Open and Closed Mathematics: Student Experiences and Understandings

Author(s): Jo Boaler
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 41-62
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749717
Accessed: 27/07/2009 10:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation
1998, Vol. 29, No. 1,41-62

Open and Closed Mathematics:

Student Experiences
and Understandings
Jo Boaler, King's College, London University

This paperreportson 3-year case studies of 2 schools with alternativemathematicalteaching

approaches.One school used a traditional,textbook approach;the other used open-ended
activitiesat all times.Usingvariousformsof case studydata,includingobservations,
questionnaires,
interviews,andquantitativeassessments,I will show the ways in whichthe 2 approachesencour-
aged differentforms of knowledge. Studentswho followed a traditionalapproachdeveloped a
procedural knowledgethatwas of limiteduse to themin unfamiliarsituations.Studentswho learned
mathematicsin an open, project-basedenvironmentdevelopeda conceptualunderstandingthat
providedthem with advantagesin a range of assessmentsand situations.The projectstudents
hadbeen "apprenticed" into a systemof thinkingandusing mathematicsthathelpedthemin both
school and nonschool settings.

Thereis a growingconcernamongmathematicseducatorsthatmanystudentsare
able to learnmathematicsfor 11 years or more but are then completely unableto
use this mathematics in situations outside the classroom context. In various
researchprojectsadultsand studentshave been presentedwith tasksin which they
are requiredto make use of mathematicsthey have learnedin school. These pro-
jects have shownthatin real-worldmathematicalsituations,adultsand studentsdo
not use school-learnedmathematicalmethodsor procedures(Lave, Murtaugh,&
de la Rocha, 1984; Masingila, 1993; Nunes, Schliemann,& Carraher,1993). Lave
(1988) comparedadults'use of mathematicsin shoppingandtest situationsthatpre-
sented similarmathematicaldemands.She found thatthe adultsdid not make use
of their school-learnedmathematicsin shoppingsituations.More important,per-
haps,she foundthatthe adultsdid not regardthe two situationsas similar,andtheir
choice of mathematicalproceduredependedmore on theirenvironmentor context
thanon the actualmathematicswithinthe tasks.As a resultof this andotherresearch,
Lave used the termsituatedlearningto describethe way in whichlearningis linked
to the situationor context in which it takes place.
Lave (1988;Lave & Wenger,1991)has provideda powerfulcritiqueof thosethe-
ories of learningtransferthatsuggest thatmathematicsis simply learnedin school
and then lifted out of the classroomand appliedto new situations.She and others
in the field of situatedcognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Young, 1993)

I am indebtedto Paul Black andMike Askew for the supportthey gave me throughoutmy
researchandto DylanWiliamandStephenBall for theirhelpfulcommentson earlierversions
of the paper.I wouldlike also to thankthe anonymousjournalrefereeswho informedmy think-
ing and the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil, which fundedthe research.
42 Openand ClosedMathematics

havebeeninstrumental in raisingawarenessof theimportanceof the situationor con-

text in which learningis encountered.One of the aims of this researchstudywas to
investigateLave's notionof situatedlearning,particularlythe factorsthatappearto
influenceschoolstudentswhentheyencountersimilarmathematical situationsin var-
ious formsandcontexts.I was particularlyinterestedto discoverwhetherdifferent
formsof teachingwouldcreatedifferentformsof knowledge,whichmightthencause
studentsto interactdifferentlywith the demandsof new andunusualsituations.To
do thisI contrastedtwo verydifferentlearningenvironments andmonitoredtheeffects
of theenvironments on theunderstanding thatstudentsdeveloped.My choiceof math-
ematicalenvironmentswas influencedby a numberof factorsthatI describebelow.
Various mathematicseducatorshave suggested that studentsare unableto use
school-learned methods and rules because they do not fully understandthem.
Educators relate this lack of understanding to the way that mathematics is
taught. Schoenfeld (1988), for example, argued that teaching methods that
focus on standardtextbook questions encourage the development of proce-
dural knowledge that is of limited use in nonschool situations. These and sim-
ilar argumentshave contributedto the growingsupportfor open, or process-based,
forms of mathematics.Supportersof process-based work argue that if students
are given open-ended,practical,andinvestigativeworkthatrequiresthemto make
their own decisions, plan their own routes throughtasks, choose methods, and
applytheirmathematicalknowledge,the studentswill benefitin a numberof ways.
The reportedbenefits generally relate to increased enjoyment and understand-
ing (Perez, 1985/1986; Silver, 1994; Winograd, 1990/1991), to equality of
opportunity (Burton, 1986), and even to enhanced transfer (Cognition and
Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990). Research into the effectiveness of
process-basedteaching(see, e.g., Charles& Lester,1984;Cobbet al., 1991;Cobb,
Wood, Yackel, & Perlwitz, 1992) is, however, limited, partlybecause process-
based mathematicallearning environmentsare extremely rare in schools.
In recentyearsin the UnitedKingdom,therehas been an official legitimization
of open approachesto mathematicsteachingthroughthe government-sponsored
Cockcroft report of 1982 (Cockcroft, 1982) and then through the National
Curriculaof 1989 and 1991 (Departmentof Educationand Science, 1989, 1991),
which madethe teachingof process-basedworkstatutory.In the UnitedStates,the
Curriculum andEvaluationStandards for SchoolMathematics of theNationalCouncil
of Teachersof Mathematics(1989) offereda similarlegitimizationof process-based
approaches.More recently, we have experienceda Conservativebacklashin the
United Kingdom againstall forms of progressiveeducationand furtheranceof a
set of policies thatpoliticiansandthe mediahave termed"back-to-basics."These
policies include supportfor learningby rote, emphasison arithmeticand numer-
acy, andthe following of set methodsandrules (Ball, 1994). These back-to-basics
policies stand as a direct threatto the emergence of a new form of mathematics
educationthatmanybelieved was going to changeschool mathematicsinto a sub-
ject that students would find more enjoyable, understandable, and relevant
(Burton, 1986, 1995).
Jo Boaler 43

These theoretical and historical developments formed the backgroundto my

research. In the face of opposing claims about the advantagesof process-based
work and of back-to-basics approaches, I chose to investigate, in detail, a
process-basedmathematicalenvironmentandto contrastthis with a content-based,
scheme-led' mathematicalenvironment.A central part of this study included
considerationof whethereitherapproachservedas an encouragementfor students
to use theirmathematicalknowledge in new and unusualsituations.

RESEARCHMETHODS
In orderto contrastcontentandprocess-basedmathematicalenvironments,I con-
ductedethnographic,3-yearcase studies(Eisenhart,1988) of two schools. I chose
to conductin-depth,mainlyqualitativecase studiesof the two schools'mathematical
approachesbecauseI wantedto monitorthe relationshipsbetweenthe students'day-
to-dayexperiencesin classroomsandtheirdevelopingunderstanding of mathematics.
As partof thecase studies,I performeda longitudinalcohortanalysisof a "yeargroup"
of studentsin each school, while they moved fromYear 9 (age 13) to Year 11 (age
16).Thetwo case studiesincludeda varietyof qualitativeandquantitative techniques.
To understandthe students'experiencesof mathematics,I observedbetween80 and
100 lessons in each school, usually taking the role of a participantobserver
(Eisenhart,1988; Kluckhohn,1940). I interviewedapproximately20 studentsand
4 teachers each year, analyzed comments elicited from students and teachers
aboutclassroomevents (Beynon, 1985), gave questionnairesto all the studentsin
my case study year groups(n - 300), and collected an assortmentof background
documentation. Thesemethods,particularly thelessonobservationsandstudentinter-
views, enabled me to a
develop comprehensiveunderstanding of the students'expe-
riences and to begin to view the world of school mathematicsfrom the students'
perspectives(Hammersley,1992).
In additionto these methods,I gave the studentsvariousassessmentsduringthe
3-yearperiod.Some of theseI designedmyself,butI also analyzedschoolandexter-
nal examinations,suchas the nationalmathematicsexamination(GeneralCertificate
of SecondaryEducation[GCSE]),takenby almostall 16-year-olds.All of thesemeth-
ods, both qualitativeand quantitative,were used to informeach otherin a contin-
ual processof interactionandreanalysis(Huberman& Crandall,1982). To validate
emergingperspectives,I madeextensiveuse of triangulateddata(Smith& Robbins,
1982), and the analyses developed in this paperwere generallybased on threeor
more differentdata sources. As the study developed, I used progressivefocusing
to form and shape new researchideas andperspectives,and my ongoing research
design was continuallyinfluencedby events in the field.

'In the United Kingdoma mathematicsschemerefersto a series of textbooks,booklets, or cardsthat

studentsworkthrough,usually alone, withoutpriorexplanationfrom the teacher.Schemes areusually
designedto cover all the necessarycontentin the curriculum,andmanyteachersuse them as theirsole
teaching source.
44 Openand Closed Mathematics

In this paperI drawon lesson observationsof classes in Years9 to 11, interviews

with students,questionnairedata,and the resultsof GCSE examinations,applied
assessmentactivities, and shortnumericalquestions.

THE TWO SCHOOLS

The two schools in the researchstudywere chosen becausetheirteachingmeth-
ods were very differentbut their studentbodies were very similar.I first chose a
school thatused a process-basedmathematicalapproach,a practicethatis rarein
the UnitedKingdom;I referto this school as PhoenixPark.I then selecteda school
thatused a content-basedmathematicalapproachandthathad a studentbody that
was almost identicalto thatof Phoenix Park.I referto this school as AmberHill.
The two schoolsbothlie in theheartof mainlyWhite,working-classcommunities
locatedon the outskirtsof largecities.Both schoolsaresurrounded by council-owned
houses (publichousing) where the majorityof the childrenlive. Neither school is
selective, and most parentschoose the schools because of theirproximityto their
houses. In an analysisof socioeconomic status,derivedfrom fathers'occupations,
there were no significant differences between the cohorts in the two schools.
AmberHill is a secondaryschoolthatbeginswithYear7, whenstudentsare 11 years
of age. Therewere about200 studentsin the year groupI followed: 47% of these
were females, 20% were from single-parentfamilies, 68% were classified as
workingclass, and 17%were from ethnic minorities.Phoenix Parkis an "upper"
school, which meansthatthe studentsstartin Year9 when they are 13 yearsof age.
Therewere approximately110 studentsin the year groupthatI followed: 42% of
these were females, 23%were from single-parentfamilies, 79% were classified as
workingclass, and 11%were fromethnicminorities.A comparisonof the abilities
of the studentsat thebeginningof theresearchstudywas basedon resultsof National
Foundationfor EducationalResearch(NFER)tests, which I standardizedagainst
nationalnorms.These tests are similarto IQ tests andinclude questionsassessing
verbalreasoning,logic,andnumeracy; 75%of AmberHillstudentsand76%of Phoenix
Parkstudentsscoredbelow the nationalaverageon these tests, and therewere no
significantdifferencesbetween the two sets of students.At the beginningof Year
9 (the startof my research),I gave the studentsa set of seven shortquestionsassess-
ing variousaspectsof numberwork.Some of these questionswere contextualized,
thatis, they presentedmathematicalproblemswithin describedsituations.There
were no significantdifferencesin the performanceof the two sets of studentson
these tests.
I will now describethe distinguishingcharacteristicsof the two schools andtheir
mathematicalapproaches.Because thereis not sufficientspace to reportmy case
study findingsin detailhere, I have referredto othersourceswhen appropriate.

AmberHill School
Amber Hill is a large, mixed, comprehensive school, run by an authoritarian
(Ball, 1987) head teacherwho tried to improve the school's academic recordby
Jo Boaler 45

encouragingand, when possible, enforcingtraditionalism.As a result,the school

was unusuallyorderedandorderly,andanyvisitorwalkingthecorridors wouldobserve
quiet and calm classrooms with students
sittingin rows or smallgroups,usuallywatch-
ing the chalkboard or working through exercises. In mathematics lessons the
teachersusedthe SchoolMathematicsProject(SMP) 11-16 scheme,a content-based
schemethatis usedby themajorityof mathematics departmentsin theUnitedKingdom.
As partof this scheme studentsused individualizedbooklets in Years 7 and 8 and
textbooksin Years 9, 10, and 11. The individualizedbooklets introducedstudents
to mathematicalproceduresandtechniquesandthenpresenteda rangeof questions
for student practice. The different booklets each presented a different area of
mathematicsat a specificlevel of content.Workin the bookletswas self-paced;when
studentsfinishedone booklet,they collected another.Teachersinteractedwith stu-
dents on an individualbasis; therewas no teachingfrom the frontof the room.
In Year9 the studentsmoved to a moreformalsystem of textbooksandinstruc-
tion. The SMP textbooksare quite traditionalin format.They generallyexplain a
particularmathematicalmethodandthenpresenta series of exercises in which the
studentspracticethe method.Some of the questionsarecontextualized.The eight
mathematicsteachersall presentedtechniquesand methodsfrom the chalkboard
for 15 to 20 minutesat the startof lessons;they thengave studentsquestionsto work
throughfromthe textbooks.At AmberHill the studentsworkedthroughthese text-
booksin everymathematicslessonin Years9 to 11 apartfromapproximately 3 weeks
of each of Years 10 and 11, when they were given an open-endedtask. The eight
teachersof mathematicsat AmberHill were all committedand experienced.The
studentsweregroupedintoeightsets,basedon theirentryscoresandteachers'beliefs
abouttheirabilities;Set 1 containedstudentsof the highest attainment.
In my lesson observationsat AmberHill, I was repeatedlyimpressedby the moti-
vation of the students, who would work through their exercises without com-
plaint or disruption. In a small quantitative assessment of their time on task
(Peterson& Swing, 1982), I recordedthe numbersof studentswho were working
10 minutesinto, halfway through,and 10 minutesbefore the end of each lesson. I
observed eight lessons, each with approximately30 students, and found that
100%,99%,and92%of the studentsappearedto be workingat these threerespec-
tive times. The firstof these figureswas particularlyhigh becauseat this earlypoint
in lessons the studentswere always watchingthe teachersworkthroughexamples
on the chalkboard.
Unfortunately,controland orderin the mathematicsclassroomdo not, on their
own, ensureeffectivelearning.My lessonobservations, interviews,andquestionnaires
all showed thatmany studentsfound mathematicslessons in Years 9, 10, and 11
extremelyboringandtedious.In the lessons thatI observed,studentsoften demon-
strateda markeddegree of disinterestand a lack of involvementwith theirwork.
Thus, although the students worked hard and stayed on task throughouttheir
lessons, they were extremelypassivein theirapproachto theirworkandwouldduti-
fully completeexercisesin lessons withoutany apparentdesireto challengeor think
aboutwhatthey were doing (Boaler, 1997a).At the end of theirYear 9 all my case
46 Openand ClosedMathematics

studycohorts(n = 160) completeda questionnairethataskedthe studentsto write

aboutaspectsof lessons thatthey liked,disliked,or wouldlike to be improved.This
questionnairepromptedmany studentsto write aboutthe similarityof theirmath-
ematicalexperiencesandthe dominanceof textbookwork.In responseto the ques-
tion"Whatdo you dislikeaboutthe way you do mathsat school?"49 students(31%)
criticizedthelackof varietyin the school'sapproach;77 students(48%)alsoreported
a lackof practicalor activity-basedexperience.Forexample,one studentcommented,
"Mathswouldbe moreinterestingif we hadsomepracticalorgroupwork.We barely
everdo classactivities;forexample,we havedoneone all year."Thestudentsbelieved
thattheirmathematicalexperienceslackedvariety,not only because they worked
on textbooksfor the vast majorityof the time, but also because they regardedthe
questionswithin the books as very similarto each other:"I wish we had different
questions,not threepages of sums on the same thing."
In interviews conducted with students in Years 10 and 11, the students also
referredto the monotony of their mathematicalexperience:
JB: Canyouthinkof a mathslessonthatyoureallyenjoyed?
D: No.
P: They'reall thesame.
D: I'mjustnotinterestedinitreally;it'sjustboring; justallthesame;youjustgoon.
they're
[DanielleandPaula,Year10,Set2]
The students'commentsnoted in this paperrepresenta very small selection of
thoseI received,buttheywerenotunusualin anyway. Indeed,commentswerecho-
sen becausethey typifiedthe views presentedby multiplestudentson severalocca-
sions.A largeproportionof the studentsin the yeargroupbelievedthatmathematics
lessons were too similarandmonotonous.These beliefs were consistentacrossthe
eightmathematicssets, even thoughthe teachersof thesegroupswerequitedifferent
andvariedin popularityandexperience.The aspectthatunitedthe teacherswas their
common methodof teaching:a 15-20 minutedemonstrationof methodfollowed
by the studentsworkingthroughquestionsin theirtextbooks,eitheralone or with
their seatingpartners.

Rule-followingbehavior.As a resultof approximately100 lesson observations,

I classified a varietyof behaviorsthatseemed to characterizethe AmberHill stu-
dents' approachesto mathematics.One of these I termedrulefollowing (Boaler,
1996, 1997a).Many of the AmberHill studentsheld a view thatmathematicswas
all aboutmemorizinga vast numberof rules,formulas,andequations,andthis view
appearedto influence theirmathematicalbehavior:
N: Inmathsthere'sa certainformulato getto,say,fromA to B, andthere'snootherway
to getto it, ormaybethereis, butyou'vegotto remember theformula; you'vegotto
remember it. [Neil,Year11,Set7]
L: Inmathsyouhavetoremember; in othersubjectsyoucanthinkaboutit. [Louise,Year
11,Set 1]
Jo Boaler 47

The students'views aboutthe importanceof rememberingset rules, equations,

and formulasseemed to have many negative implications.For example, in math-
ematicalsituationsthe studentsdid not thinkit was appropriateto tryto thinkabout
what to do; they thoughtthey had to remembera rule or method they had used in
a situationthat was similar.However, because in mathematicslessons they were
neverencouragedto discuss differentrulesandmethodsor to thinkaboutwhy they
may be useful in some situationsand not others,the studentsdid not know when
situationswere mathematicallysimilar.Therefore,questionsthatdid not requirean
obviousandsimplisticuse of a ruleor formulacausedstudentsto becomeconfused.
A second problemwas providedfor the studentswho thoughtthatmathematics
shouldbe aboutunderstandingand sense making(Lampert,1986). These students
experienceda conflict at AmberHill becausethey felt thattheirschool's approach
emphasizedmemory and rote learning:
JB: Is mathsmoreaboutunderstanding workorremembering it?
J: Moreunderstanding; if youunderstand it, you'reboundto remember it.
L: Yeah,butthewayMr.Langdon teaches,it's likehejustwantsusto remember it,when
you don'treallyunderstand things.
JB: Do youfindthatit is presented to youas thingsyouhavegotto remember, oris it pre-
sentedto youas thingsyouhavegotto workthroughandunderstand?
L: Gotto be remembered.
J: Yeah,remember it-that's whywetakeit downinthebackof ourbooks,see;hewants
us to rememberit.
[LouiseandJackie,Year10, Set 1]
The predominanceof the students'belief in the importanceof rememberingrules
was furtherdemonstratedthrougha questionnairedevised in responseto my field-
work andgiven to the studentsin Year 10 (n = 163). One item of this questionnaire
asked studentswhat was more importantin approachinga problem,remembering
similarwork done before or thinkinghardaboutthe work at hand. Sixty-fourper-
cent of studentssaid thatrememberingsimilarwork done before was more impor-
tant.This view appearedto be consistentwith the strategiesthey employedin class
and,in manyways,was indicativeof theirwhole approachto mathematics.Thebelief
of manyof the AmberHill studentsthatmathematicswas all aboutlearningset rules
andequationsseemedto have stoppedthemfromtryingto interpretsituationsmath-
ematically.The CognitionandTechnology Groupat Vanderbilt(1990) has noted
thatwhen novices areintroducedto concepts andtheories,they often regardthem
as new "facts or mechanical procedures to be memorized" (1990, p. 3). The
AmberHill studentsrarelyseemed to progressbeyond this belief. This belief led
also to a second,relatedaspectof theirbehaviorthatI have referredto as cue based
(Boaler, 1996, 1997a).
Cue-based behavior. Often during lesson observations I witnessed students
basingtheirmathematicalthinkingon whattheythoughtwas expectedof themrather
thanon the mathematicswithin a question.Brousseau(1984) has talkedaboutthe
didactical contract(p. 113), which causes pupils to base theirmathematicalthink-
ing on whateverthey thinkthe teacherwantsthemto do. I was often awarethatthe
48 Openand Closed Mathematics

Amber Hill students used nonmathematical cues as indicators of the teacher's or

the textbook's intentions. These sometimes related to the words of the teacher, but
students would also use such cues as the expected difficulty of the question (what
they thought should be demanded of them at a certain stage), the context of the ques-
tion, or the teacher's intonation when talking to them. The following extract is taken
from my field notes of a lesson at Amber Hill in Year 9, Set 1:
Aftera few minutesNigel andStephenstartto complainbecausethereis a questionthat
"is a science question, not a mathsquestion";they decide they cannot do it, and I go
over to help them. Accordingto the problem,53% of birthsare male babies and 47%
femalebabies,buttherearemorefemalesin thepopulation.Studentsareaskedto explain
this. I ask Stephenif he has any idea, andhe says, "Becausemen die quicker."I say that
this is right and leave them. Soon most of the studentsare puttingtheirhandsup and
askingfor help on the samequestion.Carol,a high-attaininggirl,has alreadycompleted
all of the exercise but has left this questionout and says that she cannotdo it.
Laterin the lesson, Helen has herhandup andI go over.The questionsays that"58.9
tonnesof ironore has 6.7 tonnesof ironin it. Whatpercentageof the ore is iron?"While
I am readingthis, Helen says, "I'mjust a bit thick really."I ask Helen what she thinks
she shoulddo in the question,and she immediatelytells me, correctly.When I tell her
thatshe is right,she says, "Butthisis easierthanthe otherquestionswe havebeendoing:
in the otherswe have hadto addthingson andstufffirst."A few minuteslatertwo more
girls ask me for help on the same question:both of these girls have alreadycompleted
more difficult questions.
In this extract the girls gave up on the question on iron ore because the mathe-
matical demand was different from what they had expected. The previous exercise
had presented a series of abstract calculations in which the students were asked to
work out percentages that required them to "add things on and stuff first." In the
next exercise the questions were mathematically simpler, but they were contextu-
alized. The writers of the textbook obviously regarded these as more difficult, but
the girls were thrown by this, because they expected something more mathemati-
cally demanding. This expectation caused them to give up on the question. It is this
sort of behavior that I have termed cue based, because the students were using irrel-
evant aspects of the tasks, rather than mathematical sense making or understand-
ing, to cue them into the right method or procedure to use. Schoenfeld (1985) asserted
that this sort of cue-based behavior is formed in response to conventional pedagogic
practices that demonstrate set routines that should be learned in mathematics.
This sort of behavior, which was common among the Amber Hill students, meant
that if a question seemed inappropriately easy or difficult, if it required some non-
mathematical thought, or if it required an operation other than the one they had just
learned about, many students would stop working.
The Amber Hill teachers were aware that the students experienced these sorts
of problems:
Studentsaregenerallygood, unlessa questionis slightlydifferentto whatthey areused
to, orif theyareaskedto do somethingaftera timelapse,if a questionis writtenin words,
or if they areexpectedto answerin words.If you look at the questionandtell themthat
it's basicallyaskingthem to multiply86 by 32, or something,they can do it, but other-
wise theyjust look at the questionandgo blank.[TimLangdon,Headof Mathematics]
Jo Boaler 49

However,the teachersbelieved thatthe studentsexperienceddifficultybecauseof

theclosednatureof theirprimaryschoolexperiences(ages5 to 11),ratherthanbecause
of their secondaryschool teaching.
To summarize, the students at Amber Hill were highly motivated and hard
working,butmany of themfoundmathematicslessons tediousandboring.A large
numberof the studentsalso appearedto be influencedby an extremelyset view of
mathematicsthatthey essentiallyregardedas a vast collection of exercises, rules,
and equationsthatneeded to be learned.These perceptionsmeantthat when situ-
ations were slightly differentfrom what they expected, or when they did not con-
tain a cue suggesting the correctrule to use, many did not know what to do.

Phoenix Park School

PhoenixParkwas differentfrom AmberHill in manyrespects;most differences
derived from the school's commitmentto progressiveeducation.The studentsat
the school were encouragedto take responsibilityfor theirown actions and to be
independentthinkers.Therewerefew schoolrules,andlessonshad a relaxedatmos-
phere.In mathematicslessons at PhoenixPark,the studentsworkedon open-ended
projectsand in mixed-abilitygroups at all times, until Januaryof their final year
when they stoppedtheirprojectworkandstartedto practiceexaminationtechniques.
At the beginningof theirprojects,the studentswere given a few differentstarting
pointsamongwhichthey couldchoose, for example,"Thevolumeof a shapeis 216,
what can it be?" or "Whatis the maximumsized fence thatcan be built out of 36
gates?"The studentswere then encouragedto develop theirown ideas, formulate
and extend problems,and use theirmathematics.The approachwas based on the
philosophythatstudentsshouldencountera need to use mathematicsin situations
thatwererealisticandmeaningfulto them.If a studentor a groupof studentsneeded
to use some mathematicsthatthey did not know about,the teacherwould teach it
to them.Eachprojectlastedfor 2 to 3 weeks, andat the end of the projectsthe stu-
dentswererequiredto turnin descriptionsof theirworkandtheirmathematicalactiv-
ities. Priorto joining Phoenix Park,the studentsall attendedschools thatused the
SMP scheme; therefore,until the end of Year 8 the studentshad experiencedthe
same mathematicalapproachas the AmberHill students. When, at the beginning
of Year9, theAmberHill studentsmovedfromSMPbookletsto textbooks,thePhoenix
Parkstudentsmoved from the same SMP booklets to a project-basedapproach.
A numberof people have commentedto me thatPhoenix Park'sapproachmust
be heavilydependenton highlyskilledandveryrareteachers,butI amnot convinced
thatthis is true.The headof departmentwho devisedthe approachleft at the begin-
ning of my research,and the new head of departmentwas ambivalenttowardthe
approach.A second teacherpreferredtextbooks,but triedto fit in. A thirdteacher
believed in the approachbut had a lot of problemscontrollinghis classes and get-
ting them to do the work.The fourthteacherwas newly qualifiedat the startof the
research.The fourteachersthatmadeup the mathematicsdepartmentwere all com-
mitted and hardworking,but I did not regardthem as exceptional.
In the 80 mathematicslessons I observedat Phoenix Park,therewas very little
50 Openand Closed Mathematics

controlororderand,in contrastto AmberHill,no apparent structure to lessons.Students

couldtaketheirworkto anotherroomandworkunsupervised if theywantedto, because
they were expectedto be responsiblefor theirown learning.In manyof my lesson
observationsI was surprisedby the numberof studentsdoing no work or choos-
ing to work only for tiny segments of lessons. A study of the numberof students
workingon task 10 minutesinto, halfway through,and 10 minutesbefore the end
of 11 lessons showed that69%, 64%, and 58% of the students(approximately30
in each lesson) were on taskat the threerespectivetimes.Whatthese figuresdo not
show is thattherewere a few studentsin each class who appearedto do almostno
workin any lesson. In Year 10 the studentsweregiven questionnairesin whichthey
were askedto writea sentencedescribingtheirmathematicslessons.The threemost
populardescriptionsfrom PhoenixParkstudents(n = 75) were "noisy"(23%),"a
good atmosphere"(17%), and "interesting"(15%).These descriptionscontrasted
with the threemost popularresponsesfrom AmberHill students(n = 163), which
were"difficult"(40%),somethingrelatedto theirteacher(36%),and"boring"(28%).
When I asked studentsat Phoenix Park,in interviews,to describetheirlessons to
me, the singlefactorthatwas given the highestprofilewas the degreeof choice they
were given:
T: Youget a choice.
JB: A choicebetween...?
T: A coupleof things;youchoosewhatyouwantto do andyoucarryon withthat,and
thenyou startanother,differentone.
JB: So you'renotall doingthesamethingatthesametime?
Both: No.
JB: Andcanyoudo whatyouwantin theactivity,oris it all setoutforyou?
L: Youcando whatyouwant,really.
T: Sometimesit's setout,butyoucantakeit further.
[Tanyaand Laura,Year 10]
Studentsalso talkedaboutthe relaxed atmosphereat Phoenix Park,the emphasis
on understanding,and the need to explain methods.
I: It'saneasierwayto learn,becauseyou'reactuallyfindingthingsoutforyourself,not
lookingforthingsin thetextbook.
JB: Wasthatthesamein yourlastschool,do youthink?
I: No,likeif wegotananswer, theywouldsay,"Yougotitright."Hereyouhavetoexplain
howyougot it.
JB: Whatdo youthinkaboutthat--explaining howyougotit?
I: I thinkit helpsyou.
[Ian,Year10]
Duringlesson observationsat both schools,I frequentlyaskedstudentsto tell me
whattheyweredoing.At AmberHill most studentswouldtell me the textbookchap-
ter title, and, if I inquiredfurther,the exercise number.It was generallyvery dif-
ficult to obtainany furtherinformation.At Phoenix Parkstudentswould describe
the problemthey were tryingto solve, what they had discovered so far, and what
they were going to try next. In lessons at Phoenix Parkthe studentsdiscussedthe
Jo Boaler 51

meaning of their work with each other and negotiated possible mathematical
directions. In response to the questionnaireitem concerning rememberingor
thinking,only 35%of the PhoenixParkstudentsprioritizedremembering,compared
with 64% of the Amber Hill students. At its best the Phoenix Park approach
seemed to develop the students'desires andabilitiesto thinkaboutmathematicsin
a way thatthe AmberHill approachdid not:
J: Solvetheproblemsandthinkaboutotherproblemsandsolvethem-problemsthat
aren'tconnectedwithmaths;thinkaboutthem.
JB: Youthinkthatthewayyoudo mathshelpsyouto do that?
J: Yes.
JB: Thingsthataren'tto do withmaths?
J: Yes.It'smorethethinking sideto sortof lookateverythingyou'vegotandthinkabout
howto solveit.
[Jackie,PhoenixPark,Year10]
However, not all the feedbackfrom Phoenix Parkwas positive. About one fifth
of the studentsin each grouplikedneitherthe opennessof the approachnorthe free-
dom they were given. They did not work when left to theirown devices, and they
said that they preferredworking from textbooks. Most of these students were
boys, andoften they were disruptive,not only in mathematicsclasses butthrough-
out the school. Some of the girlsdescribedthe problemsthese studentsexperienced:
A: Well,I don'tthinktheywerestupidoranything. Theyjustdidn'twanttodothework;
theydidn'twantto findthingsoutforthemselves. Theywouldhavepreferred it from
thebook-they neededto knowstraightaway sortof thing.
JB: Whyweretheylikethat,do youthink?
A: Somepeopledon'tliketo findthingsoutforthemselves. Itdependsonhowtheywas
[sic]taughtin theirmiddleschoolas well.
H: Theyjustcouldn'tbe bothered,really,to findanythingout.
[AnnaandHilary,PhoenixPark,Year11]
These girls offeredan interesting,andprobablyquiteaccurate,perspectiveon some
of the students.They did not want freedomor choice; they "couldn'tbe bothered
to find anythingout";they "neededto know straightaway."Certainlya majordis-
advantageof the school's approachseemedto relateto the smallproportionof stu-
dents who simply did not like it and chose to opt out of it.
The students' enjoyment of their mathematicsteaching, at the two schools,
appearedto be quite different.At AmberHill therewas a strongconsensus about
the shortcomingsof the school's approach,but the Phoenix Parkapproachreally
seemedto dividethe yeargroup,most of whomlikedit, althoughsome hatedit. The
consensusat AmberHill primarilyrelatedto the monotonyof doing textbookwork
andthe lack of freedomor choice the studentswere given. In Year 9, 263 students
completeda questionnaire thataskedthemto describewhattheydislikedaboutmath-
ematicsat school;44%of theAmberHill studentscriticizedthemathematics approach,
and 64%of these studentscriticizedthe textbooksystem.Othercommoncriticisms
includedthe constantneed to rushthroughwork,the tendencyfor books to go "on
andon,"the lack of freedomto workat theirown level, andthe lackof choice about
52 Open and Closed Mathematics

topics or order of topics. At Phoenix Park 14% of the students criticized the
school's approach,andthe most commonresponse,from 23%of students,was to
listnothingtheydislikedaboutmathematics at school.Table1 presentsall theresponses
given to three open questions(including one discussed earlier);the responses
the
have been combinedto presentan overviewof the issues importantto the students.
The threeitems askedstudentsto describewhatthey liked,disliked,andwouldlike
to changeaboutmathematicslessons, andthese prompted382 commentsfromthe
160 AmberHill studentsand 202 commentsfrom the 103 Phoenix Parkstudents.
One of the most obvious differencesdemonstratedby these resultsis thatwhen
studentswereinvitedto give theirown opinionsaboutmathematics lessons,thePhoenix
Parkstudentschose to commenton the interestof theirlessons andtheirenjoyment
of open-endedwork,whereasthe AmberHill studentswere moreconcernedabout
a lack of understandingand theirdislike of textbooks.

Table 1
Percentages of Students'Responsesto Itemson Year9 Open Questionnaire
Items AmberHill Phoenix Park
Enjoy open-endedwork 14 38
Dislike textbookwork 22 0
Can't understandwork 20 6
Can understandwork 3 5
Workis interesting 4 21
Want more interestingwork 15 19
Enjoy eitherworkingalone or with others 8 4
Pace is too fast 9 3
Pace is aboutright 0 3

A second importantdifferencebetween the two schools relatedto genderpref-

erencesfor ways of working(Boaler,1997a, 1997b, 1997c).In questionnairesgiven
to studentsin the two case studyyeargroupsin Years 9, 10, and 11, the boys were
always significantlymore positive and confidentthanthe girls at AmberHill, but
therewereneverany significantdifferencesbetweengirlsandboys at PhoenixPark.
For example, in their Year 9 questionnaire51% of the boys and 37% of the girls
at AmberHill reportedenjoyingmathematicsall or most of the time (x2(2, N = 160)
= 7.72, p < .05); at Phoenix Park,45% of the boys and 63% of the girls reported
enjoyingmathematicsall or mostof the time (x2(2, N= 103)= 3.18,p < .30). When
studentswere askedwhetherthey were good, okay, or badat the mathematicsthey
did in school, 6% of the girls and 32% of the boys at AmberHill regardedthem-
selves as good (X2 (2, N= 160) = 18.04,p < .001); at PhoenixPark23% of the girls
and22%of the boys regardedthemselvesas good (X2(2, N = 103) = 0.04, p < .98).
I have attemptedhere to depictthe primarydistinguishingcharacteristicsof the
two schools' approachesand the students'responsesto them. More detail on the
schools can be foundin Boaler(1996, 1997a),andan analysisof thegender-related
implications of the different approachesis provided in Boaler (1997a, 1997b,
1997c).Theeffectof the abilitygroupingon students'performanceis also considered
Jo Boaler 53

in Boaler(1997b).Ultimately,thesuccessor otherwiseof eitherof thesetwoapproaches

mustbe ascertainedthrougha considerationof the students'understanding of math-
ematics.In the next section,I presentthe resultsof appliedassessmentactivitiesand
formal, closed examinations.

STUDENT ASSESSMENTS
Lave (1988) has reportedthe differentways in which studentsperceiveandthink
aboutthe mathematicsthey encounterin school andin real-worldsituations.To gain
moreinsightinto this phenomenon,I decidedto focus on appliedactivitiessituated
within school. The ways in which studentsreactto such taskscan neverbe used to
predict the ways in which they will react to real-life mathematicalsituations.
However, I believe that the combination of school settings and realistic con-
straintsprovidedby appliedtaskscan give us importantinsightinto the factorsthat
influence a student'suse of mathematicalknowledge.Furthermore,if studentsare
unableto makeuse or sense of theirschool mathematicsin suchtaskswithinschool,
it seems unlikely that they will make use of this mathematicswhen similar tasks
are encounteredin the real world with an even greatercomplexity of mathemati-
cal and nonmathematicalvariables.

TheArchitecturalActivity
In the summerof Year 9, approximatelyhalf the studentsin the top four sets at
AmberHill (n = 53) and four of the mixed-abilitygroupsat Phoenix Park(n = 51)
were asked to consider a model and a plan of a proposedhouse and to solve two
problemsrelatedto Local Authoritydesign rules. Studentswere given a scale plan
thatshoweddifferentcross sectionsof a house anda scale modelof the samehouse.
To solve the problems,studentsneededto find informationfromdifferentsources,
choose theirown methods,plan routesthroughthe task,combinedifferentareasof
mathematicalcontent, and communicate information. Because the students at
AmberHill were takenfrom the top half of the school's abilityrangeand the stu-
dents at PhoenixParkwere not, therewas a disparityin the attainmentlevels of the
samplesof students.The studentsin the AmberHill samplehadscoredsignificantly
higheron theirmathematicsNFER entrytests. However, my main aim was not to
comparethe overall performanceof the studentsin the two schools, but ratherto
compareeach individual'sperformanceon the appliedactivitywith his or herper-
formanceon a shortwrittentest. Approximately2 weeks priorto the architectural
task,the studentstook a pencil-and-paper testthatassessedall the mathematicalcon-
tent they needed to use in the activity.
The architecturalactivitycomprisedtwo mainsections.In the firstsectionthe stu-
dents needed to decide whetherthe proposedhouse satisfied a council rule about
proportion.The rule statedthatthe volume of the roof of a house must not exceed
70% of the volume of the main body of the house. The studentsthereforeneeded
to find the volumes of the roof and of the house and to find the roof volume as a
percentageof the house volume. To do so, studentscould use eitherthe scale plan
54 Open and Closed Mathematics

or the model. The second council rule statedthatroofs must not have an angle of
less than70'. The studentsthereforehadto estimatethe angle at the top of the roof
(whichwas actually45') fromeitherthe planor the model,a shorterandpotentially
easier task.
Gradesfor the two taskswere awardedas follows: A gradeof 1 was given if the
answerwas corrector nearlycorrect,with one or two smallerrors;a gradeof 2 was
awarded if mostorallof theanswerwasincorrect
orif theproblemwaspartiallyattempted.
All the studentsmadesome attemptat theproblems.The students'resultsfor thetwo
problemsareshownwiththeirtestquestionresultsin Table2. In thetest the students
weregiven threequestionsthatassessedthe mathematicsinvolvedin theproportion
problem.These questionswere decontextualizedandaskedstudentsto find out the
volumeof a cuboid,the volumeof a triangularprism(similarto theroof), anda per-
centage.Studentsweregiven a testgradeof 1 if theyansweredall thesequestionscor-
rectlyand a gradeof 2 if they got one or morewrong(see Table2).

Table 2
Volumeand Angle Resultsfrom Activitiesand Tests
AmberHilla Phoenix Parkb
Volume
Activitygrade Activitygrade
1 2 1 2
Testgrade 1 23 15 38 Testgrade 1 23 8 31
2 6 9 15 2 15 5 20
29 24 53 38 13 51

Activity grade Activity grade

1 2 1 2
Test grade 1 31 19 50 Test grade 1 40 8 48
2 3 0 3 2 2 1 3
34 19 53 42 9 51
"an=53. bn = 51.

Fromthe roof-volumeproblem,Table 2 shows that at AmberHill, 29 students

(55%)attaineda 1 in the activity,comparedwith 38 (75%)of the PhoenixParkstu-
dents,despitethe fact thatthe AmberHill studentswere takenfromthe top half of
the school'sabilityrange.Thetablealso showsthatatAmberHill, 15 students(28%)
could do the mathematicswhen it was assessedin the test butcould not use it in the
activity,comparedwith 8 such studentsat PhoenixPark(16%).In addition,15 stu-
dents(29%)at PhoenixParkattaineda 1 on the activity,despitegettingone or more
of the relevanttest questionswrong,comparedwith6 students(11%)at AmberHill.
In the test on angle, the studentswere given a 45' angle (the same angle as the
roof in the activity) and asked whetherit was 20', 45%,90' or 120'. Of the Amber
Hill students,50 estimatedthis angle correctlyin the test, but only 31 of these stu-
dentsestimatedthe 45' angle correctlyin the appliedactivity.At PhoenixPark,40
out of 48 studentswho recognizedthe angle in the test solved the angle problem.
Paradoxically,the least successfulstudentsat AmberHill were in Set 1, the highest
Jo Boaler 55

group.Eight of the 16 studentsdid not solve the roof-volumeproblem,and 10 of

the 16 studentsdid not solve the angleproblem.In bothof these problemsthis fail-
ure emanatedfrom an inappropriatechoice of method.For example, in the angle
problem,the 10 unsuccessfulstudentsattemptedto use trigonometry to decidewhether
the angle of the roof, which was 45', was more or less than70', but they failed to
use the methodscorrectly.Successfulstudentsestimatedthe angleusingtheirknowl-
themeresightof thewordangle seemed
edge of the size of 90' angles.Unfortunately,
to promptmany of the Set 1 studentsat AmberHill to thinkthattrigonometrywas
required,even thoughthis was clearly inappropriatein the context of the activity.
The studentsseemed to take the word angle as a cue for the methodto use.
In theirYear 10, 100 studentsin each school completedanotherappliedtask and
a shortwrittentest, and the same patternof results emerged,but these were more
marked. The Phoenix Park students gained significantly higher grades in all
aspects of the appliedtask, and their performanceson test and applied situations
were very similar.In appliedsettingsthe AmberHill studentsexperienceddifficulty
using the mathematicsthatthey could use in a test; this difficulty againrelatedto
their choice of methods.

Short Closed Questions

The fact that the Phoenix Parkstudentsgained highergradesin appliedrealis-
maynotbe consideredsurprising,
tic situations giventheschool'sproject-basedapproach.
However, in traditionalclosed questionsthe AmberHill studentsdid not perform
any betterthanthe studentsat PhoenixPark.In a set of seven shortwrittentests of
numeracythatI devised, therewere no significantdifferencesin the resultsof the
two schools, either at the beginning of Year 9 (the beginning of their new
approaches)or at the end of Year 10(2 yearslater).The GCSEexaminationis made
up of short,fairlytraditional,closed questionsthatassess contentknowledge,apart
from a few questionsthataremoreapplied.Studentstakethese examinationsat the
end of Year 11. Entryinto advancedcoursesof study,as well as manyprofessional
jobs, generallydependson gaininga gradeof A, B, or C on thisexamination.A pass
at GCSEis any gradefromA to G. In theirGCSEexaminations,11%of the Amber
Hill cohort attainedan A-C grade, and 71% passed the examination.At Phoenix
Park 11%of the cohort attainedan A-C grade,and 88% passed the examination.
Significantlymore of the PhoenixParkstudentsthanAmberHill studentsattained
an A-G pass(X2(1, N= 332) = 12.54,p < .001),despitethefactthattheGCSEexam-
inationwas markedlydifferentfrom anythingthe studentswere accustomedto at
Phoenix Park.The A-C resultsfrom both of the schools andthe A-G resultfrom
AmberHill areconsiderablylower thanthe nationalaveragesfor this examination,
but the abilityrangesof the cohortsat the two schools were also considerablylower
than nationalaverages.
At AmberHill therewere also significantdifferencesin the attainmentof girls
and boys; 20% of the boys and 9% of the girls who entered the examination
attainedgradesA-C (X2(1, N= 217) = 3.89, p < .05). At Phoenix Parktherewere
no significantdifferencesin the achievementof girlsandboys, with 13%of theboys
56 Openand ClosedMathematics

and 15%of the girls who enteredthe examinationattaininggradesA-C (X2(1, N =

115)= 0.12,p < .80)(Boaler,1997a).

DISCUSSION
The relative underachievementof the AmberHill studentsin formaltest situa-
tions may be consideredsurprising,bothbecausethe studentsworkedhardin math-
ematics lessons and because the school's mathematicalapproachwas extremely
examinationoriented.However, aftermany hoursof observingand interviewing
the students,I was not surprisedby the relativeperformancesof the two groupsof
students. The Amber Hill students had developed an inert (Whitehead, 1962)
knowledgethattheyfounddifficultto use in anythingotherthantextbookquestions.
In the examination,the studentsencountereddifficulties because they found that
the questionsdid not requiremerely a simplisticrehearsalof a rule or a procedure;
the questionsrequiredstudentsto understand whatthequestionwas askingandwhich
procedurewas appropriate.The questionsfurtherrequiredthe studentsto applyto
new anddifferentsituationsthe methodsthey had learned.In interviewsfollowing
their "mock"GCSEexaminations,2AmberHill studentswere clear aboutthe rea-
sons for theirlack of success. The studentsagreedthatthey could not interpretthe
demandsof the unfamiliarquestionsandthatthey could not see how to apply the
proceduresthey had learnedto the questionsasked:
L: SomebitsI didrecognize,butI didn'tunderstand howto dothem;I didn'tknowhow
to applythemethodsproperly.
[Louise,Year11,Set3]
In theirmathematicslessonsthe studentshadnotexperiencedsimilardemands,for
the textbookquestionsalways followed from a demonstrationof a procedureor
method,andthestudentswereneverleftto decidewhichmethodtheyshoulduse.If the
studentswereunsureof whatto do in lessons,theywouldasktheteacherortryto read
cues fromthequestionsorfromthecontextsin whichtheywerepresented.In theexam-
inationthe studentstriedto find similarcues,buttheyweregenerallyunableto do so:
G: It's different,andlikethewayit's therelike-not thesame.It doesn'tliketellyou
it's notthesameas in thebooks,thewaytheteacherworks
it, thestory,thequestion;
it out.[Gary,Year11,Set4]
T: You can get a trigger,when she says like simultaneousequationsandgraphs,graph-
ically.Whentheysaylike-and youknow,it pushesthattrigger,tellsyouwhattodo.
JB: Whathappensin theexamwhenyouhaven'tgot that?
T: Youpanic.[Trevor,Year11,Set 3]
The students' responses to their examinations suggested that their textbook
learninghad encouragedthem to develop an inert,procedural(Schoenfeld, 1985)
knowledge that was of limited use to them. This developmentmay be linked to

2Inmock examinations,the studentsaregiven a previousyear's GCSEexamination,which they take

underexaminationconditions.
Jo Boaler 57

the students'belief that mathematicswas a rule-bound,memory-basedsubject:

L: Inmathsyouhaveto remember; inothersubjectsyoucanthinkaboutit.Butin exams
thequestionsdon'treallygive youclueson howto do them.
[Louise,Year11,Set 1]
The studentsdid not considerthe examinationquestionsholistically,nordid they
try to interpretwhat to do because they believed thatin mathematics"youhave to
remember."Unfortunately,theirexaminationdid not provideany cues thatwould
help them access theirmemory.
Gibson (1986) is cited as providingthe most extremeposition on situatedlearn-
ing (Young, 1993) because he assertedthatindividualsdevelop meaningfrom sit-
uationsby perceivingand acting and by creatingmeaningon the spot, ratherthan
by using theirmemoriesof storedrepresentations.Gibson's model seems impor-
tantto consideralongsidethe reflectionsof the studentsat the two schools, because
his descriptionof the way in which people perceiveandcreatemeaningin new sit-
uationsresonateswith the way in which the PhoenixParkstudentsdescribedtheir
examinationexperiences.The studentsat PhoenixParkbelievedthatsuccessin their
examinationswas enhancedby theirdesire and abilities to thinkaboutunfamiliar
situationsand determinewhat was required:
T: I thinkit allows-when youfirstcometo theschoolandyoudo yourprojects,and
it allowsyouto thinkmoreforyourselfthanwhenyouwerein middleschoolandyou
workedfromtheboardorfrombooks.
JB: Andis thatgoodforyou,do youthink?
T: Yes.
JB: Inwhatway?
T: Ithelpedwiththeexamswherewe hadto...hadto thinkforourselvesthereandwork
thingsout.
[Tina,Year11]
Indeed,it was this perceivingandinterpretingof situationsthatseemedto character-
ize therealdifferencesin thelearningof the studentsatthetwo schools.Whenthe stu-
dentswerepresentedwiththeangleproblemin thearchitectural task,manyof theAmber
Hill studentswereunsuccessful,notbecausetheywereincapableof estimatinganangle
but becausethey could not interpretthe situationcorrectly.In a secondappliedtask
given to studentsin Year 10, the AmberHill studentswereagainunableto determine
whatto do. In examinationsthey,similarly,couldnotinterpret whatthequestionswere
asking.ThePhoenixParkstudentswerenotas well versedin mathematical procedures,
butthey were ableto interpretanddevelopmeaningin the situationsencountered:
JB: Didyoufeel in yourexamthattherewerethingsyouhadn'tdonebefore?
A: Well,sometimes, I supposetheyputit in a waywhichthrowsyou.Butif there'sstuff
I actuallyhaven'tdonebefore,I'll tryandmakeas muchsenseof it as I canandtry
andunderstand it as bestas I can.[Arran,Year11]
The studentsat Phoenix Parkseemed to have developed a predispositionto think
aboutandto use mathematicsin novel situations,andthis tendencyseemed to rest
on two important principles:First,thestudentshadthebeliefthatmathematics involved
active andflexible thought.Second, the studentshad developedan abilityto adapt
and change methodsto fit new situations.
58 Openand Closed Mathematics

L: Well,if youfinda ruleora method, youtryandadaptit tootherthings.Whenwe found

thisrulethatworked withcircles,westarted
toworkoutthepercentages andthenadapted
it,sowejusttookitfurther and[used]different
stepsandtriedtoadaptittonewsituations.
[Lindsey,Year11]
This flexibility in approach,combined with the students' beliefs about the
adaptable natureof mathematics andtheneedforreasonedthought,appeared to enhance
the students'examinationperformance.The proportionof Phoenix Parkstudents
who passed the GCSE examinationwas higherthanthe nationalaverage,despite
theinitialattainment of thecohortanddespitethefactthatthestudentshadnotencoun-
teredall the areasof mathematicsthatwere assessed in theirexamination.In pre-
vious yearsPhoenixParkhad enteredtheirstudentsfor a new formof examination
that rewarded problem solving as well as proceduralknowledge. The school
achieved greater success on this new form of examination.3 Unfortunately,
Conservativepoliticians in the United Kingdom caused the new examination,
which held the potentialfor importantimprovementsin mathematicseducation,to
be abolished.
Another major difference in the learning of the students at the two schools
relatedto theirreporteduse of mathematicsin real-worldsituations.The students
at AmberHill all spokevery stronglyabouttheircompleteinabilityto makeuse of
any school-learnedmethodsin real situations,becausethey could not see any con-
nectionbetweenwhatthey haddone in the classroomandthe demandsof theirlives
outside the classroom(Boaler, 1996, 1997a).
JB: Whenyou use mathsoutsideof school,does it feel like whenyou do mathsin
schoolordoesit feel...?
K: No, it's different.
S: No way;it's totallydifferent.
[KeithandSimon,Year11,Set6]
The studentsat PhoenixParkdidnot see a realdifferencebetweentheirschoolmath-
ematics and the mathematicsthey needed outside of school.
JB: Do youthinkin thefuture,if youneedto usemathsin something, do youthinkyou
will be ableto use whatyou'relearningnowordo youthinkyouwilljustmakeup
yourownmethods?
G: No, I thinkI'll remember. WhenI'moutof schoolnow,I canconnectbackto what
I done[sic]in classso I knowwhatI'mdoing.
[Gavin,Year10]
In the following extract, Sue contrasted her project-based work with the few
weeks of examination preparationthe students received prior to their GCSE
at Phoenix Park:

3WhenPhoenixParkfirstadopteda process-basedapproach,they were involved in a small-scalepilot

of a new GCSE examinationthatassessed process as well as content.In 1994 the School Curriculum
andAssessmentAuthority(SCAA) withdrewthis examination,and the school was forcedto enterstu-
dentsfora traditional, examination.Theproportionof studentsattheschoolattainingGrades
content-based
A-C andA-G droppedfrom 32%and97%,respectively,in 1993 to 12%and84%in 1994. The school
has now reintroducedtextbookwork in an attemptto raise examinationperformance.
Jo Boaler 59

JB: Do youthink,whenyouusemathsoutsideof school,it feelsverydifferentto using

mathsin school, or does it feel similar?
S: Verydifferentfromwhatwe do now;if we do use mathsoutsideof school,it's got
thesameatmosphere as howit usedto be,butnotnow.
JB: Whatdo youmeanby "it'sgot thesameatmosphere"?
S: Well,whenwe usedto doprojects, it waslikethat,lookingatthingsandworkingthem
out,solvingthem-so it wassimilartothat,butit'snotsimilarto thisstuffnow;it's-
youdon'tknowwhatthisstuffis forreally,excepttheexam.
[Sue,Year11]
Sue'scommentsseemto capturetheessenceof thevalueof PhoenixPark'sapproach.
When the studentsworkedon projects,they needed to thinkfor themselves,inter-
pretsituations,choose, combine,andadaptmathematicalprocedures,andthis had
"thesameatmosphere"as the mathematicaldemandsof the realworld.The students
at Phoenix Parkhad been enculturatedinto a system of workingandthinkingthat
appearedto be advantageousto them in new and unusualsettings.

CONCLUSION
At Amber Hill, the mathematicsteachers were not unusual.They were dedi-
cated teachers who were effective at teaching textbook mathematicalmethods.
The studentsthey taughtworkedhardto learnthese methods.Schoenfeld (1985)
has describedthis type of textbook approachas being widespread,and it is cer-
tainly the predominant model adopted in the United Kingdom (Office for
Standardsin Education, 1993). The results of this researchreveal some impor-
tant limitationsof this type of teaching. At Amber Hill, the studentsdeveloped
an inert,proceduralknowledge that was of limited use to them in anythingother
than textbook situations.
A growingbodyof researchhasidentifiedtheeffectivenessof apprenticeship learn-
ing (see, e.g., Lave, 1988;Chaiklin& Lave, 1993). A numberof projectshave man-
agedto transport someof thepositivefeaturesof cognitiveapprenticeship
intoclassroom
settings(CognitionandTechnologyGroupat Vanderbilt,1990). The PhoenixPark
approachsharedsome similaritieswith apprenticeshipforms of learning,particu-
larlybecausethe studentswere introducedto new conceptsandproceduresonly as
partof authenticactivities.The learningthatthe studentsdevelopedin responseto
this approachappearedto be moreusablethanthatdevelopedfromnonapprenticeship
teaching. It seemed thatthe act of using mathematicalprocedureswithin authen-
tic activities allowed the studentsto view the proceduresas tools that they could
use and adapt.The understandingsandperceptionsthatresultedfrom these expe-
riencesseemedto lead to increasedcompetencein transfersituations.But this com-
petence supportedLave's rejectionof theoriesof learningtransfer(1988), because
the studentsat Phoenix Parkdid not know more mathematicsthanthe studentsat
AmberHill.Rather,the studentswereableto use mathematics becauseof threeimpor-
tantcharacteristics:a willingness andabilityto perceive andinterpretdifferentsit-
uationsanddevelopmeaningfromthem(Gibson,1986)andin relationto them(Lave,
60 Open and Closed Mathematics

1993);a sufficientunderstandingof the proceduresto allow appropriate procedures

to be selected (Whitehead,1962); and a mathematicalconfidencethatenabledstu-
dents to adaptand changeproceduresto fit new situations.
Therewere many indicationsfrom this studythatthe traditionalback-to-basics
mathematicsapproachof AmberHill was ineffective in preparingstudentsfor the
demandsof the realworldandwas no moreeffectivethana process-basedapproach
for preparingstudentsfor traditionalassessmentsof contentknowledge.Therewere
problemswith the PhoenixParkapproach,too, includingthe fact thatsome students
spentmuchof theirtime not working.Nevertheless,the PhoenixParkstudentswere
ableto achievemorein testandappliedsituationsthantheAmberHill students;they
also developed more positive views about the nature of mathematics,views I
have nothadspaceto reporton in thispaper.It wouldbe easy to dismisstheseresults
or to attributethemto some otherfactor,suchas the qualityof the teachersat Phoenix
Park.Butpartof thevalueof ethnographic studiesis theflexibilitytheyallowresearchers
to investigatethe influence of variousfactors,using the datathat are most appro-
priate.Afterhundredsof hoursspentin the classroomsat the two schools,afterhear-
ing the students' own accounts of their learning, after analyzing over 200
questionnaireresponsesfor each year, andafterconsiderationof the resultsof tra-
ditionaland appliedassessments,I have been able to isolate factorsthathave and
have not been influential in the students' development of understanding.One
importantconclusionthatI feel able to drawfrom this analysisis thata traditional
textbook approachthat emphasizes computation,rules, and procedures,at the
expense of depth of understanding,is disadvantageousto students, primarily
becauseit encourageslearningthatis inflexible, school-bound,andof limiteduse.
REFERENCES
Ball, S. J. (1987). Themicro-politicsof the school: Towardsa theoryof school organisation.London:
Methuen.
In P.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Culture,crisis andmorality:The struggleover the nationalcurriculum.
Atkinson,S. Delamont,& W. B. Davies (Eds.), Discourse and reproduction:Afestschriftfor Basil
Bernstein(pp. 85-102). Cresskill,NJ: HamptonPress.
Beynon, J. (1985). Initial encountersin the secondaryschool. London:FalmerPress.
toloseinthemathematics
Boaler,J.(1996).Learning A critique
classroom: of traditional
schooling
prac-
tices. QualitativeStudiesin Education,9(1), 17-34.
Boaler, J. (1997a). Experiencingschool mathematics:Teachingstyles, sex and setting. Buckingham,
OpenUniversityPress.
England:
Boaler, J. (1997b). Reclaiming school mathematics:The girls fight back. Gender and Education,
9(3),285-306.
of topset students.
theexperiences
Boaler,J. (1997c).Wheneventhewinnersarelosers:Evaluating
Journalof CurriculumStudies.
Brousseau,G. (1984). The crucialrole of the didacticalcontractin the analysisandconstructionof sit-
uations in teaching and learningmathematics.In H.-G. Steiner (Ed.), Theoryof mathematicsedu-
cation:ICME5 topicarea and miniconference(pp. 110-119). Bielefeld,Germany:InstitutffirDidaktik
der Mathematikder UniversitditBielefeld.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
EducationalResearcher,18(1), 32-42.
Burton,L. (1986, June).Femmeset mathematique:Yat'il une intersection?Paperpresentedat Femmes
et Mathematiques Quebec,Canada.
Conference,
Jo Boaler 61

Burton,L. (1995). Moving towardsa feminist epistemologyof mathematics.In P. Rogers & G. Kaiser
(Eds.),Equityin mathematicseducation:Influencesoffeminismand culture(pp. 209-226). London:
FalmerPress.
Chaiklin,S. & Lave,J. (1993). Understanding practice:Perspectiveson activityand context.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Charles,R. I., & Lester,F. K., Jr.(1984). An evaluationof a process-orientedinstructionalprogramin
mathematicalproblemsolving in Grades5 and 7. Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,
15, 15-34.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991).
Assessment of a problem-centeredsecond-grade mathematicsproject. Journalfor Research in
MathematicsEducation,22, 3-29.
Cobb,P., Wood,T., Yackel,E., & Perlwitz,M. (1992). A follow-upassessmentof a second-gradeprob-
lem-centeredmathematicsproject.EducationalStudiesin Mathematics,23, 483-504.
Cockcroft,W. H. (1982). Mathematicscounts: Reportof inquiryinto the teaching of mathematicsin
schools. London:Her Majesty's StationeryOffice.
CognitionandTechnologyGroupat Vanderbilt.(1990). Anchoredinstructionandits relationshipto sit-
uatedcognition. EducationalResearcher,19(5), 2-10.
Departmentof Educationand Science. (1989). Mathematicsin the national curriculum.London:Her
Majesty's StationeryOffice.
Departmentof Educationand Science. (1991). Mathematicsin the national curriculum.London:Her
Majesty's StationeryOffice.
Eisenhart,M. A. (1988).The ethnographic researchtraditionandmathematicseducationresearch.Journal
for Research in MathematicsEducation,19, 99-114.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammersley, M. (1992).What'swrongwithethnography? Methodological London:Routledge.
explorations.
Huberman,A. M., & Crandall,D. P. (1982). Fittingwordsto numbers:Multisite/multimethod research
in educationaldissemination.AmericanBehavioralScientist,26, 62-83.
Kluckhohn,F. R. (1940). The participant-observer techniquein small communities.AmericanJournal
of Sociology, 46, 331-343.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3,
305-342.
Lave,J. (1988).Cognitioninpractice:Mind,mathematics, andculturein everydaylife.Cambridge,England:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lave, J. (1993). Situatinglearningin communitiesof practice.In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & T. Teasley
(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-85). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lave, J., Murtaugh,M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialecticalconstructionof arithmeticpractice.
In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everydaycognition: Its developmentin social context (pp. 67-97).
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Lave,J.,& Wenger,E. (1991).Situatedlearning:Legitimate New York:Cambridge
peripheralparticipation.
UniversityPress.
Masingila, J. O. (1993). Learning from mathematicspractice in out-of-school situations. For the
Learningof Mathematics,13(2), 18-22.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculumand evaluation standardsfor
school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
Office for Standardsin Education.(1993). Mathematicskeystages 1, 2, 3 and 4. London:HerMajesty's
StationeryOffice.
Perez, J. A. (1986). Effects of studentgeneratedproblemson problemsolving performance(Doctoral
dissertation,Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts
International,46, 2954B.
Peterson, P. L., & Swing, A. R. (1982). Beyond time on task: Students' reports of their thought
processes duringclassroominstruction.ElementarySchool Journal, 82, 481-491.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematicalproblem solving. Orlando,FL: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of "well-taught"
mathematicscourses. EducationalPsychologist, 23, 145-166.
62 Open and Closed Mathematics

Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematicalproblem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1),

19-28.
Smith,A. G., & Robbins,A. E. (1982).Structuredethnography:Thestudyof parentalinvolvement.American
BehavioralScientist,26, 45-61.
Whitehead,A. N. (1962). Theaims of education.London:ErnestBenn.
Winograd,K. (1991). Writing,solving and sharingoriginalmathstory problems:Case studiesof fifth
gradechildren'scognitive behavior(Doctoraldissertation,Universityof NorthernColorado,1990).
DissertationAbstractsInternational,51, 3324A.
Young,M. F. (1993). Instructionaldesign for situatedlearning.EducationalTechnology,Researchand
Development,41(1), 43-58.

Author
Jo Boaler, Lecturer,School of Education,King's College London,CornwallHouse, WaterlooRoad,
LondonSE1 8WA, United Kingdom;joboaler@kcl.ac.uk