!

13!

Identity, Authority, and Agency in the Mathematics Classroom The formation of identity is seen as a delicate balance between our historical experience and active construction. We are, at once, both products of and participants in the creation of our sense of self as a result of our experiences with and interactions within figured worlds those socially and culturally constructed realms of interpretation in which particular characters and actors are recognized, significance is assigned to certain acts, and particular outcomes are valued over others (Holland et al., 1998, p. 52). The mathematics classroom can be viewed as a particular figured world, one in which students come to define their mathematical identity. Our classrooms are the primary experiences from which students abstract both their definition of mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1994) and their sense of self as an active participant in the authoring of mathematics (Lawler, 2010). In this way, our classrooms must reflect the understandings we want students to develop about mathematics and foster their construction of an identity as mathematicians. In many traditional classrooms, mathematics has come to be defined as a preexisting set of rules, procedures, and formulas. This definition puts the student of mathematics in a socially unjust position of powerlessness. By this definition, the student is no more ! 15!

than a receiver of infallible truths; they are an observer to somebody elses mathematics and have no role in authoring or evaluating mathematical claims. In this case, the authority rests solely in the hands of the teacher and, as a result, students must rely on them to judge the mathematical correctness of their ideas. As Ernest explains: Many students and other individuals, including mathematics teachers (Cooper, 1989), are persuaded by the prevailing ideology that the source of knowledge is outside themselves, and that it is both created and sanctioned solely by external authorities. They are led to believe that only such authorities are legitimate epistemological agents, and that their own role as individuals is merely to receive knowledge, with the subsequent aim of reproducing or transmitting it as accurately as possible. (2002, p. 9) Identity is a model for self-direction and, as a result, a possibility for mediating agency (Holland et al., 1998). Many students have established their identity as receivers of knowledge, with no active role in creating or critiquing mathematical claims. As a result, their sense of agency is surrendered. Research supports the view that such environments cause students to surrender their sense of thought and agency in order to comply with the procedural routines outlined by the teacher/authority figure (Boaler, 2000). Signs of this include negative attitudes towards math, lack of connected knowing, and the belief that mathematics is absorbed rather than created.

! 16!

A significant goal of mathematics education should be to empower students as the authors and evaluators of mathematics. This epistemological empowerment would help them to recognize themselves as builders of new knowledge and equip them with the power to determine the value of their constructions (Ernest, 2002). For the purposes of this paper, I would like to define mathematical agency quite simply as the willingness or perceived ability to act. However, my early hypothesis is that the following issues of identity in relation to mathematics largely affect this sense of agency: 1. recognition of their own ways of thinking as being mathematical 2. a mathematical identity in which students see themselves as authors of mathematics (creators of rules, formulas, and justifications). 3. student possession of the authority to judge the validity of their own mathematics. Helping students to realize this sense of mathematical agency is a significant shift in the purpose of mathematics education. It positions mathematics as something that students create rather than receive, students as doers rather than knowers, and it credits students with authority to judge the validity of their own mathematical claims rather than having them be subjected to some greater authority.

17!

Epistemological and Ontological Issues in Mathematics Education Many issues in mathematics education concerning agency, identity, and authority are rooted in epistemological beliefs and cognitive learning theory. My aim is to outline how a constructivist epistemology might implicate a more socially just classroom environment, one in which students are credited with authority and, as a result, realize a sense of mathematical agency. The traditional mathematics classroom is predicated on an absolutist epistemology, that there is a fixed world that the learner must come to know (Brooks and Brooks, 1999). This view of mathematics as a set of ontological truths to be passed from teacher to student implies issues of social justice and equity. The teacher is credited with a position of power as the holder and disseminator of knowledge, with students subjected to a position of obedience and powerlessness. There is significant reason to question this view of mathematics as a body of absolute and certain knowledge (Kline, 2011). In contrast to absolutist views, constructivist epistemology suggests that knowledge is an individual construction (Brooks and Brooks, 1999) and that we fabricate meaning through our experiential reality (Lawler, 2010). By this account, the theories of mathematics are not so much true as they are viable in the experiential domain of the individual; the constructivists truth/knowledge is replaced with ! 18!

viability. Knowledge gains a second order viability when we believe our ways of knowing are shared through a state of intersubjectivity; a sort of social agreement that we believe to be talking about, and agreeing upon, a shared mental model (Glasersfeld, 1995). However, it is important to point out that even the knowledge we attribute to others is our construction; it is a model we have created for what we believe to be their ways of thinking and knowing. This shift in the way I think about knowledge also shifts the way I believe we can work with students. Rather than setting a goal of teaching a student something (or getting them to think a certain way), we can use our ways of knowing mathematics to ask questions that might disrupt the ways of knowing that we attribute to our students/others. Rather than listening for any particular response, we listen to their mathematical ideas and continue to respond to those (Lawler, 2010). For the purposes of this paper, the issue is not whether we can agree that this mathematics is truth. More importantly, when it is taught as such, students do not learn mathematics as an act of doing, creating, and sense-making (Schoenfeld, 1994). Doing Mathematics All of this begs the question, how do we redefine the mathematics classroom to credit students with, and foster their sense of, ! 19!

mathematical agency? I argue that we need to create a classroom in which students are actually doing mathematics. Put concisely and elegantly by Paul Lockhart, doing mathematics should always mean discovering patterns and crafting beautiful and meaningful explanations (2009, p. 66). As I interpret this, students engaged in doing math are not practicing and exercising in order to perfect procedural fluency. They are exploring and creating in response to a problem that has disrupted their current way of understanding mathematics and their world. All of this suggests a radical shift in the content and focus of mathematics classrooms. This does not mean that mathematical content will be absent from the curriculum. Rather, it encourages mathematical content that is created by students as an outcome of engaging in rich mathematical tasks, problems, and explorations. Instruction would be focused on the ways in which students produce knowledge rather than how they reproduce it (Costa, 2008). The mathematics classroom centered in doing mathematics engages students in the process of creating, inventing, conjecturing, experimenting, and justifying. It encourages false starts. It requires grounding and testing mathematical claims in experiential reality. It offers opportunities to look for and develop connections between claims made, and strategies (habits) used, in a variety of contexts (Cuoco et al., 1997). ! 20!

There is a common misconception that students must know mathematics before they can do mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1994). Many classroom experiences have shown otherwise (Boaler, 1998). This is largely because, as Bob and Ellen Kaplan explain, we build up the skills for doing math out of traits common to us all (2007, p. 25). In other words, we are all born with the mental habits for doing mathematics. Unfortunately, traditional mathematics instruction has led many students to doubt their own thinking and to be reluctant to engage in doing math. The Necessity for a Problem-Based Approach If our goal is to get students doing mathematics, and if we truly believe that to be an act of creation, then it follows that the classroom must be centered in students creating mathematics as they attempt to find meaning or as they make sense of problems and mathematical situations. As Paul Lockhart has expressed, the main problem with school mathematics is that there are no problems (2009, p. 40). It is worth noting that these problems or mathematical situations look quite different from the exercises of the traditional mathematics classroom. Most traditional classrooms place instruction first and then give students exercises that require them to practice and implement their newly acquired skills. I interpret a problem-based approach to be much different. Teachers and students are creators, rather than users, of ! 21!

mathematics (Steffe, 1990). In contrast to more traditional instruction, the problem comes first and the curriculum is the mathematics that is created as teachers and students attempt to make sense of that problem. The mathematics teacher, then, helps to create a potential mathematical trajectory for the course that is largely a response to their students ways of knowing mathematics. They help to place problems in a mathematical learning community of students but do not dictate what students do with that problem (Steffe, 1990). A teacher can select problems that perturb, or conflict with, the ways in which students know mathematics and view their world. Because a humans fundamental quest is cognitive equilibrium (Brooks and Brooks, 1999), these mental perturbations (Steffe, 1990) serve as motivation for mental restructuring. The result of all this is not necessarily some numerical answer, as is the case in most traditional classrooms, or even a final understanding of some particular concept, but rather that the student has a more sophisticated involvement in and understanding of their world (Brooks and Brooks, 1999). The Habits of a Mathematician By this account, we cannot outline a certain list of standards that students must come to know and we certainly cannot assess them in terms of mastery of those standards. However, in the process of collaborative inquiry, the creation of mathematics, and the ! 22!

negotiation of certainty, there are certain habits that will inevitably take stage (Lampert, 1990). As described by Art Costa, a habit of mind is a pattern of intellectual behaviors that leads to productive actions (2008, pg. 16). Certain habits are more general and transcend specific disciplines. The focus of this paper is to outline the Habits of a Mathematician; habits that people employ to understand the work of mathematics and that will allow them to engage in open mathematical investigation and creation. There are a variety of sources that outline different mathematical habits of mind (Driscoll, 1999, Park School Mathematics, 2012; Pickford, 2010). There are many consistencies and some slight differences in their respective lists. Our class list will involve a certain degree of student generation, but I anticipate our list to contain the following Habits of a Mathematician: 1. Look for Pattern and Regularity I am always on the hunt for patterns and regularity I bring a skeptical eye to pattern recognition I look for reasons why a pattern exists 2. Simplify the Problem I start with small cases I isolate and explore one part of the problem I change the problem to make it easier 3. Be Systematic I experiment methodically and systematically I make small changes to look for change and permanence 4. Stay Organized I use charts and other methods to organize information ! 23!

I organize my work in a way that can be referenced by others 5. Visualize I draw a picture or diagram to represent a situation I invent notation or representation to facilitate exploration 6. Conjecture and Test I ask what if I use specialized cases to test my ideas I look for examples and counterexamples I modify conjectures to continue/deepen exploration 7. Tinker I invent numbers when they dont exist I play around with numbers and figures to learn about a situation I experiment freely 8. Take Apart & Put Back Together I break large problems into smaller chunks I use spatial reasoning to break images apart I take things apart in a way that is strategic and helpful 9. Be Confident, Patient, and Persistent I am willing to take risks I will explore even when Im unsure about where to start I do not give up easily 10. Collaborate and Listen I listen carefully to the ideas of others I effectively use strengths of people around me I ask people for their thoughts when they seem hesitant I dont dominate a conversation 11. Seek Why, Justify, and Prove I seek to understand why things are the way they are I look for clues that help me understand why I create logical arguments that prove my ideas ! 24!

There have been many studies that show how students benefit from a mathematics classroom that fosters open-ended exploration and connected learning (Boaler, 1997). However, some students struggle with the open environment suggested by such progressive approaches to mathematics education (Boaler, 1997). My goal is to examine how teaching and fostering the development of habits of mind help all students to become active participants in that environment by reinforcing ways in which we are all mathematical. In this way, I hope that the habits of a mathematician can help all students in realizing a sense of mathematical agency and authority. Healthy Skepticism There are a number of reasons to be skeptical about the immediate evidence of the effectiveness of the approach I have outlined. Perhaps most notable is that the unique approach to teaching and learning mathematics is in stark contrast to students history with school mathematics. As previously mentioned, students form an identity through their roles and participation in figured worlds. Their identity as an observer, rather than participant, in mathematics must be challenged and renegotiated which can create tension and resistance (Holland et al., 1998). As Judah Schwartz has noted, It is difficult for students well into a school career in which mathematics has been an endless series of incompletely understood calculation and manipulation ceremonies to shift gears and to exercise in class their curiosity and ! 25!

inventiveness (1994, p. 6). Certainly, I would expect some students to be resistant to the restructuring of their mathematical identity. It has long been considered that the role of the teacher is to make things as easy as possible for the student. Even with good intentions, the teaching of habits of mind can fall victim to the type of prescriptive, behaviorist teaching that is present in traditional mathematics classrooms. It can be tempting to reduce habitforming instruction into a problem solving process, one that attempts to prescribe a series of steps and/or behaviors (Cuoco et al., 1997). Doing mathematics is a creative and personal endeavor and there is no process or correct way to engage in thinking (Costa, 2008). Rather, the habits are the ways in which we, as humans, make sense of our experience. To reduce habits of mind to a behaviorist approach would undermine the nature of mathematical thought and contradict the constructivist epistemology on which the entire theory stands. Instead, it is important to support students in acts of metacognition and reflection about the ways in which they are recognizing the habits of a mathematician in their own work and thought. !

! 26!