Talking about Math in Mathematics Classrooms

Allison de Hoop February 15, 2012 ECUR 312 Prof. Egan Chernoff

The teaching of mathematics is becoming increasingly controversial. There are discrepancies between new and old school methods of teaching and which method fosters greater understanding, higher grades, and overall more success. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics recommends certain standards for a successful mathematics classroom. One of these new standards is the Communication Process Standard (NCTM, 2012). In short this is talking about math, discussing strategies and methods to use toward solutions, and learning from others in a mathematics classroom. In this paper I will discuss what the Communication Standard is, why it is useful, and how teachers can facilitate this method of learning in their classrooms including the importance of a welcoming learning community or environment. The NCTM identifies five Standards which describe the processes that students should use to learn mathematics (Van de Walle et. al., 2011). The communication standard asks that children be able to interact (talk and write about, describe, explain) and deeply explore ideas in relation to mathematics. This allows students to analyze and evaluate other students ideas (Van de Walle et. al., 2011). Through this process, students come to reflect on their learning by justify[ing] their reasoning or formulat[ing] question[s] (NCTM 2012). Another important reason for this communicating, essentially talking or discussing math concepts within the class and/or small groups, is for students to be exposed to other perspectives and ways of solving problems. This allows students to learn to recognize the different pros and cons of different approaches to solving problems and become critical mathematical thinkers (NCTM, 2012). To further explain the process of communication one must consider that learning is a social activity and knowledge is socially constructed during discussions (Forman & Ansell, 2001; McNair, 2000). Setati (2005) identifies two types of mathematical discourses that students need to be able to engage in to communicate mathematically (Setati, 2005). Procedural

discourse involves steps for solving a problem and conceptual discourse involves the reasons for calculating in a particular way. Setati (2005) emphasises a need for learner involvement in sharing, discussing, and reflecting on mathematics when using conceptual discourses. Setati (2005) also mentions the most common pattern of discourse in classrooms is a) teacher initiation, b) student response, and c) teacher evaluation (IRE). In a study done in a classroom where an NCTM approved method was taught, researchers found that there were two mathematical voices apparent in the classroom. The first was heard in relation to memorization and lecture style instruction and was connected to low understanding of mathematics topics (Forman & Ansell, 2001). The second voice reflected, excitement, enjoyment of learning from others through discussion, risk-taking, [and] commitment to fostering students sense-making (Forman & Ansell, 2001). As well, students are able to fill in the gaps of their understanding of a topic with new strategies and perspectives and begin to gain metacognitive awareness (Webb et. al. 2009). As discussed in many academic circles, Japans high international scores have been studied and it is recently indicated that Japanese elementary students do use cooperative learning strategies and discuss their answers (House, 2009). In addition, McNair (2000) pointed out that, requiring students to give reasons for their comments may also facilitate the development of mathematical frames by shifting attention away from finding answers toward understanding and justifying procedures. Webb et. al. (2009) add to this conversation by citing evidence that complex explanations are correlated to learning more than simple explanations. For the dialogue in the classroom to become philosophical and meaningful for mathematics, it must be regularly practiced and guided by the teacher (Lafortune et. al., 1999).

A teachers goal and job in mathematics discussions is to stimulate pupils' curiosity about mathematical matters and develop their desire to engage in critical thinking and dialogical communication (Lafortune et. al, 1999). The teacher acts as an animator clarifying and legitimizing student contribution (Forman & Ansell, 2001). A teacher should encourage reflecting, summarising, clarification, and prediction in class discussions to increase learning potential and as such students may begin to use these strategies in their small group discussions or individual thought processes (McNair, 2000). Lafortune et. al. (1999) agree with the success of classroom discussions of mathematics, but are concerned that conversations can begin to focus too much on achieving the answer to a problem, and less on the specific mathematical concept to be learned. Researchers direct teachers towards monitoring group progress and to intervene as groups fail to progress, function ineffectively, get stuck, have unequal participation or have communication problems (Webb et. al., 2009). Classroom conversation analysis, or listening to/reviewing what the students and teacher are saying, can provide opportunities for assessment. It can inform classroom teachers how children acquire understanding of a mathematics topic and whether teaching procedures are successful or not, and the different meanings students are acquiring as a result (Forrester & Pike, 1998). For discussions to have maximum learning potential they must be refined by specifying mathematical goals or outcomes (McNair, 2000). McNair (2000) recommends three details to consider in a discussion: a subject, a purpose, and a mathematics frame. Teachers should help students focus on the critical mathematical ideas that are the goals of the discussion. Teachers also should help students explain their thinking or make sense of their explanations rather that only asking students to elaborate (Webb et. al., 2009). Webb et. al. (2009) explain that this

involves listening to what students say with regards to mathematics, which is challenging and can often be is the focus of professional development sessions. Students who are probed by teachers for explanations and justifications for their solutions achieve a greater understanding of mathematics topics than students who are simply asked to summarize what they did (Webb et. al., 2009). In addition, students who were asked to elaborate on their explanations also did so to other students when working collaboratively in small groups. The opposite effect was found with teachers who did not press their students for explanations but rather set out all the procedures for them (Webb et. al., 2009). A different perspective is taken by Forman and Ansell (2001) who advocate for student initiation and evaluation of discussions. They repeat that to promote learning in classrooms students should play a part in explaining and teaching (Forman & Ansell, 2001). To supplement this idea, Li and Ni (2009) noticed during their study that expert teachers classrooms involved a) a student presenting an answer, b) students and the teacher question the answer, and c) the student explains the answer. Novice teachers are charged with giving hints and answers and asking the questions themselves, then waiting for student answers and commenting on them without further explanation (Li & Ni, 2009). Important for facilitating productive classroom discussions is an environment where conceptual mathematical discourse is not only possible, but encouraged and valued (Setati, 2005). This is referred to commonly as a learning community. This requires practice and teacher skill in order to involve all children of different needs, abilities, cultural backgrounds, SES, etcetera (Van de Walle et. al., 2011). Van de Walle et. al. (2011) mentions an important strategy: to have a specific purpose for the group discussion and to be sure all students are included. In addition, mathematics learning communities should display student-student dialogue rather that solely

student-teacher dialogue, as well as explanations to all answers, frequent student asked questions, and an acceptance of not understanding (followed by asking questions) (Van de Walle et. al., 2011). Some strategies that teachers can use to probe discussion are asking those who understand to explain to others, fooling or pretending to not understand something to gain an explanation, and asking specifically why students did something, rather than what they did (Van de Walle et. al., 2011). Nussbaum (2008) encourages teachers to provide time for discussion strategies to be developed and stresses that prompting elaboration and thinking is more useful than structuring discussions with roles and procedures. Children need to explicitly learn how to solve arguments, accept and evaluate differing points of view, and participate cooperatively before they will benefit from discussions (Nussbaum, 2008; Van de Walle et. al., 2011). Van de Walle et. al. (2011) stress that it takes a long-term teacher commitment for a learning community to form, and teachers can expect discussions to be tense and unproductive at first. Discussions in mathematics classrooms facilitate student learning in a number of ways. Students retain what they are learning when they have a chance to reflect on how and why they have performed certain mathematical strategies. They learn a greater amount because of the chance to glean others ideas and strategies. Students also learn cooperative skills by being involved in a community environment where children are encouraged to share, take risks, make mistakes, and solve problems. Talking and communicating in a mathematics classroom is also a way for teachers to assess what their students are learning and how they come to understand mathematics. Teachers have an important role of facilitating, mediating, and prompting discussions in order to enhance learning for students. It is important that these discussions have a mathematical goal to ensure they are productive.

References Forman, E. & Ansell, E. (2001). The Multiple Voices of a Mathematics Classroom Community. Educational Studies in Mathematics 46(1/3), 115 142. Published by Springer, Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3483242 Forrester, M. A. & Pike, C. D. (1998). Learning to Estimate in the Mathematics Classroom: A Conversation-Analytic Approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(3), 334-356. Published by NCTM, Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/749793
House, J. D. (2009). Elementary School Mathematics Instruction and Achievement of Fourth Grade Students in Japan: Findings from the TIMSS 2007 Assessment. Education, 130(2), 301-307. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196410890?accountid=147 39

Lafortune, L., Daniel, M., Schleifer, M., & Pallascio, R. (1999). Philosophical reflection and cooperative practices in an elementary school mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(4), 426-426. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215374993?accountid=14739 Li, Q., & Ni, Y. (2009). Dialogue in the elementary school mathematics classroom: A comparative study between expert and novice teachers. Frontiers of Education in China, 4(4), 526-540. doi:10.1007/s11516-009-0029-7 McNair, R. E. (2000). Working in the Mathematics Frame: Maximizing the Potential to Learn from Students' Mathematics Classroom Discussions. Educational Studies in Mathematics 42(2), 197-209. Published by Springer. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3483 285 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2012). Communication. Standards and Focal Points. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=26854 Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative Discourse, Argumentation, and Learning: Preface and Literature Review. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33(3), 345-359. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.cyber.usask.ca/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001 Setati, M. (2005) Teaching Mathematics in a Primary Multilingual Classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 36(5), 447-466. Published by NCTM. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034945 Van de Walle, J. A., Folk, S., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2011). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. 3rd CAN. Ed. Toronto, ON: Pearson. Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., De, T., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., Shein, P., & Melkonian, D. K. (2009). Explain to Your Partner: Teachers Instructional Practices and Students Dialogue in Small Groups. Cambridge Journal of Education 39(1), 49-70. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk.cyber.usask.ca/journals