ms. An-
ment. Ms. Andrew wanted to engage drew her approached a pair of girls and stayed
long enough to hear a brief summary of
students in the activity and to see if they
understood, but the questions she asked what they did, yet she did not press them
yielded general responses without reveal- to move beyond their current thinking and
ing specific information about the students'
to combine fractional parts.
thinking or understanding of the mathe-
matical concepts involved. When studentsMs. Andrew: Explain to me what you
described their solution strategies, Ms. An- did.
drew did not probe for their reasons for Susana: We cut them in half, and
then we gave them two
choosing a particular partitioning strategy.
little pieces.
The absence of this sociomathematical
Ms. Andrew: Okay, now what are
norm was evident in other contexts as well, those two little pieces?
such as when Ms. Andrew read to the class Susana/Martha: Sixths.
an example of a group's "good" written ex- Ms. Andrew: Okay, can you draw
what you did on this
planation: "First there were eight people one? [Susana divides an
and three brownies. We divided two brown-
extra square into sixths.]
ies into fourths, and each person got ./4 And Ms. Andrew: Oh, I see. You cut them
we divided the last one into eighths, and we into sixths like that?
gave each person a fourth and an eighth." Now, how much did
each person get?
The description simply summarized the
Martha: 1/2 and 2/6.
steps the students took. Moreover, although Ms. Andrew: Very good, and I see that
Ms. Andrew had stated that the focus of the you wrote that here ...
lesson was to combine fractional pieces, she go on to the next part.
accepted the answer of /4 and 8s as adequate.
Ms. Reed also did not push her students In this exchange, the teacher listened to a
to verify their solutions in the lessons we procedural summary of students' work and
observed. The comments below suggested directed them to move on to the next part
that she expected such analysis to be too dif- of the problem. Although similar interac-
ficult for students. She responded to one tions were evident in the lessons from
student who had stated that 1/2 and V8 com- which we drew the high-press examples,
bine to make 5/s by asking, "How do you they served as information about concep-
tual issues that needed further attention. Maria: Yeah, in eighths, and this
one.
For example, twice during the lessons we
Maria/Lupe: In fourths and in fourth
observed, Ms. Carter chose not to press stu- ferring to the other two].
dents in individual interactions. Instead, [Claudia is still drawing
she waited for whole-class discussions to stick figures.]
engage the entire class in thinking about a
group's solution. This exchange is the most extensive math-
ematical conversation this group had on
The sociomathematical norm that expla-
nation consists of mathematical argumentvideo. Yet their talk revolved around how to
was also absent in student-student interac- partition the brownies, not why.
tions in low-press examples. For example, a In summary, one dimension of class-
group of three girls divided three brownies
room practice that defines a high press for
among eight people in the following way:conceptual learning is that explanations
consist of mathematical arguments. In high-
press examples, teachers shaped classroom
Lupe: I know how to do that prob-
lem. I know how to do that discourse around conceptual mathematical
problem. [Claudia gets up.] issues by posing questions that asked for
Lupe: [As Claudia is walking mathematical justification or verification.
away.] Put it in fourths. [But
Claudia does not acknowl-
Linking numerical and graphical represen-
tations provided a context for extended con-
edge.] [Claudia walks back
with Maria.] versations about ideas of equivalence, part-
Lupe: I know, Claudia, look [cut] whole relations, and combining fractional
this one in ...
parts. In low-press examples, conversations
Maria: [Interrupting.] Do one prob- did not move beyond summaries of the
lem on one paper, and if you
want to do extra, she [the steps taken to solve a problem. Conceptual
discourse was limited.
teacher] says we could get
more paper.
Lupe: Okay, just put this one in Understanding Mathematical Relations
fourths or in halves. Let me among Strategies
see.
When one or two problems become the
Maria: Let's see how many people
focal point of a lesson, students commonly
there are [looks up at board
and counts]. There's eight share their strategies for solving the same
people. problem with the whole class. Sharing strat-
Lupe: Put this one in fourths.
Maria: In fourths and then this one. egies, however, does not ensure conceptual,
Lupe/Maria: In eighths. mathematical discourse. To engage students
Maria: No, this one in fourths, and in conversations about mathematical con-
then this one in eighths. cepts, in high-press interactions, the teach-
[She's suggesting to divide ers asked students to examine the mathe-
the first two in fourths and
matical similarities and differences among
the last one in eighths. Clau-
multiple strategies. In low-press exchanges,
dia has been drawing stick
figures.] strategies were offered one after the other,
Lupe: But we have four and four. with discussion limited to nonmathematical
We have three [brownies]. aspects of student work.
Claudia: That's too easy. High press. Ms. Martin involved all stu-
Lupe: Too easy? dents in a group or the class in discussions
Claudia: Yeah.
Maria: Put that one in fourths of a student's presentation. Although she
encouraged students to praise each other,
[pointing to one of three
squares]. she also focused their attention more on the
Lupe: In eighths. mathematics of the presentation than on
SEPTEMBER 2001
product appearance, clarity, used a division algorithm to

or correctnes
determine that there was a
This press for mathematical inquiry in com
whole brownie and a piece
paring strategies is illustrated in
left over. So theythe follo
did it in
ing dialogue. After Michelle and
two different ways.Sally ha
described their strategy and solution for
fair-sharing problem In this exchange,
(see Fig. the teacher
4), the asked the class
teach
turned to the class: to reflect on what was unique about a par-
ticular group's strategy. Students made ob-
Ms. Martin: Does anyone have any ques- servations about both organizational ("they
tions about how they pro- divided it into steps") and mathematical
ceeded through the prob- ("they divided into sixths") aspects of the
lem? ... What did they use group's work. By also asking about how
or do that was different than
what you might have done?
different solutions differed mathematically,
Jeff: They used steps. students were invited to compare the strat-
Ms. Martin: Right, they divided it into egies that had been presented thus far.
steps. But there were some Low press. In low-press exchanges, the
steps that I haven't seen class applauded correct solutions without
anyone else use in the class-
room yet.
analysis, and the teacher glossed over inade-
Carl: They added how many quate solutions. Moreover, when students
brownies there were alto- attempted to make connections among so-
gether. lutions, the teacher did not value them, as
Ms. Martin: Okay, so they used ... illustrated by the next example.
Jamie: They divided into six, and
there was one left over, and At the beginning of the lesson, Ms. Reed
then they figured how they asked students to think of ways of combin-
were going to divide that ing 11/2 and 1Y8. One student, Ron, combined
equally so that every crow the two wholes and provided the class with
gets a fair share.
the solution of 2/2 and Vs. Ms. Reed called
Ms. Martin: Exactly, and that was very on one student after another until she called
observant of you to see that.
As I walked around yester- on a student who provided the correct so-
day, this is the only pair that lution of 2%/8. Ron noticed that the correct
solution was equal to his and tried to make
some connection between his answer and
Step 1: 4 brownies, 6 crows the correct one. His claim could have been
a good opportunity for Ms. Reed to ask the
class to verify whether the two solutions
were equivalent, an idea central to the con-
ceptual focus of the fair share lesson. Ms.
Step 2: 3 more brownies
Reed also had the opportunity to bring in
Zoey's estimation that the sum of 1/2 and Y8
was close to 2/3. The teacher's response to
Zoey's thinking was, "Is this a real kind of
answer? Sorta 2/3?" And her response to Ron
solution: 7 brownies divided by 6 crows.
1 whole and 1/6 was the following:
Ms. Reed: [Addressing Ron.] Is [25/8] the

same as your answer? Is this
the same?
Students: Yes, no.
FIG. 4.-Sharing four brownies among six crowsMs. Reed: How many think that this is the
and then three more brownies among six crows. same as this [Ron's vs. correct
solution]-the same amount? Using Errors to Reconceptualize

[Hands raised.] Problems and Pursue Alternatives
Ms. Reed: Yes, Ron, it is the same
amount. But this [25/8] isn't re-
In traditional mathematics instruction,
ally written as mathematically students use a standard algorithmic proce-
as this [2/2 and '/8]. 2/2 and '/8
dure to get the right answer. When students
does equal 25/8-you're right. get the wrong answer, they may look back
But this time I wanted you to
try and make it into this to see which step they missed. Because the
[pointing to 25/8]. goal in inquiry-based mathematics class-
rooms is to build conceptual understand-
ings, errors can help teachers and students
Thus, the teacher told Ron that he was right,
identify misunderstandings.
yet not "mathematical" enough, just as she
The social norm that mistakes are ac-
had told Zoey that her answer was not
ceptable and even useful is commonly es-
"real." Although the topic of the lesson was
tablished in inquiry-based classrooms.
combining fractional parts, she ignored
Teachers can press for conceptual thinking
Zoey's estimate, and she did not press the
by promoting the sociomathematical norm
students to verify Ron's observation. In-
that mistakes are opportunities to reconcep-
stead, she provided the answer for them,
tualize a problem, explore contradictions to
losing an opportunity to engage students in
a solution approach, and try out alternative
conceptual thinking.
strategies. Thus, inadequate solutions serve
In the lessons we observed, sharing
as entry points for further mathematical
strategies during whole-class discussions
discussion involving justification and veri-
looked like a string of presentations, each
fication.
one followed by applause and praise. We
High press. By requiring students to give
observed an instance in which students
mathematical reasons for their problem-
made links between strategies, but their
solving strategies, Ms. Carter created op-
links consisted of nonmathematical aspects
portunities for her students to verify
of students' strategies. In Ms. Andrew's
whether solutions were correct. In the first
class, a pair of students said they cut section
the of the results, we described a class
brownies and distributed the pieces to presentation
each in which Sarah and Jasmine of-
individual instead of drawing lines from
fered 1/2 and 5/8 as the solution to a problem
the fractional parts of the brownies to the
(see Fig. 1). The interaction between Ms.
individuals who received them. Although
Carter and the girls continued as follows:
the students' partitioning strategy was the
same as the one a group had just presented,
Ms. Carter: Do you want to write that
they viewed their strategy as mathematically
down at the top [of the over-
different based on the way they handed out
head projector], so I can see
the pieces. what you did? [Jasmine
In the lessons we observed, students in writes 1/2 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 +
all four classrooms described their work and 1/8 + 1/8.1
were praised for their efforts. In high-press Ms. Carter: Okay, so that's what you did.
So how much was that in all?
exchanges, teachers focused students' atten-
Jasmine: It equals 1'/8 or 6/%.
tion on mathematical differences among Ms. Carter: So she says it can equal 6 and
shared strategies, thus directing conversa- 6/8?
%?
tions to encompass mathematical connec- Jasmine: No, it can equal % or it can
tions among various solution paths. In low- equal 18%.
Ms. Carter: Okay, so you have two dif-
press exchanges, connections were limited to
ferent answers. Could you
nonmathematical aspects of students' strat- write them down so people
egies. can see it? And boys and
SEPTEMBER 2001
girls, I'd like you to respond

half. So % and 5/8 is %. [M
to what they've written Carter
upleaves.]
here. She says it either could
equal 6/8 or 1/8.
Ms. Carter: [Notes who has a hand The teacher could have stepp
raised and who is thinking.] pointed out why 6/ and 1V8 are
She's given us two answers Instead, her response to this mis
here: 6/8 or it can equal 11/8.
encourage students to explore th
Okay, could those four peo-
ple right now ... do you explaining why % and 1V8 are no
agree with both answers? engaging the entire class in thin
Students: No. which solution was correct, she
Ms. Carter: Do you have a reason why opportunity for all students to
you don't agree? Don't ex-
mathematical analysis.
plain it to me, but do you There was also evidence that Ms. Carter
have a reason? Raise your
hand if you have a reason used her observations of inadequate solu-
why you don't agree. tions during group work to plan whole-class
[Hands.] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... instruction. As mentioned earlier, twice we
okay. Would those six people observed her ask the entire class to address
please stand? ... You're go-
ing to be in charge of explain- a question that she had observed a small
ing why you don't agree to group previously struggling to answer. Ms.
your team. [She assigns those Martin, in contrast, spent most of her time
six students to teams. Cam-
with small groups, encouraging group mem-
era focuses on group seated
in front of class.] bers to debate strategies within their group.
Jessica: I don't believe that it is 6/8 be- Although the organization of instruction dif-
cause one more eighth fered, both Ms. Martin and Ms. Carter cre-
would equal, like ... There ated opportunities for students to clarify and
are 4/8 in a half. So it wouldn't extend their knowledge of fractions by ex-
work. [She goes on to ex-
ploring in depth why solutions were inade-
plain.] It can't be 6/8 because
... they have 5/8 up there, see, quate as well as adequate.
and there's one here, and Ms. Martin listened patiently to how
only one more... each group solved the problem. She ques-
Carlos: One more half will make a
tioned them about how they arrived at their
whole.
Jessica: One more half will make a answers and asked them to verify their
whole. It wouldn't be that mathematical actions. Mistakes were used
way. I agree with the second as opportunities for students to think fur-
answer.
ther. For example, when she approached a
James: 6/8 is right. group of boys who had two answers for
Jessica: 6/8 isn't right. 'Cause look,
partitioning
there's 5/8. So the answer to seven brownies among six
crows, she did not validate either solution.
the first question is /8. So the
Instead,
answer to the first question is she asked the student with the in-
correct
9/8 instead of 6/%. [Pause.] solution
Wait, to explain his thinking. It
let me see ... five ... yeah. It
was difficult for her to understand exactly
should only be 9/8. [Ms.
what the student had done, but another
Carter walks over to group.]
groupcome
Ms. Carter: What did your team member
upwho was listening to his ex-
with?
planation understood his strategy; he reex-
Jessica: We figured out thatplained
6/8 wasn't
it, pointing out where the mistake
the right answer because
was. To verify that the student understood
only 18 could get the answer
his own mistake, Ms. Martin asked him to
of 6/8 instead of a /2. A /2 and
a 1/2 is a whole, so weexplain
saw inwhy his solution was inadequate
and whyathe other one was correct. She en-
the picture that 4/8 equals
asked mathematical
gaged in an extended them to try to combine the conve
fractional
parts. The
sation with the group, group offered the following
encouraging thean- bo
to listen to each other and to use their mis- swer.
takes as a way to explore contradictions in

the two solutions and provide a mathemat- Laura: We think it's 8A/6.
ical argument for the adequate solution. Ms. Reed: Okay, how did you get th
Persistence appeared to be an important Laura: These are the eighths, so
norm in Ms. Martin's class. We observed ex- each person gets 1/8. They g
1/8 from here and 1/8 from her
changes when students stuck with difficult and 1/8 from here.
problems until they thought they under- Ms. Reed: Shhhh! Excuse me just a
stood them. For example, two girls strug- ute. We need to all pay atten
tion!
gled for 10 minutes with a complex fair-
share problem that they had written Laura: plus
So, so far each person gets 3
then they found two
themselves. Several times, Ms. Martin ap- more [brownies], so each per
proached the pair to check on their progress son gets 1/8 from them again
and ask questions. They debated about So there's 1/8 ...
whether to make the problem easier, and Ms. Reed: And another 1/8, don't the
no?
Ms. Martin voiced confidence in their abil-
Laura: Three plus one equals four
ity and encouraged them to pursue the then the sixteenths. [The
problem even though it might be frustrat- blackboard around their solu-
ing. Later, when one of the students said to tion is covered with messy nu-
merics, some crossed out and
the other, "Can't we just change the prob-
written over.]
lem?" her partner reiterated the norm for
Ms. Reed: Oh, okay. Don't do the six-
high expectations and persistence that the teenths. Sixteenths means
teacher had just reinforced, "No, we can't something different. Just leave
change it. We can do it. If we change it, it as eighths. We'll talk about
that in a few minutes. But then
that's the same thing as we can't do it." By
the end of the lesson, they had decided to there's actually 5/8. There's '/8
here and then there's 1/8 there
work on the problem independently at [referring to the two addi-
home (one of them suggested: "Just lock tional brownies], so that's 5/8.
yourself in the bathroom") and discuss it Okay. [Class applauds.]
again in class the next day. They seemed to
have internalized the sociomathematical It is unclear whether Ms. Reed understood
norm that when solutions are inadequate, how the group got 8/16 as the answer; she
students need to continue to explore alter-did not ask Laura to clarify what she meant
native ways of thinking about the problem. by "three plus one equals four and then the
Low press. In contrast, although inade- sixteenths." The teacher's statement, "Six-
quate solutions were accepted as a normal teenths means something different," inval-
part of learning in low-press teacher-stu- idates the students' mathematical activity
dent interactions, they were either passed rather than giving them an opportunity to
over until an adequate solution was offered,
critically analyze their mathematical think-
or teachers provided the reasons why strat-ing. The class applause (which, ironically,
egies were mathematically incorrect. Incame the right after the teacher solved the prob-
following exchange, Ms. Reed took littlelem) ad- seemed to serve only as a signal to end
vantage of an error two students madethe anddiscussion of this group's strategy.
provided the answers for them. The prob- In addition to not using student errors
lem involved dividing five brownies among as the bases for further mathematical in-
eight people. Initially, the group had offered
quiry, in the low-press examples, teachers
a solution of 1 and 3/8, but the teacherpraised
had adequate solutions and ignored
SEPTEMBER 2001
wrong ones. Below, Ms. Ms. Andrew:

ReedOkay, be approached
sure not to get a
confused. Because there are
group of girls who explained that they
two brownies, not one. Per-
com
bined /8, ?, and ? by adding fect. the
Good good numerator
job.
and denominators and arriving at 3A6. Ms
Reed responded:
At first, the boys appeared to be guessing.
Ms. Andrew focused on Joe once he stated
Ms. Reed: Okay, that's a good guess. But
the right answer. Although she predicted
you don't get to add this ? and
this '/8 like that. accurately
? iswhyone Anthony
size said 2/12, she did
and 1/8 is another. It's like add- not ask him to think about why his answer
ing an apple and an orange to- may not work. Instead, she asked and an-
gether. You just don't say this swered the question herself. Her statement,
four and eight is 12. It's not the "Because there are two brownies, not one,"
same thing.
Antonia: Maybe we could add ... was left unexplained. She did not encour-
Rachel: Ahh, so we could split the age the members of the group to think
fourths into eighths. about what 1/6 and /1A2 signify or to use
Ms. Reed: Ahh, listen, listen. She's [refer-
graphical representations to clear up their
ring to Rachel] got a good confusion.
idea. [Moves on to another
group.] The sociomathematical norm of using
mistakes as a basis for mathematical inquiry
was absent in student-student as well as
Ms. Reed did not use the group's inade-
teacher-student interactions in the lessons
quate solution as an opportunity to encour-
age them to think about and compare the we observed. Earlier, we presented the ex-
ample in which Ms. Reed told a student
area of 3/16 to ? and 1/8. Instead, she pushed
them directly to the right strategy and then (Antonia) that her strategy of combining 2/4
moved on to another group of students. and 1/8 by adding the numerators and de-
In the next exchange, Ms. Andrew did nominators was wrong. Another student in
not push students to rethink their answers. her group (Rachel) suggested that they split
A group of three boys divided five brownies the fourths into eighths. After Ms. Reed left
among six people and arrived at an answer the group, the two girls had the following
conversation:
of 1/2, 1/6, and 1/6. Note how the teacher pro-
vided the mathematical reasoning for the
boys. Antonia: Split the fourths into eighths,
how?
Rachel: Like, um, here's a fourth, right?
Ms. Andrew: They got 1/2. You already Antonia: Let's use a clean sheet of paper.
said that. And then 1/6 and
Rachel: There are four brownies or just
then another sixth. So, how a fourth?
many sixths did they get? Antonia: Fourths into eighths.
Anthony: One, two. Rachel: You mean... [Begins writing.]
Ryan: One, two. Antonia: Oh yeah, those two fourths into
Joe:1/12. eighths.
Ms. Andrew: What did you say? [toRachel:
Joe] Yeah, split them into eighths.
They got two. Antonia: Oh, those two into eighths. I get
Ryan: Sixths. it.
Anthony: 2/12. Rachel: I told you.
Joe: 2/6. Antonia: Thanks. So that'll be... Could
Ms. Andrew: 2/6 [confirming the right you
an- carry on from now because
swer].
you got the idea?
Ms. Andrew: Why did you say 2/12? Be-
cause there are 12 parts al-
together? Although at first Antonia was not sure
Anthony: Yeah. how fourths and eighths were related, she
in theas
claimed to understand low-press
Rachelexamplesbegan
were seen work-
writ
ing together and
ing. Yet, Antonia faltered agreeingwhen
again on a solution
she
without
tried to combine the debating the
eighths. mathematics in-
Although mis
takes were generally acceptable
volved, with members ofin her
the group class
often
it appeared that she had tonot
deferring internalized
a student perceived to be the a
mostopportunities
norm that they offer skilled. for con-
High press. Ms.
ceptual thinking. Antonia Carter's and Ms. Mar-
disengaged from
tin's the
the project of adding approaches to collaborative work
fractions and in lef
the lessons we
the task to her partner, observedshe
who were consistent
believed
would find the rightwithanswer.
those strategies The
documented collabora
by Cobb
tion disintegrated. and his colleagues. Both teachers instructed
students on
In summary, although inhowboth
to talk about
high-mathematics
and
low-press examples mistakes
with classmates (Cobb etwere viewe
al., 1993; Williams
as a normal part of learning,
& Baxter, only
1996). Ms. Martin began herinles- th
high-press exchanges did
sons by going teachers
over press
the guidelines, written
students to critically on
analyze their
the board, that strategies
she expected students to
and solutions, conveying clearly
follow during small-group that
activity. One th
goal was to understand
guideline mathematical con-
read, "Did you come to a consen-
cepts. In the low-press cases,
sus with your in contrast
partner or partners about that
teachers precluded further mathematical
solution?" The following conversation with in
quiry by giving thestudents
answer themselves.
demonstrates how she promoted
the norm of using mathematical thinking to
Collaboration Includes reach a consensus.
Accountability and Consensus
through Argumentation Karen: What does consen ... con-
Collaborative work is common in class- sensensus [sic] ... mean or
whatever?
rooms in which teachers are attempting to
Ms. Martin: I was waiting for someone
implement reform-minded mathematics in- to ask me what consensus
struction. The purpose of peer collaboration means. Does anybody know
is for students to construct mathematical or think they know what the
word consensus means?
understandings in a social context and to
Julie: Agreement?
become skilled in communicating in math-
Ms. Martin: Agreement, so if Janet and
ematical language by describing and de- Louisa are working to-
fending their differing mathematical inter- gether, and they cannot
pretations and solutions (Cobb et al., 1993). agree on a solution, then
Holding each student accountable for what do they do?
Karen: Have to use a consensus or
thinking through the mathematics involved whatever.
in a problem and promoting the idea that Ms. Martin: Well consensus is the same
consensus should be reached through math- as an agreement. They ei-
ematical argumentation can help establish ther come to a consensus or
sociomathematical norms that promote stu- they come to an agreement.
dents' full participation in mathematical But what happens if they
can't seem to come to a con-
discussions.
sensus or agreement as to
In all four lessons we observed, students the solution? What do you
worked in groups of two to four for most of think they do?
the instructional time, as recommended by Ricky: Try again?
the Seeing Fractions unit. The sociomathe- Ms. Martin: They need to try again. And
how could they try again
matical norms, described above, were evi- and try to prove to each
dent in the high-press examples. Students other a solution? Julie?
SEPTEMBER 2001
Julie: Draw illustrations of what

their answer was.
Ms. Martin: Okay, you could use illus-
trations to show what you
think the solution to the
problem is.
Mark: You could both, like, write
down the answer you think
it is and compare, and if you
have the same answer, then
you figure that that's the an-
swer.
Similarly, when Ms. Martin began the

second day of class work on the fair-share
problems, she made the following state-
ment regarding individual accountability:
Everyone in your group, whether it's just

the two of you or the three of you, every-
one in your group needs to understand
the process that you all were supposed
to go through together. Because when
you make a presentation, you don't
know whether or not you are going to be
asked a question. So you don't know if
you're going to be asked by me or by
your classmates. So you need to make
sure that each person understands each
part of the process you went through.
Transcripts of whole-class discussions

showed that both Ms. Martin and Ms.
Carter invited all members of the group to
contribute to the explanation of their
group's work. Furthermore, students were
not sure when they might have to answer a
question and therefore had to be prepared.
Ms. Carter also used a cooperative learning
strategy referred to as "numbered heads to-
gether" (Stone, 1989), which helped pro-
mote full participation of all group mem-
bers. Each member of a group was assigned
a number between one and four. During
whole-class discussion, Ms. Carter called
out a number randomly to determine who
was responsible for responding to the ques-
tion. Thus, each student was invested in all
members of the group fully understanding
the strategy they used.
The norms of individual accountability
and consensus applied within the context of
small-group activity. Ms. Martin reminded
Mark to write "3 + 3 = 6," Mark's respons

indicated that he was not merely taking or
ders and finishing the activity but wa
thinking about what she said and how i
applied to what they had done. Thinkin
about their partitioning strategy of halves
he did not understand how "3 + 3 = 6"
applied until Keisha explained that she was
referring not to the halves themselves, but
that the number of halves corresponded to
the number of crows. They arrived at mu-
tual understanding through a mathematical
argument.
Low press. In the low-press examples,
we observed teachers give only general di-
rectives such as "work with a partner" or
"remember to work together." The distri-
bution of work across a group was not
equal. In most instances of group work, we
observed one or two students completing
the work of the group while others were
more peripheral, as in the following exam-
ple from Ms. Reed's class.
Lisa: We need five brownies. So see, 1,

2, 3, 4. So we cut these into half. So
1 ... 8. They get a half each. And
then there's one more cookie and
eight people, so we just cut into
eighths, and it'll be even for every-
body.
Ellen: Wow, you did that fast. I didn't
even do anything.
Lisa: I knew there's 5, and I knew 4; 2
times 4 is 8.
Ellen: Oh, I get it.
Ellen did not have an opportunity to think

about the problem and instead listened to
and agreed with Lisa's explanation. Indi-
vidual accountability was not a normative
aspect of working together. In low-press ex-
amples, students did not question each
other or make sure that each person under-
stood the mathematical relations involved
in the problem. Instead, students who be-
came unclear about what to do often with-
drew and allowed another student to take
over. In the high-press exchanges, every
student in a group or pair was expected to
participate in mathematical problem solv-
dictions, and pursueMarch 1997. We thank Megan

alternative Franke, Maryl
strategies;
Gearhart, Mike
and (d) collaborative work Rose, Geoffrey Saxe,
involves and two
individ-
anonymous reviewers for their helpful reviews.
ual accountability and reaching
We especially consensus
thank Phyllis Blumenfeld and her
through mathematical argumentation.
colleagues who inspired our thinking for this ar-
The notion of sociomathematical norms ticle and the teachers who invited us into their
classrooms to conduct this study. Correspondence
is very different from specific prescriptions
concerning this article should be addressed to the
for educational practice. Sociomathematical
first author (ekazemi@u.washington.edu) at Col-
norms concern a set of expectations about
lege of Education, 122 Miller, University of Wash-
what constitutes mathematical thinking.
ington, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195-3600.
Supporting teachers to create sociomathe-
matical norms in their classrooms requires
References
more than describing discrete behaviors.
Rather, teachers need to understand what a
sociomathematical norm is and construct Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye toward the math-
ematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching ele-
pedagogical strategies that can be applied
mentary school mathematics. Elementary
in a variety of contexts. Although we pro-
School Journal, 93, 373-397.
pose that at least four sociomathematical
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Making believe: The
norms worked together to create a press for
collective construction of public mathemati-
conceptual learning, continued research cal knowledge in the elementary classroom.
may reveal other norms that contribute to In aD. Phillips (Ed.), Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education: Constructiv-
high press. It is also important to investi-
ism in education (pp. 193-224). Chicago: Uni-
gate, with longitudinal data, how socio-
versity of Chicago Press.
mathematical norms are created and sus-
Blumenfeld, P. C., Puro, P., & Mergendoller, J. R.
tained, and how they influence students'
(1992). Translating motivation into thought-
mathematical understanding. fulness. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining
The notion of engaging children in whatstudent learning: Roots of educational change
(pp. 207-239). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wood, Cobb, and Yackel (1991) call "genuine
California State Department of Education.
conversations" about mathematics means
(1992). Mathematics framework for California
that teachers take students' ideas seriously
public schools: Kindergarten through grade
twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
in their attempts to support student under-
Chazan,
standing. In the exchanges showing a high D., & Ball, D. (1995). Beyond exhortations
not to tell: The teacher's role in discussion-
press for conceptual learning, all students
intensive mathematics classes (Craft Paper 95-
were accountable for participating in an 2).
in-East Lansing: Michigan State University,
National Center for Research on Teacher
tellectual climate characterized by argument
Learning.
and justification. Classroom practices that
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse,
are characterized by a high press for concep-
mathematical thinking, and classroom prac-
tual thinking allow the mathematics to drivetice. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick, & C.A.
students' engagement in activities. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocul-
tural dynamics in children's development (pp.
91-119). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, E.
Note (1993). Mathematics as procedural instruc-
tions and mathematics as meaningful activ-
ity: The reality of teaching for understand-
The study received partial support from the ing. In R. Davis & C. Maher (Eds.), Schools,
National Science Foundation, grant no. MDR mathematics, and the world of reality (pp. 119-
9154512. The findings and opinions expressed 133). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
in this article do not reflect the position or pol-Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist,
icies of the foundation. An earlier version was emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in
presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri- the context of developmental research. Edu-
can Educational Research Association, Chicago, cational Psychologist, 31, 175-190.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). AMoll, revolution in one

L. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky class-
and education: In-
room: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational structional implications and applications of so-
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329. ciohistorical psychology. New York: Cam-
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations be- bridge University Press.
tween policy and practice: A commentary. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12,(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
311-338. school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National
Corwin, R. B., Russell, S. J., & Tierney, C. C. Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(1990). Seeing fractions: Representations of wholes
(2000). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Reston, VA: Author.
and parts. A unit for the upper-elementary grades.
Sacramento: California Department ofPrawat, Edu- R. S. (1992). Are changes in views about
cation.
mathematics teaching sufficient? The case of
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., & Carey, a fifth-grade teacher. Elementary School Jour-
D. (1993). Learning to use children's mathe- nal, 93, 195-211.
matical thinking: A case study. In R. Davis &Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of
C. Maher (Eds.), Schools, mathematics, and the the idea of communities of learners. Mind,
world of reality (pp. 93-117). Boston: Allyn & Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.
Bacon.
Rogoff, B. (1997). Evaluating development in the
Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, process of participation: Theory, methods,
L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A and practice building on each other. In E.
longitudinal study of learning to use chil- Amsel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Change and de-
dren's thinking in mathematics instruction. velopment: Issues of theory, application, and
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
method (pp. 265-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27, 403-434.
Saxe, G., Gearhart, M., & Seltzer, M. (1999). Re-
Forman, E. A., Minick, N., & Stone, C. A. (Eds.).
lations between classroom practices and stu-
(1993). Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dy-
dent learning in the domain of fractions. Cog-
namics in children's development. New York: nition and Instruction, 17, 1-24.
Oxford University Press.
Stipek, D., Givvin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers,
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell,
V. (1998). Can a teacher intervention improve
E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding
classroom practices and student motivation
teachers' self-sustaining, generative change
in mathematics? Journal of Experimental Edu-
in the context of professional development.
cation, 66, 319-337.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 67-80.
Stipek, D., Salmon, J., Givvin, K., Kazemi, E.,
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educa-
tional change. New York: Teachers College Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V. (1998). The value
Press. (and convergence) of practices suggested by
motivation researchers and mathematics
Gearhart, M., Saxe, G., Seltzer, M., Schlackman,
J., Fall, R., Ching, C., Nasir, N., Bennett, T., education reformers. Journal for Research in
Rhine, S., & Sloan, T. (1999). When can edu- Mathematics Education, 29, 465-488.
cational reforms make a difference? Oppor- Stone, J. M. (1989). Cooperative learning and lan-
tunities to learn fractions in elementary guage arts: A multi-structured approach. San
mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.
in Mathematics Education, 30, 286-315. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel-
Heaton, R. (1993). Who is minding the mathe- opment of higher psychological processes. Cam-
matics content? A case study of a fifth-grade bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
teacher. Elementary School Journal, 93, 153-162. Williams, S. R., & Baxter, J. A. (1996). Dilemmas
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning of discourse-oriented teaching in one middle
and teaching with understanding. In D. A. school mathematics classroom. Elementary
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathe- School Journal, 97, 21-38.
matics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change
York: Macmillan. in teaching mathematics: A case study. Amer-
Lampert, M. (1991). Connecting mathematicalican Educational Research Journal, 28, 587-616.
teaching and learning. In E. Fennema, T. Yackel,
P. E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical
Carpenter, & S. J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating norms, argumentation, and autonomy in
research on teaching and learning mathematics mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathe-
(pp. 121-152). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. matics Education, 27, 458-477.

2001 Kazemi Stipek Conceptual Thinking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2001 Kazemi Stipek Conceptual Thinking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promoting Conceptual Thinking in Four Upper-Elementary Mathematics Classrooms

Author(s): Elham Kazemi and Deborah Stipek

Thinking in Four Informed by theory and research in inquiry-

For over a decade, the mathematics educa-

Method on the basis of a description of the practices

This study involved four teachersresults

social environment. Itfourwas composed

each person get? How ing much brownie

Results ing in a classroom. We cannot claim that the

sociomathematical norms by using illustra- Sarah: Because when you put

1/2 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 mean by that? I heard

Ms. Carter: So they got two

She was not satisfied with Edgar's justifi-

Ms. Andrew: So you're

product appearance, clarity, used a division algorithm to

Ms. Reed: [Addressing Ron.] Is [25/8] the

solution]-the same amount? Using Errors to Reconceptualize

girls, I'd like you to respond

takes as a way to explore contradictions in

wrong ones. Below, Ms. Ms. Andrew:

Julie: Draw illustrations of what

Similarly, when Ms. Martin began the

Everyone in your group, whether it's just

Transcripts of whole-class discussions

Mark to write "3 + 3 = 6," Mark's respons

Lisa: We need five brownies. So see, 1,

Ellen did not have an opportunity to think

dictions, and pursueMarch 1997. We thank Megan

Cohen, D. K. (1990). AMoll, revolution in one

You might also like