Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Journal
esearch
Mathematics
Education
in
Qualitative
Research
Methods
in
Mathematics Education
Monograph Number 9
Series Editor
DOUGLAS A. GROUWS,University of Iowa, Iowa
City, IA 52242
Editorial Panel
LAURIE D. EDWARDS, University of California at
SantaCruz;GRAHAMA. JONES,IllinoisStateUniversity; DAVID KIRSHNER,Louisiana State University;
JUDIT MOSCHKOVICH,TERC, Cambridge,Massachusetts; NEIL A. PATEMAN, University of Hawaii,
Chair; ANNIE SELDEN, Tennessee Technological
University;JANESWAFFORD,Illinois State University; JOHNVAN DE WALLE, VirginiaCommonwealth
University, Board Liaison; STEVEN R. WILLIAMS,
Brigham Young University; VICKI ZACK, St.
George's School, Montreal,Quebec
Mathematics Education
edited by
Anne R. Teppo
MontanaState University-Bozeman
Copyright ? 1998 by
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS, INC.
1906 Association Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-1593
All rights reserved
Table of Contents
Authors ....................................................
iv
...........
...........................
Acknowledgments..
Abstract ....................................................
Chapter1
Chapter2
vi
17
Chapter3
Chapter4
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving Through
Task-BasedInterviews
GeraldA. Goldin ...............................
Chapter5
Chapter6
Chapter7
Chapter8
Chapter9
Chapter10
Chapter11
40
63
112
References ....................................
156
.......
iii
164
Authors
DagmarNeuman
Departmentof Educationand
EducationalResearch
GoteborgUniversity
Goteborg,Sweden
David J. Clarke
Associate Dean
Faculty of Education
University of Melbourne
Parkville,Victoria, 3052,
Australia
Susan Pirie
Professorof MathematicsEducation
Departmentof CurriculumStudies
University of British Columbia
Vancouver,BC V6T 1Z4
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio
Associate Professor
School of Education
IndianaUniversity Purdue
University Indianapolis
Indianapolis,IN 46202
Peter Sullivan
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Education
AustralianCatholic UniversityChristCampus
Oakleigh,Victoria, 3166, Australia
Paul Ernest
Readerin MathematicsEducation
University of Exeter
Exeter EX1 2LU United Kingdon
Anne R. Teppo
AdjunctInstructor
Departmentof MathematicalSciences
MontanaState University-Bozeman
Bozeman, MT 59717
GeraldA. Goldin
Professorof Education,Mathematics,
and Physics
Centerfor Mathematics,Science and
ComputerEducationand
GraduateSchool of Education
RutgersUniversity
New Brunswick,NJ 08903
AndrewWaywood
Lecturerin MathematicsEducation
AustralianCatholicUniversityChristCampus
Oakleigh,Victoria, 3166,
Australia
BarbaraJaworski
University Lecturerin Educational
Studies
OxfordCentrefor Mathematics
EducationResearch
Oxford0X2 6PY United Kingdom
JudithMousley
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Education
Deakin University
Geelong, Victoria, 3217, Australia
iv
Acknowledgments
The editorwishes to thankthose who providedsupportand encouragementfor
the theme of this monographin the early stages of the project. Theirinvolvement
in the field of mathematics education and their individual research interests
helped clarify the natureof the product. Gratefulthanksare extendedto Deborah
Ball, Catherine Brown, Jere Confrey, Robert Davis, Kathleen Heid, Carolyn
Maher,TerezinhaNunes, Leslie Steffe, and Era Yackel. Thanksare also due to
the contributingauthorswhose ideas and continual input defined the focus and
producedthe end result.
Abstract
The chaptersin this monographdescribequalitativeresearchmethods used to
investigate students' and teachers' interactionswith school mathematics.Each
contributingauthoruses data from his or her own researchto illustratea particulartechniqueor aspect of researchdesign. The differentchapterspresenta wide
rangeof methods,representinga varietyof goals and perspectives.Ratherthan a
comprehensive reference manual, this monograph illustrates the diversity of
methods available for qualitativeresearchin mathematicseducation.
The monographbegins with a discussion of key elements thatcontributeto the
dynamic and evolving domain of mathematicseducationresearch.Background
informationis then providedthat relates to the philosophical and epistemological assumptionsunderlyingall qualitativeresearch.In the chaptersthat follow,
actual studies present the contexts for discussions of researchdesign and techniques. Issues of researchdesign include the importanceof making explicit the
underlyingtheoreticalassumptions;the selection of an appropriatemethodology;
the interpretative,intersubjectivenature of analysis; and the establishmentof
reliabilityand validity. Specific data collection techniquesinclude clinical interviews, stimulatedrecall interviews,open-endedsurveyquestions,and field notes
and video or audio taping to record classroom events. Methods of analysis
include participantvalidation,the categorizationof data throughconstantcomparison and software indexing and retrieval,phenomemographicanalysis, and
the identification of empirical examples of theoretical constructs. The monographends with a discussion of general issues, including the role of theory and
the establishmentof criteriafor judging the goodness of qualitativeresearch.
vi
Chapter 1
The chapters in this monograph describe qualitative methods used in mathematics education research. Rather than write a comprehensive manual, contributing authors describe specific methods from their own studies to illustrate
the range of techniques used to investigate students' and teachers' interactions
with school mathematics. Each chapter focuses on only one aspect of the
author's research to provide a more in-depth discussion of that particular facet of
the overall design.
A goal of this book is to stimulate dialogue. Mathematics education research
supports a variety of methodological perspectives and goals of inquiry, which
makes communication across perspectives difficult and the need for dialogue
imperative. Creating dialogue is not easy. Fenstermacher and Richardson (1994)
suggest enjoying each speaker on his or her own ground. However, as Cobb
(1995) points out, this task requires a decentering of participants to allow them
to "appreciate the other's position ... even when it is difficult to argue for it from
their own perspective" ( p. 25). Such decentering involves developing a sensitivity to the contextual meaning of others and regarding each research result as
the product of a particular line of inquiry that must be viewed in the context of
that inquiry (Bredo, 1994).
This chapter begins with an examination of the general context within which
qualitative research in mathematics education is placed and then discusses the
particular contexts within which the contributing authors situate each chapter. To
set the stage, key elements are described that contribute to the dynamic and
evolving domain of qualitative research in mathematics education, including the
acceptance of qualitative research as an important methodology in educational
inquiry, a broadening of perceptions of the nature of mathematics and mathematics education, and a recognition of the complexity of classroom mathematics
teaching and learning. Against this broad background, the chapter concludes
with a summary of the contributions of the other authors and a brief discussion
of the ways in which these contributions illustrate the diversity of qualitative
research methods employed in mathematics education.
QUALITATIVERESEARCH
Qualitative research has been described as a field of inquiry (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1994) thatcuts across disciplines and subjectmatter,finding application
in such areas as anthropology,sociology, psychology, sociolinguistics, political
science, and education.Qualitativeresearchfocuses on processes, meanings,and
the socially constitutednatureof reality and providesinsights into the phenomena being studiedthat cannotbe obtainedby othermeans. Denzin and Lincoln, in
their comprehensive Handbook of Qualitative Research (1994), offer the fol-
AnneR. Teppo
learning as it occurs within the social contexts of the classroom. The development of individualmeaning and the developmentof social meaningare taken as
being reflexively related in that neither can exist independentlyof the other.
Individual"constructionsare seen to occur as students participatein and contributeto the practicesof the local community"(p. 185).
Researchmethods of educationalpsychology and cognitive science have also
been employed in mathematicseducation.The information-processingmodel of
humancognition used by cognitive psychologists in the 1960s and 1970s is now
recognized as inadequatefor capturingthe "complexity and richness of mathematical activity" (Greer, 1996, p. 181). Recent focus on detailed studies of the
cognitive processes of individualsengaged in the performanceof everydaymathematics (as opposed to academicmathematicaltasks) reflects a change in educational psychology's perspectiveon the study of the mind to one of situatedcognition. Mind is regardedas an aspect of a given person-environmentinteraction.
Research from this perspective focuses on problems arising in the course of
everyday activities in which an individual's social and physical interactions
define the object of research(Bredo, 1994).
The precedingdiscussiontouches only briefly on the rangeof perspectivesand
relatedresearchmethodologiesthatis currentlybeing employed in mathematicseducation research. The disciplinary perspectives of sociology, anthropology,
and cognitive science and the theoreticalframeworkof constructivismpresent
multiple vantage points from which to launch inquiry into the complexity and
messiness of the classroom. In spite of this diversity, a common theme running
acrossthe differentperspectivesis the increasingimportancebeing given to local
context as the determinantof researchdesign. When the contributionsavailable
from each perspective are considered, the issue should not be which point of
view is better but which one is most useful and appropriatefor the problem at
hand. "Claimsthat [a particular]perspectivecapturesthe essence of people and
communities should be rejected for pragmaticjustifications that consider the
contextualrelevance and usefulness of a perspective"(Cobb, 1994, p. 13).
The wide range of frameworksof inquiry available for qualitativeresearch
reflects the diversity of the disciplines that have developed the various methodologies. Employing the techniques of a particularpoint of view involves more
than simply adoptinga set of researchpractices.Underlyingeach set are fundamental differencesin how one views the world, how the objects of study fit into
this view, and how knowledge about these objects can be acquired. Doing
researchalso means understandingthe underlyingways of thinkingimplicit in a
given perspective(Steffe & Wiegel, 1996).
A Need for Dialogue
Anne R. Teppo
look like? What role should research play in education? (Donmoyer, 1996;
Fenstermacher& Richardson,1994; Lester,Kehle, & Birgisson, 1996). The existence of a proliferationof approachescan be viewed as daunting.Alternatively,
it can be taken as a sign that the field of educationalresearchis alive and well.
If we adopt the latter view, then dialogue and informed critique are needed to
maintainthe field's health in the face of diversity. (Goldin, Chapter4 this volume, presents an example of how the explicitation of methodology facilitates
dialogue.) Differences in points of view can be used as a mechanism for
progress.
It is by the very processof "misunderstanding"
others-that is, interpreting
their
claims and beliefs in slightlydifferenttermsthanthey do themselves-thatthe
... We
processof communication
actuallymovesforwardto new understandings.
needto be similarenoughto makedialoguepossible,butwe alsoneedto be differentenoughto makeit worthwhile.
(Burbules& Rice, 1991,p. 409)
However, given the currentdiversityof perspectivesand competingparadigms
in educationalresearch,consensus may not always be possible. The process of
debateis worthwhileonly to the extent thatthose engaged undergosome change
in opinion-at the least, enablingthose who disagree to gain greaterinsight into
their own positions. What is importantis to encourage "healthy confusion"
(Fenstermacher& Richardson, 1994, p. 54)-to engage in open discussion; to
allow new and interesting, along with old, voices to be heard; and to make
explicit one's assumptionsabout one's research and related educationalgoals.
"Thereare as many worlds as ways to describe them" (Eisner, 1993, p. 6), and
we should celebrate the multiplicity of voices ratherthan seek synthesis into a
single perspective.
AN OVERVIEWOF THE FIELD OF MATHEMATICSEDUCATION
Disciplinary Perspective
The context of inquiryis made up of a complex web in which our underlying
beliefs are carriedout within the local dynamicsof a particularinvestigation.Not
only is the individual situatedwithin a given researchsetting, he or she is also
situatedwithin a particularepistemological,cultural,and genderedframeworkof
beliefs and values that both facilitate and constrainhow we perceive the world
and what we select for study within it.
Eisner (1993), using an historical perspective, illustrateshow particularperceptions can influence the framingand examinationof educationalpractice.
Howwe answerthequestionof whetherhistoryis thetexthistorians
writeorthepast
historianswriteaboutis crucialto ourownviewof whathistoryis and,therefore,to
whatis relevantfor helpingstudentsunderstand
it. If historyis text,thentext must
continueto be centralto the teachingof history:To understand
historyone has to
understand
text.Butif historyis thepastaboutwhichhistorians
write,thenanyform
of representation
thatsheds light on the past is relevant,indeeda useful,way to
understand
history.(p. 9)
Mathematicshas been describedas the science of abstractpatternsand characterized by its usefulness for organizing mental and empirical structures
(Devlin, 1997; Steen, 1990; van Oers, 1996). This characterizationonly hints at
the complex natureof a field thatis valued by some for its intellectualbeauty,by
othersfor its utilitarianapplications,andby still othersfor its emancipatoryproperties in an increasinglytechnologicalworld. Mathematicscan be regardedas the
productof intellectualabstractionor as the processes that produce such a product. It can be regardedas a static entity or as a fallible, creative, evolving activity that permeatesmany aspects of our daily lives.
The subject of mathematicsis multifaceted. Steen (1990) describes a set of
diverse perspectives that "illustratethe complexity of structuresthat support
mathematics"(p. 4). These perspectives,or "deepideas thatnourishthe growing
branchesof mathematics"(p. 3), can be thoughtof as (a) specific mathematical
structures,such as numbersor shapes;(b) mathematicalattributes,such as linear
or periodic;(c) actions, such as representor prove; (d) abstractions,such as symbols or equivalence; (e) attitudes, such as wonder or beauty; (f) mathematical
behaviors,such as motion or iteration;or (g) mathematicaldichotomies, such as
discrete versus continuous.
Anothercharacteristicof the subjectis thatmany mathematicalentities exhibit a process/productduality reflecting an "interplay of form with content"
(Freudenthal,1991, p. 10). Symbolic representationsof such entities can be perceived either as mathematicalprocesses or as the productsof these processes.
Mathematicalthoughtis characterizedby the ability to generalizedetail (process
or form) into structure(productor content)and to createnew conceptualentities
from an abstractionof this structure(Sfard, 1991; Tall, 1991; Teppo & Esty,
1994, 1995). This movementfrom form to contentmakes it possible to deal with
complexity by reducingdetail throughabstraction(Devlin, 1997; Dryfus, 1991).
Anne R. Teppo
views about the nature of mathematics,one's underlyingepistemological perspective, and one's educationalgoals.
P. J. Davis (1993) argues that today's world is characterizedby the large
degree to which mathematizationspermeateour daily lives, both in the humanistic areas and in the sciences. Everyone uses mathematics at some level.
Consequently,it is the role of educationto enablecitizens to become awareof and
assess these mathematizations-to develop "mathematicalestreet smarts' that
enable [them]to formjudgmentsin the absence of technicalexpertise"(p. 192).
Breiter (1997) addresses the role of education from a more individual perspective, advocatingthe developmentof mathematicaldisposition-an "intuitive,
perception-likeunderstanding... that makes lifelong learningin mathematicsa
possibility"(pp. 3, 5). Renz (1997) offers a similarvision for mathematicseducation, stating a minimal list of competencies requiredfor an uncertainfuture.
Students should know how to solve problems by asking others; should be able
to communicateby speaking,writing, and drawing;shouldbe awareof the existence of multiple solutions; and should understandthat most problems do not
have definite solutions. Cobb and Yackel (1996) introduceadditionaldispositional attributesfrom their social constructivistperspective. In particular,mathematics education should foster the development of sociomathematicalnorms
including the developmentof studentautonomyand the ability to judge mathematical solutions on the basis of theirdifferences, sophistication,efficiency, and
acceptability.A common theme runningthroughthe differenteducationalcriteria listed here is that what students believe and think about mathematics is
importantfor succeeding both in and out of school and for facilitating future
learning.
Mathematicseducation can be defined as formal schooling to distinguish it
from the ethnomathematicsof everydaylearning.The operationalizationof such
educationis then to take mathematicalknowledge, which was originally developed to be used ratherthantaught,and transformit into a teachableform (Greer,
1996). This transformationprocess must considernot only what knowledge is to
be learned,but also the natureof the knowledge and the kinds of experiencesthat
studentsare to develop (R. B. Davis, 1994). The focus of the transformational
process is on the developmentof appropriateeducationaltasks within effective
learningenvironments.
The Netherlandshas developed a programof realistic mathematicseducation
that employs the processes of horizontal and vertical mathematicizingas the
"teachableform" (Freudenthal,1991; Treffers, 1991). Conceptualdevelopment
proceeds from informal, context-bound experiences to mathematical formalisms. A given situation is horizontally mathematizedby students into a
model; through vertical mathematization,this model is transformed,again by
students, into formal mathematicalstructure.The emphasis in realistic mathematics education is to use contextual situations that connect with children's
existing methods of working and that promote natural,furthergeneralizations
and abstractions. Education is seen as the process of guided reinvention in
Anne R. Teppo
which the learnerreinvents "mathematisingratherthan mathematics;abstracting ratherthan abstractions;... algorithmisingratherthan algorithms;verbalising ratherthan language"(Freudenthal,1991, p. 49).
Learning mathematics is recognized as a social and cultural activity. Our
schools serve as one of the places in which studentsare introducedto the "meaning of culturally approved mathematical signs, symbols, and techniques"
(Crawford,1996, p. 145). The question of whetherthis process is enculturation
(the assimilationof an existing tradition)or acculturation(the process of interculturalborrowingto create a new and blended culture) is one of perspective.
When a mathematicsclassroomis examinedfromthe externalvantagepoint of an
educationalsystem, thatis, outside the cultureof the classroom,the processes of
education are seen as the enculturationof students as they interactwith more
knowledgeableothers.Fromthe point of view withinthe cultureof the classroom,
the differencesin beliefs and values of the participantssupporta view of acculturationin which the intersubjectivemeanings of the students and teacher are
negotiated in the process of constitutinga classroom mathematicscommunity
(Cobb, Jaworski,& Presmeg, 1996; Cobb & Yackel, 1996). Learningenvironments can be thoughtof as being constructedby individualsin activityratherthan
as existing independentlyof the participants(Saxe & Bermudez, 1996).
Richards(1996) describesa type of mathematicsclassroomthatfostersacculturationinto a sharedcommunitythroughthe use of whathe calls, "inquirymath."In
such a classroom,the studentsand teacherparticipatein mathematicaldiscussion
andact mathematically-askingquestions,solvingproblemsthatareproblematicto
the solvers,posingconjectures,andlisteningto mathematicalarguments.The classroom atmosphereallows takingrisks and makingmistakes,and the teacheris able
to trulylistento the studentsbecauseof his or herunderstanding
of "thelargermathematical picture that provides a context for the students' questions" (p. 74).
Mathematicalcommunicationand the negotiationof meaningtake place at a level
at which thereare two sides, andeach is able to listen to the other.
The preceding characterizationsillustrate the diversity of perspectives from
which school mathematicscan be viewed. Each perspectivehighlights a different aspect of the complex reality of mathematicslearningwithin a socially and
culturallyconstitutedenvironment.As R. B. Davis (1994) points out in his discussion of what mathematicsstudents should learn, "people no more agree on
what they most value in an act of mathematicalproblemsolving than they do in
paintings or poems or symphonies. I know people who can't see why anyone
would want to listen to Bach" (p. 25).
Mathematics Education Research
10
11
Anne R. Teppo
12
Chapters2 and 3 orient the readertowarda critical examinationof the monograph. In Chapter2, Pirie raises the question "Whatmakes this research?"in
relationto the field of mathematicseducationand invites the readerto become a
participantin the process of creatinga definition. In Chapter3, Ernestprovides
background information related to the philosophical and epistemological
assumptionsunderlyingall qualitativeresearch.He describes the constructivist
theory of learning that undergirdsmuch of the researchreportedhere and contrastsquantitative,qualitative,and criticalresearchparadigms.
Chapters4 and 6 raise key issues regardingresearchdesign. Goldin (Chapter
4) discusses the importance of making explicit the theoretical assumptions
underlyingthe selection of the researchtask and the methods of data collection
and analysis-describing how protocolsfor in-depthclinical interviewsare used
to study individual children's problem-solvingskills. Pirie (Chapter6) focuses
on the decision-makingsteps, requiredfor robustresearchdesign, that she used
to meet her goal of developing theory to describe how pupil-pupil discussion
facilitates mathematicalunderstanding.
The other chapterspresenta wide range of approachesand focus on different
aspects of the total researchdesign. Neuman (Chapter5), using a phenomenographicperspective,describes the model that she developed to characterizethe
variationin the ways thatbeginning school childrenexperiencedaspects of subtraction.She presentsa detailedanalysis of cognitive constraintsthat make some
problems easy and others difficult in her discussion of the word problems she
selected for her clinical interviews.Clarke(Chapter7) describesa techniquefor
creatingintegrateddatasets consistingof transcriptsof classroomvideotapes,students' interpretationsof episodes on these videotapes, and observerfield notes.
His analysesof these datasets illustratethe use of multipleperspectivesfor investigatingwhat it meansto "cometo know"somethingin a mathematicsclassroom.
Jaworski(Chapter8) describeshow she assignedsignificanceto classroomevents
in her study characterizingan "investigativeapproach"to teaching. She offers
examples of the detailedreportsused to recordnot only each incidentof interest,
but its classroom context, the interpretationsof this incident by herself and the
teacher,and the relationsof the incidentto her underlyingtheoreticalframework.
Mousley, Sullivan, and Waywood (Chapter9) presentinformationon the use
of the computerprogramNUD-ISTto analyze open-endedresponses to a largescale survey. The purposeof this analysis was to identify featuresthat members
of the mathematicseducationcommunitybelieved were desirablecomponentsof
a qualitymathematicslesson. D'Ambrosio (Chapter10) describesaspectsof professional-developmentprogramsthatfocused on developing teacher-researchers.
She presents the steps used to move a group of preservice students toward an
understandingof the natureof qualitativeresearchand provides examples of inservice teachers'reflectionson theiruse of researchwithintheirown classrooms.
The sequencing of chaptersrepresentsa continuous transitionof focus from
student to teacher. Goldin and Neuman report on the individual student's
meanings of mathematicalconcepts. Pirie and Clarke shift to a focus on the
Anne R. Teppo
13
14
she assigned to observedclassroombehaviorand her reasons for attributingsignificance to particularincidents. Mousley et al. emphasize the subjectivenature
of the interpretationsthey made as they organized and categorized the survey
responses. They discuss the subjective role that language plays, both in their
respondents'descriptionsof mathematicslessons and in the researchers'categorizationsof these responses.
D'Ambrosio highlightsthe constructivistnatureof the researchact. As preservice studentsand in-service teachersparticipatedin the design and implementation of small-scale studies, they constructedtheir own understandingsof the
nature of reflective practice and, in the process, became more empowered,
autonomousdecision makers.
Unlike the otherauthorswho focus on aspectsof researchdesign, Neumanpresents a partialdescriptionof her findings. This informationillustratesthe central
componentof phenomenographicresearch-the developmentof a model depicting the variationsin ways that a collection of individuals experiences a given
phenomenon.A discussion of a proposed set of criteriafor claiming reliability
and descriptionsof ways to establish validity are illustratedin the context of the
author'sphenomenographicmodel.
Each chapter can also be comparativelypositioned within a set of contexts
common to researchin mathematicseducation.These contexts include the use of
mathematicaltasks, the mathematicsclassroom and its participants,the study of
the constructionof knowledge that is individually or socially derived, or both,
and the researcher'srole in data collection.
The chaptersdiffer on how mathematicaltopics areused-either as foreground
or as background for the investigation. Neuman's research and one of
D'Ambrosio's studies investigatestudents'understandingof specific mathematical content. In contrast,Goldin, Pirie, Clarke,and Jaworskistudy specific types
of mathematicalbehavior that exist across a range of mathematicalsituations.
Although not always the explicit object of study, the natureof the mathematical
task in these four chaptersis an integralpartof the context of each investigation.
Goldin, Neuman, and D'Ambrosio illustratethe importanceof in-depthanalysis
of mathematicalstructurein the design of researchtasks. In contrast,Mousley et
al. use an implicit mathematicalcontext.Respondentsto their surveyare askedto
imagine a qualitymathematicslesson andthento list characteristicsof this lesson.
Anothertheme runningthrougheach chapteris the way the classroomcontext
is used. At one extreme,Goldin and Neumansituatetheirresearchwithinclinical
interviews that use mathematicaltasks designed specifically for the interviews.
The classroom context appears only implicitly in Goldin's recognition of the
experiences that his subjects bring to the interviews. In contrast,Pirie, Clarke,
Jaworski,and D'Ambrosiopurposefullyincorporatethe realitiesof school mathematicsinto theirresearch,studyingmathematicalbehaviorthatis an integralpart
and direct consequence of this context. Mousley et al. make the mathematics
classroomthe explicit, but indirect,object of investigation,using others' impressions of this context ratherthandirectobservationsas theirprimarydata.
Anne R. Teppo
15
16
concrete instances that "suggest, evoke, and illustrate" situations that exist
beyond the immediatecontext of each study. The specifics of the differenttechniques also serve as exemplars, and through a look at the particularsof the
research studies reportedhere, qualitativeresearchmethodology is illuminated
more generallyby this monograph.
It is recommendedthat this book be regardedas a whole. Insteadof providing
discrete descriptions of research techniques that can be taken separately, the
chapters, taken together, enrich the reader's understandingof each individual
contribution.Comparingand contrastingthe reportedinformationnot only complement and extend one's understandingbut provide new windows on the field
of mathematicseducation. The chapters also show a glimpse of the power of
qualitativemethods, developed in other human sciences fields and modified to
fit new needs, to uncoverhithertoinaccessible,but importantaspects of the complex reality of mathematicsteaching and learning.
17
Chapter 2
Before the readerplunges into the remainingchaptersof this book, it is apposite to ask, even if initially the possible response might appearto be obvious,
"Whatdoes the title of this book, QualitativeResearchMethodsin Mathematics
Education,mean?"If we unpackthe wording a little, two notions bear scrutiny:
"qualitativemethods"and "researchin mathematicseducation."The first is perhaps a predictablefocus for an early chapterin a book such as this; the second,
however, is a more fundamentalconcern.
Mathematicseducationis congruentwith neithermathematicsnor education.
Mathematicseducationis an emergingdiscipline, no longer in its infancy yet not
fully adult.We are in the formativeadolescentyears when it behooves us to seek
to establish our identity as a legitimate, independent,academic community.To
do this we must, among many other tasks, addressthe notions of "research"and
"methods"as they apply to the field within which we work. It is time for us to
put aside the debate that tries to uphold or refute the supremacyof quantitative
over qualitative methods. Neither has merit in itself. The appropriatenessof
methods and methodologies espoused by researcherscan be consideredonly in
the light of the intentionsof the specific researchbeing undertaken.
As the discipline of mathematicseducationcomes to be more clearly defined,
our prime concern should be the business of deciding what constitutethe appropriateareasfor inquiry.The process of defining the natureof acceptableresearch
in the field of mathematicseducationis not a task that can be undertakenlightly. The roots of such researchlie below the surfaceof a whole spectrumof cultures.They are fed by the backgroundsof those who undertakethe researchand
the historicalprecedentsof the environmentsfrom which they come. It is imperative that we, as a community,addressthe questions of what we consider legitimate researchin the field of mathematicseducationand what we termacceptable
results of such research.If we do not do this for ourselves, we will continue to
be judged by the criteriaof other disciplines.
It is certainly inappropriatefor our researchto be evaluated solely from the
standpointof scientific proof. The appeal of the scientific paradigmlies both in
its appearanceof certaintyand in its common acceptability,which stem from a
long traditionof establishedpractice.The methodsdevised within this paradigm
have evolved over time and have been shapedand mathematicallydeveloped so
that generally acceptablecriteriafor evaluationof the resultsexist. We must not
18
be seduced by this history. Blind applicationof scientific methods will not necessarily produceresearchresults of interest or value to the mathematicseducation community. Notions of representativity,replicability, and generalizability
are fundamentalto quantitativeresearchbut not necessarily to work in all areas
of mathematics-education.On the one hand, we cannot ignore the affective and
socially influentialdomains surroundingthe teachersand studentswe study. On
the other hand, we are not engaged solely in anthropologicalor sociological
study. Ourinterestslie in the realmof mathematicseducation,and we cannotdisregardthe influence and peculiarnatureof the subjectmatter,namely, the mathematics, on the teaching and learningthat concernus.
Teppo, in the introductionto this book, alludes to the numerousfields from
which mathematicseducationresearchhas in the past drawnits techniquesand
methods.It is rightthatwe shouldhave done so, but we need to be awarethatwe
are borrowingfrom anotherfield of concern and, if necessary, adaptand make
these methods more precisely our own. Diversity is essential as we seek the
emergenceof the discipline of mathematicseducation,andimaginationandinnovative approachesare needed as we attemptto explore the natureof the field
within which we work. Innovation,however, must not be at the expense of rigor;
a tension must be preservedbetween novelty and acceptability.If we are to have
externalcredibilityand if our researchis to be seen as of value to the largercommunity outside mathematicseducation, we need to begin to seriously consider
the closer definitionof researchacceptableto our own community.
As a preludeto this defining process, we need to articulatefor one anotherthe
ways in which we have come to adoptthe methodswe areindividuallyusing. We
need to clarify for the rest of our community the cultures from which we are
coming and to make explicit the perspectives from which we are viewing the
problems we tackle. We should not feel a need to define ourselves in terms
appropriateto some otherdiscipline, but we must be clear to ourselves what it is
that we are and what it is that we do as researchersin mathematicseducation.
Only then can we expect those outside the field to recognize the legitimacy of
our work. Honesty and openness are needed in our disclosureof how we choose
our methods so that self-critical appraisaltakes place alongside external scrutiny. We cannot,of course, be complaisantin our isolation, defining ourselves and
ignoringthe concerns and perspectivesof others.The externalcriticismsneed to
be addressed,particularlythe criticisms of our uses of qualitativemethods. For
instance, consider the case-study method. The issues of validity and reliability
cannotbe tossed aside as "irrelevantto case study"but must be examinedfor relevance in the particularcircumstancesand to the particularquestionsthat we are
considering.Questions of concern to the academic community at large need to
be openly debatedby mathematicseducators-but from the perspectiveof their
own researchparadigms.
Any discussionconcerningitself with researchmethodsneeds first to examine
the questionsthatsuch researchis expected to answeror illuminate.Whatareour
questions in mathematicseducation?What are the issues we wish to examine?
Susan Pirie
19
20
Some of the previous scenariosyou may have been able to categorizeinstantly as within or outside your acceptableboundaryfor legitimatemathematicseducationresearch.As suggestedearlier,pause and reflect on why you could do this.
Can you begin to define your boundarieswith a degree of precision? It is precisely this defining process that we, as practitionerswithin the discipline of
mathematics education, have to undertake. Answers will not be produced
overnight,but without active debate they will also not evolve over time.
There is yet a furtherquestion to consider in our endeavor to define mathematics educationresearch.Can the resultsof the inquiry,in fact, be used to determine the acceptabilityof the work as "research"?If so, then methodology and
methods will play a very big partin the debate.My contentionis that acceptable
researchlies somewhereon a continuumfrom "lying on one's back in the grass
gazing at the sky while thinkingaboutthe generalnotion of arithmetic"to "testing all 8-year-oldchildrenin the world on theirability to computeaccuratelythe
answers to all possible additionproblemsinvolving two numberswith two digits." The acceptableintervalbetween these extremes will be governed, as stated
earlierin part,by the purposeof the inquiry,but not entirely. If as a result of my
sky gazing, I conclude that arithmeticis all about understandingnumbers,am I
doing research?What if insteadI producea theoreticalstructurefor the learning
of numbertheory that will revolutionizehow arithmeticis taught?Have I been
doing research?If as a result of my two-digit additiontest, I am able to confirm
thatthereis a wide rangeof abilityamong 8-year-oldsacrossthe world, can I justify my work as research?But suppose thatI also notice the unpredictedfact that
a very high proportionof children in only one specific nation have very low
accuracyscores on all computationsinvolving the number7. Does thisjustify my
actions as research?No single person can dictate the answers to these questions
Susan Pirie
21
22
Chapter 3
In the past decade or so, a new paradigm widely referred to as the qualitative
research paradigm has begun to dominate research in mathematics education.
Although its roots go back a long way, in mathematics education this paradigm
emerged in Piagetian-style research based on clinical interview methods. There
were anticipations that fit with the qualitative research paradigm, such as
William Brownell's studies of understanding and problem solving in the 1930s
and 1940s (see Noddings, 1994). However, only lately has research of this type
become widely accepted and commonplace in the leading journals in the field.
The emergence and growth of the qualitative research paradigm in mathematics education represent an important shift in style in a still young field of inquiry.
This development raises a host of issues about the nature of significant research
questions, research methods, styles of research reporting, and the possible impact
of such research on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Many of these
issues are difficult to address in the abstract and are best demonstrated through
concrete exemplars, as consistency with the epistemology of the qualitative
research paradigm also requires. This monograph presents many such examples.
The qualitative research paradigm has a deep philosophical significance. The
aim of this chapter is to address some of the general epistemological and foundational issues and implications concerning qualitative research in mathematics
education and to relate the paradigm to broader developments in 20th-century
postmodernist thought. In this chapter, I sketch the philothought-especially
sophical background of the qualitative research paradigm and relate it to current
developments in the philosophy of mathematics. I survey the epistemological
foundations of this paradigm and its relationship with constructivist and social
theories of learning and their implications for mathematics education research.
After elucidating some of the theoretical assumptions and characteristics of the
qualitative paradigm, I contrast it with two other educational research perspectives: the scientific paradigm and the critical theoretic paradigm.
A central aim of the chapter is to distinguish research methodology from methods. The qualitative research paradigm provides a methodology, that is, a general
23
Paul Ernest
24
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
Paul Ernest
25
26
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
ethnomathematics,mathematics-education
studies,and feminist and multicultural
critiques.This commitmentis importantbecause if mathematicsis conceived as
inseparablefrom humancontextsandpractices,then social implicationsfor mathematics education follow, enabling notions of accessibility, equity, and social
accountabilityto be applied to the discipline of mathematics.The outcome is a
demystificationof mathematics,to the benefitof the disciplineandmathematicians
and also to students,teachers,and otherusers of mathematicsin society.
Postmodernism and the Qualitative Research Paradigm
PaulErnest
27
28
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
Paul Ernest
29
her model of the subject'sunderstandingconcerningeven the narrowestof mathematical topics. Piaget's clinical interview method is a seminal contributionto
qualitativeresearchmethodology in mathematicseducationbecause it supplies
in-depthinformationon which to construean individual'sthinkingand cognitive
processing. With its accompanyingmethodologicalassumptions,it is among the
most widely used approachesof today (Steffe, 1991b; Steffe & Gale, 1995).
Piaget's epistemology has its roots in a biological metaphor, according to
which the evolving organismmust adaptto its environmentin orderto survive.
Likewise, the developing human intelligence also undergoes a process of adaptation in order to fit with its circumstancesand remain viable. Indeed, Piaget
claims that the human intelligence is orderingthe very world it experiences in
organizing its own cognitive structures."L'intelligence organise le monde en
s'organisantelle-meme" (Piaget, 1937, cited in von Glasersfeld, 1989, p. 162).
Ernst von Glasersfeld (1989, 1995) and colleagues have extended Piaget's
epistemology significantly in developing radical constructivismbased on two
principles:(a) knowledge is not passively received but is actively built up by the
cognizing subject, and (b) the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the
organizationof the experientialworld, not the discovery of ontological reality.
Accordingto the first principle,knowledge is not transferreddirectlyfrom the
environmentor otherpersonsinto the mind of the knoweror learner.Instead,any
new knowledge has to be actively constructedfrom pre-existingmental objects
within the mind of the learnerin response to stimuli or triggersin the knower's
experiential(or psychic) world to satisfy the needs and wants of the learnerherself or himself. As Kieren and Pirie (1991) argue, knowledge constructionis
based on a recursive restructuringof personal knowledge in the light of the
knower's construings of mathematicalexperiences. Consequently, individual
learners construct unique and idiosyncratic personal knowledge even when
exposed to identical stimuli. As Kilpatrick(1987) and others have made clear,
the acceptanceof this principleor variantsof it is very widespreadamong mathematics educators,psychologists, and cognitive scientists.
The second principle states that all knowledge is constructedand can reveal
nothing certainaboutthe world nor any other domain.This includes mathematical knowledge and parallels developments in fallibilist philosophies of mathematics. This assumptionis much more radicalbecause it amountsto a rejection
of scientific realism. It implies not only that all our constructionswill fall short
in attemptingto describe aspects of externalreality, whetherthis be the physical
world or learners'understandingsof it, but thatthis realityis essentiallyunknowable. As Kilpatrick(1987) points out, this is an unpalatableconsequenceto many
researcherswho believe both that learnersconstructtheirown meaningsand that
we inhabita knowable externalreality, thus accepting the first but rejectingthe
second principleof radicalconstructivism.
Constructivismhas introducedan importantsense of awarenessof epistemological limitationsinto researchin mathematicseducation.As the postmodernist
philosopher Rorty (1979) puts it, human knowledge can never mirrornature.
30
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
Paul Ernest
31
32
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
These emphasescombine to indicatethat constructivistresearchin mathematics education needs to consider the learner as a whole person-the complex
social context of the learner,teacher, and researcher-and the constitutive and
self-implicatedrole of the researcherin research,whateverthe focus. These are
all importantfeatures of the qualitativeresearchparadigmin action in mathematics education.
However, a note of cautionshouldbe soundedin attributingthese emphasesto
constructivism.If constructivismhad never emerged in psychology or mathematics educationresearch,it is likely that all these emphases and the qualitative
researchparadigmin educationwould still have emergedfrom anthropologyand
sociology. Althoughconstructivismis importantin researchin mathematicseducation, especially for those with a backgroundin psychology, it is by no means
the sole source of the insights we gain from it. Most of the same insights are
equally available to those drawing on anthropology, sociology, and ethnomethodology.We must thereforerejectany myth of origins thatpromotesconstructivismas an essential partof the qualitativeresearchparadigm.
EDUCATIONALRESEARCHPARADIGMS
I have been using the termparadigm to describe the overall frameworkwithin which qualitativeresearchtakes place. This draws on Kuhn's (1970) philosophical analysis of science as having normaland revolutionaryphases. During
normalphases, there is a single acceptedparadigmwithin the scientific community (e.g., Newton's mechanicsor Darwin's theory of evolution). Duringa revolutionaryphase, several paradigmscompete, and their supportersare usually so
immersedin their own paradigmthatthey find it difficult to relocate themselves
within anothereven when their own has been refuted.Kuhn's claim is stronger,
namely, that competing paradigms are incommensurable, that is, mutually
incomprehensible.But thereis controversyin the philosophyof science literature
over this claim (Lakatos& Musgrave, 1970).
With Kuhn's conception,researchis usually understoodto take place within a
recognized or unconsciouslyassumedoverall theoreticalresearchperspectiveor
paradigm.In education,and in the social sciences in general,are found multiple
researchparadigms,each with its own assumptionsabout knowledge and coming to know (epistemology),aboutthe world and existence (ontology), and about
how knowledge is obtained (methodology). Following the work of Habermas
(1971), a numberof educationalresearchersdistinguishthree main educational
researchparadigms:the qualitative(or interpretative),the scientific, and the critical-theoreticresearchparadigm(Bassey, 1990-91; Schubert,1986). It shouldbe
mentioned that there is some controversyover whether Habermas'sdistinction
between the interpretative(i.e., qualitative)and critical theoreticresearchparadigms is as strongas he contends (this controversyis discussed later).
Habermas argues that underpinningevery knowledge-seeking enterprise is
a particulartype of interest or desire at work, even in the case of science. He
Paul Ernest
33
distinguishesthreetypes of interestthatunderliethe quest for knowledge:to predict and control the phenomena under study (the technical interest), to understand and make sense of them (the practicalinterest),and to achieve social justice throughthis understanding(the emancipatoryinterest).These correspondto
the interestsunderlyingthree educationalresearchparadigms:the desire to predict and control educationalprocesses throughknowledge (the scientific paradigm); the desire to understandeducational phenomena, including individual
sense making (the qualitativeparadigm);and the desire to change educationand through it, society-for the better (the critical theoretic paradigm).
Correspondingto these interests are the intended outcomes of the three paradigms, respectively: objective knowledge, scientific generalizations,and truths;
subjective understanding,personal truths, and illuminating studies of unique
individuals;social changes and improvedsocial institutionsand conditions.
Bassey (1990-91), Ernest (1994c), and Schubert(1986) offer a discussion of
these paradigms from an educational perspective. They have been discussed
specifically in the context of mathematicseducation by Dunne and Johnston
(1992), Ernest (1994d), and Galbraith (1991). An outline of the qualitative
researchparadigmis now given, followed by brief descriptionsof the two other
paradigms.
The QualitativeResearch Paradigm
The qualitativeresearchparadigmdevelopedfrom the methodologyof sociology and social science research,includinganthropologyand ethnomethodology.It
is primarilyconcernedwith humanunderstanding,interpretation,
intersubjectivity,
lived truth(i.e., truthin humanterms),and so on. It takes fromethnomethodology
a concernto recordphenomenain termsof participantunderstandings.It uses various ethnographic,case study, and largely qualitative methods and forms of
inquiry,and it attemptsto overcomethe weaknessesof subjectivitythroughtriangulatingmultipleviewpoints.Much attentionhas been paid in the literatureto the
problem of how qualitativeresearchfindings can be validated(e.g., Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
In mathematicseducation research,the qualitativeresearchparadigmcan be
seen in the work of many researchers.A seminal early use of the researchparadigm is that of Erlwanger(1973) in his celebratedcase study of a single child's
learning(Benny). In the two decades since, a wide varietyof qualitativeresearch
has been published that presents, for example, in-depth knowledge of student
learningof mathematicaltopics, problem-solvingproceduresand strategies,and
teachers' beliefs.
One of the special features of the qualitativeresearchparadigmis its use of
the case study. Traditionally,scientific inquiryhas been concernedwith repeatable (replicable) circumstancesthat can be described by general laws. All the
particularsof the world are unique, but sharedfeaturesand resemblancesallow
generalizationsto be made, although always with a degree of uncertaintyand
34
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
unreliability(Popper, 1959). Once general laws have been derived, the scientific researchparadigmadoptsa top-downperspective,using the generalto deduce
predictionsabout particularinstances or observations.
The qualitativeresearchparadigmworks in an opposite directionand explores
the unique features and circumstancessurroundinga particularcase. However,
the aim is not to celebratethe uniquenessand oddity of a case. It is to explore the
richness of a particularthat may serve as an exemplarof somethingmore general. Kuhn (1970) has arguedthat even in the physical sciences, much use is made
of particular,exemplaryproblem solutions that serve as general models of reasoning and problemsolving.
Researchin the qualitativeparadigmbuilds up a rich descriptionof the case
understudy. Geertz(1973) calls it a thick description.Since a case typically concerns human beings and their interrelationshipsand contexts, this description
allow a readerto understandthe case throughidentification,empathy,or a sense
of entry into the lived reality. Thus the kind of truthinvolved can be regardedas
akin to that of the novelist: the truthderived from identificationwith, and living
through, a story with the richness and complex interrelationshipsof social,
humanlife.
However, a case is meant to be illustrativeand generative. The particularis
intendedto illustratethe general-not with the precision of the exact sciences,
but suggestively as an illustrationof a more general and complex truth.The aim
is, as Blake wrote in his Auguries of Innocence, "to see a world in a grain of
sand"-to illuminate the general through the particular.Thus research in the
qualitativeparadigmadoptsa bottom-upperspective,using a particularand concrete instanceto suggest, evoke, and illustrate,if not describe,the generalcase.
Because of its renunciationof certainty,the issue of reflexivity arises for the
qualitativeresearchparadigm.The paradigmincorporatesan epistemology that
rejects the disembodied viewpoint of positivism that takes for granted the
assumption that it gazes on a fully knowable and separate objective reality.
Instead,in the qualitativeresearchparadigm,the researcheruses herself or himself (and her or his conceptualframework)as a researchinstrumentand should
incorporatereflections on the implications of using this "instrument,"with its
limitations,in any accountof the research.
The qualitativeresearchparadigmis referredto undera wide varietyof names,
includinginterpretative(andinterpretive),naturalistic,and alternativeparadigms
research.Some researcherspreferto avoid the name "qualitativeresearchparadigm"because althoughit is in widespreaduse, there is a risk of confusion with
qualitativeresearchmethods. In fact, the qualitativeresearchparadigmcan use
quantitativeas well as qualitativemethodsand data,just as the scientific research
paradigmin educationcan also use qualitativemethods as well as quantitative.
Quantitativedata and methods can be used within the qualitativeresearchparadigm, as and when appropriate(paradoxicalas this might seem), because of the
importantdifference between methodand methodologyin educationalresearch.
Methods are particulardata-gatheringor analysis techniques. For example,
PaulErnest
35
36
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
McCorack, & Skvarcius, 1978) fall within the scientific research paradigm.
Althoughit may be controversialto make this claim, in my view Piaget also used
qualitativeresearchmethods (clinical interviews) to advance his theory of cognitive stages. This latter use, with its age-stage measures and predictions,lies
squarelywithin the scientific researchparadigm.
The scientific researchparadigmhas many of the advantagesassociated with
the physical andbiological sciences. When successful, it resultsin replicableand
objective generalizations.These have the strengthsof being rigorouslyscientifically tested. The paradigmalso has the strengthsof clarity,precision,rigor, standardization,and generalizability.It is also, in theory, universally applicable.
However, the weakness of this paradigmis that it involves simplifying the phenomena described, and its application is too often based on unquestioned
assumptions.All personsand humansituationsand contexts are unique and individual, but the scientific researchparadigmtreatswhole classes of individualsor
events as identical, or at least indistinguishable,except in terms of a range of
selected variables. Thus, this approachcan often be insensitive to contextual
variationsand individualdifferences,althoughin theory it can always be refined
to accommodateomittedaspects. Some of the epistemologicalassumptionsassociated with this paradigmare questionable,too. For often it is associatedwith an
absolutistepistemologyand a Newtonian-scientificontology. However,these are
defensible perspectives,even if they are sometimes uncongenialto those working in the qualitativeresearchparadigm.
The Critical TheoreticResearch Paradigm
The criticaltheoreticparadigmhas developed out of the CriticalTheoryof the
FrankfurtSchool, especially the work of JurgenHabermas(1971). The central
featureof this position is the desire not just to understandor to find out, but to
engage in social critique and to promote social and institutional change to
improve or reformaspects of social life. In education,this often involves working on social justice issues, such as redressinggender, class, or racial inequalities. To this end, it often involves participantengagementand validation.One of
the best known discussions of this approachapplied to educationalresearchis
that of Carrand Kemmis (1986). As in this reference,the criticaltheoreticparadigm is often closely associatedwith actionresearch,which is popularamongthe
"teacher-as-researcher"
movement,with teachersworkingto change theirteaching or school situations to improve classroom learning. In my view, action
research,however, too often balks at addressingoppressionin society to fit comfortably under the critical theoretic paradigm.Such projects as Paolo Freire's
(1972) work emancipating Brazilian peasants through literacy, although not
explicitly critical theoretic, serves as an excellent example of this type of
research.Likewise, in mathematicseducation, the paradigmis reflected in the
work of Gerdes (1985) in Mozambique and such researchersas Mellin-Olsen
(1987) and Skovsmose (1985, 1994) in Scandinavia.
37
Paul Ernest
The critical theoreticresearchparadigmis explicitly concernedwith improving some context, situation,or institution.Most othereducationalresearchis also
concernedwith improvingschooling in some way or other,but this improvement
is usually more of an indirectconsequence of the inquiry.The paradigmhas the
advantageof specifying this goal explicitly and not being concernedwith trying
to leave undisturbedthe situation being investigated. The disadvantageof this
paradigmis that hidden institutionalsources of resistance to change, such as
teacher and pupil ideologies, institutionalstructures,and so on, may often prevent progress.If there is no progressand there is little of the knowledge that the
other two educationalresearchparadigmsseek to establish, then the danger is
that there may be no worthwhileoutcome for the energy and time invested.
A philosophicalcriticism of the critical theoreticresearchparadigmis that its
intendedoutcome (emancipatorysocial change)is of a differentcategoryfromthe
intendedknowledge outcomes of the scientific and qualitativeresearchparadigm
(Blaikie, 1993). The rationalbasis for emancipatoryknowledge qua knowledge
has not been made explicit (Carr& Kemmis, 1986). However,Habermas's(1981)
projectin recent years has been to meet this challengeby developing a theory of
communicativeaction that unifies knowledge with emancipatoryaction.
Comparingthe Research Paradigms
Given that multiple educationalresearchparadigmsexist, it is worth comparing them briefly. Table 3.1 shows a simplified summaryand comparisonof the
three major researchparadigmsby using some of the factors previously mentioned (based on Bassey, 1990-91; Ernest, 1994c; and Schubert,1986).
Table 3.1
SimplifiedSummaryand Comparisonof the ThreeMain Paradigms
Component
Ontology
Epistemology
Methodology
Scientific
Scientific realism (objects
in physical space)
Absolutist, objective
knowledge
Mainly quantitative
and experimental,
involving many subjects
and contexts
Intendedoutcome Applicable knowledge
and generalizations
Interest
To comprehendand improve (throughprediction
and control) the world
Paradigm
Qualitative
Subjectivereality
(personalmeanings)
Personal,constructed
or socially constructed
knowledge
Mainly qualitativecase
studies of particular
individualsand contexts
Illuminativesubjective
understandings
To understandand make
sense of the world
Criticaltheoretic
Persons in society
and social institutions
Socially constructed
knowledge
Mainly critical action
researchon social
institutions
Interventionfor social
reform,social justice
Social justice,
emancipation
One of the major epistemological differences among the paradigms concerns what is problematized. The scientific research paradigm locates uncer-
38
TheEpistemologicalBasis of QualitativeResearch
tainty exclusively in the immediate object of inquiry, such as the teaching and
learning of mathematics in a particular classroom. This paradigm does not
require any reflexivity concerning the researcher's constitutive role in knowledge and meaning making. There are of course objectified requirements to
attempt to remove distortions introduced by the researcher in the process of
inquiry, such as the concern to establish the validity and reliability of the
research instrumentsused. In contrast, the other two paradigmsdo not regard
the world and its events as something that can be known with any certainty.
They problematize the relationship between the knower and the known and
adopt a position of humility with regardto epistemology, knowledge, and the
results of the methods employed in research. This means that neither of these
two research paradigms or methodologies should be employed mechanically
in the quest for knowledge but that every application stands in need of justification. A fallibilist epistemology requires the recognition of the limits of
knowledge claims at every level of educational research. A note of caution
should be added. Sometimes, critical theoretic researchpresupposes that it has
a privileged viewpoint delivering reliable knowledge about the social situation it seeks to change.
The threeparadigmsrepresentclustersor general styles of approachto educationalresearch,characterizedin termsof theirtypes of basic assumptions.Within
each paradigm(and the fit may be loose in parts), it is possible to have a wide
variety of approaches.Some of the disciplined approachesthat fit more or less
within the qualitative research paradigm are the phenomenological, ethnomethodological, psychoanalytic, and hermeneutic approaches. Perhaps in
eitherthe qualitativeor the criticaltheoreticparadigms(andperhapsoverlapping
with both) are the social constructivist,poststructuralist,andfeminist standpoints
(Harding,1987). Dunne and Johnston(1992) relateall threeeducationalresearch
paradigmsto gender issues in research in mathematicsand science education.
Ernest (1994a, 1994b) includes contributions representing many of these
approachesto researchin mathematicseducation.
It has been suggested by some scholarsthat the distinctionbetween the qualitative and the critical theoreticresearchparadigmsis not as clear-cutas the preceding account suggests. After all, it is largely based on Habermas'sdistinction
in defining a thirdresearchparadigm,namelythe criticaltheoreticone. Certainly
the possibility of overlap between the qualitativeand the critical theoreticparadigms should be countenanced,and indeed some examples of researchin mathematics education are hard to locate within just one of the paradigms (e.g.,
Walkerdine's[1988] poststructuralistapproach).Some other researcherssometimes distinguishonly two majorparadigms,the scientific and the interpretative
(i.e., qualitative)researchparadigms(e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985), with the latter incorporatingthe critical theoretic paradigm.HarrEand Gillett (1994) also
contrast only two research paradigms in contemporary psychology, the
Newtonian (scientific) and the discursive (qualitative)paradigms,thus reducing
the distinctionto a dichotomy.
Paul Ernest
39
Finally, it should be acknowledgedthat issues of philosophy and epistemology concerningeducationalresearchparadigmsare controversial.For ratherthan
acknowledgingthat multiple valid paradigmsand sets of assumptionsunderpin
research,each with differentstrengthsand aims, some researchershave preferred
to fight for their own paradigmas the sole valid one. Scientific researchparadigm supportershave arguedthatthey own the sole routeto objectivityand truth.
Supportersof the qualitativeresearchparadigmhave argued that the quest for
objectivity and truthis futile and that only they can offer valid understanding.
Critical theoretic researchparadigmsupportershave arguedthat the others are
victims of "false consciousness"and that only they can reveal the ideologically
induced distortionsin educationand society.
Thus there is no consensus about which educational research paradigm is
"true"or "correct."There are only proponentsof one or anotherparadigmand
those who arguethat all have some validity, as I do here. Fromthe point of view
of the fallibilist epistemology underpinningthe qualitativeresearchparadigm,
"correctness"is not possible, anyway. Instead,it is importantto be aware of the
strengthsand weaknesses of scientific, qualitative,and criticalapproachesand to
be able to question the epistemological assumptionsthat are made in each of
them. Gage (1989) has writtenof the paradigmwars waged among supportersof
the three paradigmsin the educationalresearchcommunityin the United States.
His recommendationis that educationalresearchparadigmsare tools that should
serve our practicalends in educationand that the best policy is to acknowledge
their multiplicitywhile judging them by their fruits.
40
Chapter 4
Over a period of 2 decades, mathematicseducationhas evolved to stress conceptual understanding,higher-level problem-solvingprocesses, and children's
internalconstructionsof mathematicalmeaningsin place of, or in additionto, procedural and algorithmic learning (Davis, Maher, & Noddings, 1990; von
Glasersfeld, 1991). With this trend, the structuredclinical interview has found
greateracceptanceas a researchmethod.It lends itself well to the qualitativestudy
and descriptionof mathematicallearningand problemsolving withoutthe exclusive relianceon countsof correctanswersassociatedwith pencil-and-papertests.
In general, such structuredinterviews are used in researchfor the twin purposes of (a) observing the mathematicalbehavior of children or adults, usually
in an exploratoryproblem-solvingcontext, and (b) drawinginferences from the
observationsto allow somethingto be said about the problem solver's possible
meanings,knowledge structures,cognitive processes, affect, or changes in these
in the course of the interview.
For me, structuredinterviews are especially attractiveas a means of joining
researchwith educationalpractice.Reformsin school mathematicsin the United
Statesendeavor(among othergoals) to foster the discovery of patternsand ways
of reasoning about them and to develop skill in constructingoriginal, nonstandard solution methods. Guided explorationsby children and small-groupproblem solving are encouraged.These goals supplement(if they do not actuallysupplant) more "traditional"teacher-centered,direct instructionemphasizingmastery of standardizedmathematicalrepresentations,rules, and procedures.In the
This chapter expands on talks presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the
MathematicsEducationResearchGroupof Australasia(MERGA-16,July 1993, Brisbane,
Australia), and at the 17th Annual Conference of the InternationalGroup for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-17, August 1993, Tsukuba, Japan). The
research described was partially supportedby a grant from the U.S. National Science
Foundation (NSF), "A Three-Year Longitudinal Study of Children's Development of
MathematicalKnowledge,"directedby RobertB. Davis and CarolynA. Maherat Rutgers
University. Opinions and conclusions expressed are those of the authorand do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the projectdirectors.
GeraldA. Goldin
41
42
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
GeraldA. Goldin
43
AN EXPLORATORYLONGITUDINALSTUDY
In a study whose outcomes are still being analyzed,the mathematicaldevelopment of an initial group of 22 childrenwas observed for approximately3 years.
At the outset, in the 1991-92 school year, subjectswere 8 to 10 years old. They
were then in the thirdand fourthgradesin a cross-sectionof New Jersey's public
schools: two urbanschools (5 thirdgradersand 4 fourthgraders);one school in a
predominantlyblue-collar, "workingclass" community (7 fourth graders);and
one school in a suburban,"uppermiddle class" district(6 third graders).These
schools, and the children'steachers,were participatingin an intensive, constructivist-orientedmathematicsteacherdevelopment-mathematicseducationreform
partnershipcalled MaPS (MathematicsProjects in Schools), sponsored by the
Rutgers Center for Mathematics, Science, and Computer Education and the
GraduateSchool of Educationand directedby CarolynA. Maherand RobertB.
Davis. In fact, one reason for initiating the longitudinalstudy-for which data
sources includedvideotapesof the children'sindividualproblemsolving, as well
as their small-groupmathematicalactivity inside and outside class-was to be
able to assess some of the project's outcomes in relationto individualchildren's
mathematicalunderstandingsas they grew over time.
One component of this study consisted of a series of task-based,individual
interviewswith each child over a partof the 3 years, conductedunderthe direction of the author (DeBellis & Goldin, 1993; Goldin, 1993; Goldin, DeBellis,
DeWindt-King,Passantino,& Zang, 1993). Five interviews were designed and
administeredbetween spring 1992 and Spring 1994, with the goals of observing
complex, individualmathematicalproblem-solvingbehaviorin detail and drawing inferences from the observationsabout the children's thinkingand development. Thus, this componentof the study was, from a scientific standpoint,mainly exploratoryand descriptive-subjects were not a randomsample from a larger
population,and no general hypotheses were being explicitly tested. Rather,we
hoped to describeindividualmathematicaldevelopmentin as much detail as possible, focusing not on standard,discreteskills or algorithmicproblemsolving, but
on the growth of complex, internalrepresentationalcapabilities. Tied to these
goals, the interview design included several steps: (a) planning in relation to
mathematicalcontent and structure,anticipatedobservations,and inferencesdiscussed furtherin the next two sections; (b) creatingan interviewscript,and its
critiqueby the researchgroupin a graduateseminar;(c) pilot testing the scriptin
a differentschool, with childrennot partof the longitudinalstudy, and revising it
on the basis of the pilot test; and (d) training and rehearsingwith clinicians,
includingpracticesessions. Initiallywe hoped thathalf or more of the 22 children
would remain in the study for the full term; originally six interviews were
planned,but fundingconstraintslimitedus to five. As it turnedout, 19 of the original group of childrenparticipatedin all five interviews.
The interviewsthemselves were designed to take less than one class period. In
every interview, alternativeembodimentsfor externalrepresentationwere given
44
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
The first interview script (55 pages, about 45 minutes) was written during
1991-92 and administeredin May and June 1992. The task, based on a high
school-level problem of the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
involves laying out for the child threecards,one at a time (see Figure4.1): "Here
is the first card, here is the second card, and here is the thirdcard."
The cards are drawnfrom a stack in an envelope, so the child may infer from
the context that there is a deck larger than the few cards shown and (possibly,
tacitly) may also infer thatthere is a patternpresent.After a brief pause to allow
a spontaneousresponse, the child is asked,
* "Whatdo you think would be on the next card?"
The materialsplaced aheadof time on the table areblankindex cards(the same
size as those with dots), felt-tipped markersof different colors, round red and
black chips (checkers),a pad of paper,and a pencil. The child can use any items.
GeraldA. Goldin
45
46
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
ed. Then the child is asked to imagine a pumpkin,to describe it, to manipulate
the image in various ways (including cutting the pumpkinin half), to spell the
wordpumpkin,to spell it backward,and to talk aboutthese activities. A series of
mathematicalquestions follows. For each, the follow-up includes (where appropriate):"Canyou help me understandthatbetter?"or "Arethere any otherways
to take (one half) (one third)?"or both questions.
* "Whenyou think of one half, what comes to mind?"
* "Whenyou think of one third,what comes to mind?"
* "Supposeyou had 12 apples. How would you take (one half) (one third)?"
* [Next cutouts are presented in succession: a square, a circle, and a 6-petal
flower. For each, the child is asked] "How would you take (one half) (one
third)?"
* [Circle cutouts are presentedto the child, first with (one half) (one third)(one
sixth) representedconventionally(as in a pie graph),then with the same fractions representedunconventionally(the part representingthe fraction at the
center of the circle). In each case the child is asked] "Canthis card be understood to represent(one half) (one third)?(Why?) (Why not?)"
* [A 3-by-4 arrayconsisting of 12 circles and 6-petal flowers is now presented.]
"How would you take (one half) (one third)?"
* The child is also asked to write and interpretthe usual notation for the fractions one half and one third.
Next a solid wooden cube is shown. Some preliminaryquestions are asked
aboutits characteristics(numberof faces, edges, and comers). The child, guided
as necessarytowardunderstandingwhat these mean, is then asked to thinkabout
cuttingthe cube in various ways:
* "Now think about cutting this cube in half. What would the two halves look
like?"
* "Supposewe painted the cube red and then cut it the same way. How many
faces are paintedred, for the smallerpieces you told me about?"
Similar questions follow about cutting a series of up to five additionalcubes,
dependingon the time available.These cubes are markedwith lines at designated vertical or horizontalpositions, or both, which results in mutuallycongruent
pieces that are respectively 1/3, 1/4, 1/8, 1/9, and 1/27 the volume of the original
GeraldA. Goldin
47
Task-Based Interview #3
48
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
* "Will it always come out that way? Why do you think so?"
After the studenthas expressed a firm conclusion, the clinician asks follow-up
questions and a final set of retrospectivequestions focusing on affect as well as
on cognition.
Task-Based Interview 4
49
GeraldA. Goldin
1+3
1+3+5
::
a.
b.
Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem1
Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem2
*:o0
?0
...
....-
000
*00
*0000i
c.
d.
Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem3
Thefirstthreecards
presentedin Problem4
all the cards, the clinician asks if the child sees any way to relate today's cards
to the previous cards.
Task-Based Interview 5
Interview5 (27 pages, up to about55 minutes) also returnsto selected mathematical ideas from the earlierinterviews,particularlyfractionsrelatedto 1/2, 1/3,
and 1/4 as exploredin Interviews2 and 3. Materialsgiven to the studentinclude
scissors; a 12-inch ruler marked in both inches and centimeters; an 18-inch
length of white curling ribbon;papercircles, squares,and triangles;a pile of red
and white plastic chips; a calculator;paperand pencils; and a solid piece of wood
the approximateshape and size of a stick of butter,measuring1"x 1"x 5". The
interviewbegins with open-endedquestionsaboutfractions:"Whenyou thinkof
a fraction,what comes to mind?""Canyou tell me more about that?""Canyou
show me what you mean?""Have you studied fractionsin school yet?" "What
(else) have you studiedaboutthem?""Do you like fractions?""Whatdo (don't)
you like about them?"
The child is then given a sheet of pink paper with five fractionswrittenon it
and is asked a series of questions; as always, spontaneousproblem solving is
allowed before the next question:
1 1 2 3 4
2 3 3 4 6
* "Whatfractionsdo you see here?""Canyou explain ...what one of these fractions means?""Why is it writtenthis way?" "Couldyou show me [using] the
materials?"
* "Which fraction is the (smallest) (largest) fraction in the group?" "Why?"
"Couldyou show me what you mean?""Are there any fractionsin this group
ObservingMathematicalProblem Solving
50
that are the same size?" "(Why?)(Why not?)""Couldyou show me what you
mean?"
Next some pictorialrepresentationson a sheet of yellow paperand new questions are given (see Figure 4.3):
11
l I 11
II I I2
2
1
I r4'I I
4
5
5
I
I I3l
3
5 11 10
51
GeraldA. Goldin
For the balance of the interview,the child solves up to four problemtasks, one
at a time), each accompaniedby exploratory,nondirective questions. It is not
expected that all problemswill be completed. When 5 minutes remain,the clinician skips to the final retrospective:
* [A circularshapeis presented.]"How could you show one thirdof this shape?"
"Why is that one third?""Is there any other way to show one third?""How
could you show one fourthof this shape?""Whyis that one fourth?""Is there
any other way to show one fourth?"
* [The 1" x 1" x 5" piece of wood is presented.]"Pretendthis is a stick of butter. You need a tablespoon of butterto make a cake. You don't have a measuring spoon, but you know that there are 8 tablespoons in a stick of butter.
Here is the butter.How could you find exactly one tablespoon?"[If the answer
is imprecise, ask once] "Is there any way to find out more exactly?"
* "Imaginea big birthdaycake shapedlike a rectangle.Can you imagine what it
looks like?""Describewhatit looks like." "Now imagine thatthereare 12 people coming to the birthdaypartyand they each want a piece of cake. Yourjob
is to cut the cake so that each person gets the same-size piece. How will you
cut the cake?" "Could you show me what you mean?""Are there any other
ways to cut it?" [The clinician continuesto explore cuttingthe cake, including
the situationof icing on the cake.]
* "A toymakerfound some wooden shapes in the corer of her workshop.Some
were squares,and some were triangles.She decidedto put themtogetherto make
little houses [demonstratesusing a squareand a triangle).The squareslooked
like this [gesturesto the pile of squares].The triangleslooked like this [(gestures
to the pile of triangles].The houses looked like this [placesthe triangleon top of
the squareto make a figure that looks like that shown in Figure 4.4]. After a
while, she noticed that she had matchedexactly 3/5 of the squareswith exactly 2/3 of the triangles. How many squares and triangles were there to start
with?""Using these materials,could you show me how she did that?"[If time
permits:]"Couldthere be a differentnumberthat works?"...
After each of these four problems, the child is asked, "Have you ever done a
problem like this before?" (If yes) "When?What do you rememberabout it?"
and so on. Interview5 ends, like the others, with a retrospectivediscussion.
52
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
Selected interviews with the children form the basis of a numberof studies.
The thesis of Zang (1994) examines the developmentof strategicthinkingin four
of the children, comparingInterview 1 and Interview 4; the thesis of DeBellis
(1996) studies affect in four of the children,using Interviews 1, 3, and 5; and the
thesis of Passantino(1997) looks at the developmentof fractionrepresentations
for all of the children,comparingInterviews2 and 5 (see also DeBellis & Goldin,
1997; Goldin & Passantino, 1996; Zang, 1995). With these scriptsas examples,
we now consider some generalperspectiveson structured,task-basedinterviews
of this sort as a researchtechniquein mathematicseducation.
ON THE SCIENTIFICNATURE OF TASK-BASED INTERVIEWS
The longitudinalstudy, like many thatuse task-basedinterviews,is exploratory. Consisting as it does of a collection of individual case studies, its outcomes
are not in a strict sense scientifically reproducible,and it might seem at first that
this is all thatcan be said. Nevertheless,thereare certainrespectsin which methods of scientific inquiryhave been carefullyregardedin the creationand administrationof the interview scripts.I believe aspects such as these to be essential if
we are to make real progressin understandingthe natureof mathematicallearning and problem solving throughempirical observation.Thus, it is possible to
envision the researchbeing extended in a directionthat permitsreplicability.
First, it is crucial to maintaincarefully the scientific distinctionbetween that
which is observedand inferencesthat are drawnfrom observations.In this study
we (at best) are able to observe children'sverbaland nonverbalbehavior,as capturedon videotapeduringthe sessions. From these observations,we (and others
who use similar methods) seek to infer something about the children's internal
representations,thought processes, problem-solving methods, or mathematical
understandings.We cannot "observe"any of the latterconstructs.
Second, our inferences are going to depend on (often tacit) models and preconceptions about the natureof what we are trying to infer and its relation to
observable behavior. A scientific goal of the theory of mathematicseducation
must be to make such models as explicit as possible. As we do this, we move
away from dependingon the ad hoc design of task-basedinterviewstowardconstructingthem more consciously on the basis of explicit theoreticalconsiderations. The task-basedinterview is like an instrumentof scientific experimentation, and it is theory that describes how such an instrumentis expected to interact with the system observed (in this case, the child as problem solver) so as to
permitthe drawingof valid inferences from the observationsand measurements
made. This point is discussed furtherin the next section.
Third,inferencesfrom task-basedinterviewsare likely to be unreliable,in that
differentobservers may disagree about what inferences they would make after
observing the same videotape-even when they agree on the theoretical constructsfor which they are looking. The process of drawinginferencesaboutchildren's thinking is fraughtwith uncertainty.At least at the outset, then, another
GeraldA. Goldin
53
54
Mathematical
ProblemSolving
Observing
GeraldA. Goldin
55
theory is not limited to this. Theory must also tell us something about how the
characteristicsof the task in the task-basedinterview(e.g., its language,its mathematical content and structure, its appropriatenessfor particular cognitive
processes, the interview context) are expected to interactwith the cognitions we
are tryingto infer, so thatthe interviewcan be designed to elicit processes of the
desired nature.To say that the problems in the task-basedinterviews described
here are of a level of complexity thoughtto permit a variety of strategiesto be
employed, or internal representationsto be constructed, already presupposes
majortheoreticalassumptions.
The questions asked and the observationsmade duringany scientific investigation, including investigations using task-based, clinical interviews, depend
heavily on the theory we bring to it. Thus, in my view, the main question is not
whether theory should influence us in this enterprise.I maintain,in agreement
with R. B. Davis (1984), that it always, inevitably does:
havefailedbecause
Perhapstheattemptsto usethemethodsof science[ineducation]
sciencehasbeenmisunderstood.
In these attemptsit had been assumedthatsciencewas primarilyfactual,that
indeedit dealtalmostsolely in facts,thattheoryhad no role in science.Careful
observation
of sciencerevealsthisto be false.It mightbe closerto the truthto say
that"facts"-atleastinteresting
facts-are almostunableto existexceptin thepresenceof an appropriate
theory[emphasisin original].Withoutanappropriate
theory,
one cannotevenstatewhatthe"facts"are.(p. 22)
The questionpertainingto clinicalinterviewsis the extentto which the influence
of theory remains tacit, taking place throughunconsciousassumptionsof clinicians, researchers,and/orteachers,or becomes explicit andthusopen to discussion
and challenge.Ourgoal in the presentstudyis to be as explicit as possible.
The theoreticalunderpinningof this series of interviews includes the concept
of (internal)competenciesand structuresof such competencies. These are envisioned as developing over time in the child and as being capable of being
inferred from observable behavior-when the appropriateconditions exist for
the individualto take certaincognitive steps and some correspondingbehaviors
are seen. Anotherfundamentaltheoreticalassumptionis the idea that competencies are encoded in several different kinds of internalrepresentationsand that
these interact with one another and with observable, external representations
duringproblemsolving. A thirdassumptionis that representationalacts occur in
which representationalconfigurations(internalor external)are taken to symbolize or standfor other representationalconfigurations.
The model that most stronglyinfluenced the developmentof the scriptsis one
thatI have been developing for some time as a way of characterizingmathematical problem-solvingcompetency. It includes five kinds of mutuallyinteracting
systems of internal, cognitive representation(Goldin, 1987, 1992b): (a) a verbal/syntactic system (use of language); (b) imagistic systems (visual/spatial,
auditory,kinestheticencoding); (c) formalnotationalsystems (use of mathematical notation);(d) planning, monitoring,and executive control (use of heuristic
56
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
strategies);and (e) affective representation(changingmoods and emotions during problem solving). The interplaybetween the children's internalrepresentations and externalrepresentationsthatthey use or constructduringthe interviews
provides one of the most importantmeans of drawinginferences.
For example, from children's descriptive statements about what a birthday
cake looks like (Interview 5, Problem 3) we infer internalvisual/spatialrepresentations.From their gestures as they describe how they would cut a birthday
cake into 2 or 3 pieces (Interview3) or 12 pieces (Interview5), with accompanying drawings, we infer simultaneous internal, kinesthetic representations.
Children'sexplanationsof the fractionswrittensymbolically in Interview5 permit inferencesconcerningtheirinternalrepresentationsof this formalmathematical notation. Steps they take relating one sequence of cards to another in
Interview4 permitinferencesconcerninginternalexecutive control (heuristicor
strategicrepresentations).Affective representationis inferrednot only from the
child's statementsin response to questions,but also from facial expressions and
spontaneouscommentsand gestures.I would stress again thatthe whole process
of inferencing is, at this stage in the research, of limited reliability, but that
strengtheningthe degree of reliabilityis an importantgoal.
Since the study is longitudinal,a majorfocus is how systems of representation
develop in the child over a period of time. In this respect, the theoreticalmodel
incorporatesthreemain stages: (a) an inventive/semioticstage, in which internal
configurationsare first assigned "meaning,"(b) a period of structuraldevelopment, driven by the meanings first assigned, and (c) an autonomous stage, in
which the representationalsystem functions flexibly and in new contexts. We
hope to be able to infer representationalacts associatedwith each of these stages.
The distinction between external and internal representationmeans that we
must attendcarefully to both. We regardthe tasks posed as externalto individual children,embodyingsyntax, content,context, and structurevariablesthat we
select when we design the interviews. In particular,the mathematicalstructures
of the tasks (semanticstructuresand formal structures-additive, multiplicative,
and so forth) are consciously chosen. The behaviorsobserved result from interactions between the task environmentand the child's internalrepresentations.
To posit interactionsbetween internal and external representationalsystems
thus requiresa great deal of analysis of mathematicalstructuresassociatedwith
the tasks. Parallelbut not identical structures-in some instances,homomorphic
structures,in other instances, structuresless directlyrelated-were intentionally
included in the differentinterviews.For example, a certainadditive structureis
embodied in the (canonical)sequence in Interview 1. Otheradditive and multiplicative structuresrelate to the sequences in Interview4, which are also structurallyrelatedto each other.The cardsequencesare all presentedin parallelways
to the children.A certainmultiplicativestructureunderliesthe cube-cuttingtask
in Interview2. Reflection symmetriesare embodiedin the cards in Interviews 1
and4, in the cutoutand cube-cuttingtasksin Interview2, and in the birthdaycake
task in Interview 3. More subtle, hidden symmetry is present in the jellybean
GeraldA. Goldin
57
58
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
explicitly described and designed to elicit behaviors that are to some degree
anticipated.
GeraldA. Goldin
59
one of those situationsand had generatedthe problemgoal (as opposed to solving the problem as part of a clinical interview). The toymakerproblem, in contrast, is a rewrite of a ratherwell known mathematicalproblem involving married couples in a village. We rewrotethe problemto presenta concrete,external
representationwith which the child could experimentif desired. Although the
context of making toys is one the child can easily imagine, the problem goal is
not one thatoccurs "authentically"in thatcontext. It is posed as an almost whimsical question, arisingperhapsas a curiosity (curiosity-basedproblemsolving is,
of course, an essential aspect of mathematicalinquiry) but not as a practical
question thatneeds to be answeredfor the toymakingto proceed. Thus, the contexts of these two problemsare differentin an importantrespect. Such contextual factors could influence, for example, the importancethat the child ascribes to
the problemgoal and, in turn,the child's persistence,enthusiasm,choice of strategy, and so forth.
Anothermeaningof context, one thatmight be called "mathematicalcontext,"
refersto unstatedaspects of the tasks themselves as they arepresentedduringthe
interview-aspects that although seemingly small may have importanteffects.
For example, in presenting the three cards in Interview 1 and again (several
times) in Interview4, we permit the child to see the cards being drawn from a
stack of cards in a manila envelope. From this minor contextualfeature (which
was intentionallyincluded),the child may infer thatthereis a deck of cardslarger than the three that are shown and, possibly, that there is a patternin the cards.
Three cards presented wholly out of context might not so readily elicit this
expectation.Evidently, certaincontextualinfluences are undesirable(e.g., those
thatmight mask our ability to observe competenciesthatarepresentin the child),
whereas others are helpful (e.g., those that would facilitate the child's "thinking
mathematically").
Since so much thatmay occur duringa task-basedinterviewis context dependent, how can we considerwhat we observe to be more thanaccidental,one-time
events? One importantcondition is to requirethat the constructs we inferfrom
our observationsbe reasonablystable against contextualvariations.For example, suppose we infer, in Interview 2, a child's ability to representimagistically
(visually, kinesthetically,or both) the cuttingof a cube across two perpendicular
directions.The inference may be drawnfrom the child's coherentdescriptionof
the componentpieces of the cube, with appropriategestures indicatinghow the
cube was imagined to be cut. Although it is indeed the case that this child's
behaviormay vary considerablyfrom one context to another,when we infer such
particularcompetenciesor structuresof competenciesfrom thatbehavior,we are
inferringaspects of the child's cognition that we expect to be fairly stable. If the
inferredcompetency were to disappearin shortorder,it would not be useful in a
theory of mathematicallearning.
Understandingthe contextual dependence of the interviews also means recognizing how very difficult it is to establish advance criteria for all the inferences about each child's cognition and affect that we want to draw from our
60
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
GeraldA. Goldin
61
62
ObservingMathematicalProblemSolving
5. Interaction with the learning environment. Various external representation-
al capabilitiesshould be provided,which permitsinteractionwith a rich, observable learningor problem-solvingenvironmentand allows inferencesaboutproblem solvers' internalrepresentations.
It is hoped that the discussion in this chapterfurthersthe goal of understanding mathematicallearningand problemsolving scientifically throughthe use of
task-basedinterviews as researchor assessmentinstruments.
63
Chapter 5
64
could subtractwithin this range in due time learnedto add and subtractwithin
higher numberranges, whereas those who could not never seemed to develop
mental calculationskills.
Four pilot studies that I carried out revealed that pupils with difficulties in
mathematicsused a counting approach,counting forwardor backwardin ones,
in their attemptsto calculate. Other children used what I called a structuring
approachthat helped them avoid counting. Insteadof counting four steps backward to solve the task 9 - 4, for instance, they answered 5 instantly, with the
younger children explaining, if asked, that they knew because 4 + 4 = 8 or
because 5 + 5 = 10. Those explanations illustrate that their basic facts were
anchoredin a sense of numberand in a conceptualunderstandingof the inverse
relationbetween additionand subtraction.
I searchedfor a suitablemethodfor studyingboth the cause of the difficulties
some pupilsexperiencedandthe ways otherchildren,priorto enteringschool, had
begun to createa more viable sense of number.At GoteborgUniversity,I became
acquainted with the INOM group (INlarning och OMvarldsuppfattning,or
"Learningand ways of experiencingour world"),whose researchand educational aims fit my intentions.The professorin the center of the group was Ference
Marton,who latercoined the wordphenomenography(Marton,1981; Marton&
Booth, 1997) for the kind of researchthe groupcarriedout. I use examples from
the study I conductedto describecertainaspects of phenomenographicresearch.
PHENOMENOGRAPHY
To fully understanda qualitativeresearchmethodology,we must place it in the
context of an ontology, concerning the natureof the world we live in, and an
epistemology, concerning how we acquire knowledge about this world.
Therefore,in this part of the chapter,I discuss some of the fundamentalphilosophical assumptionsunderlyingphenomenographicresearch.
Phenomenographyis a theoreticaland methodologicalresearchspecialization,
anchored in a nondualistic ontology, akin to a phenomenologicalphilosophy.
According to this ontological position, our world is a real world that is experienced by all our senses but interpretedand understoodin differentways by different humanbeings, dependingon our earlierexperiences.This world, however, is seen as one world only, not as one subjectiveworld representedin the mind
of the individualand one objective externalworld. It is one world that is
between
objectiveandsubjectiveat the sametime.An experienceis a relationship
both;the experienceis as muchan aspectof the
objectandsubject,encompassing
objectas it is of the subject....The expression"howthe subjectexperiencesthe
object"is synonymouswiththe expression"howthe objectappearsto the subject"
(Marton& Neuman,1996,p. 317).
Yet phenomenographyis not phenomenology. Even if it definitely shares
some of the phenomenologicalphilosophy, it must be seen as an approachwith
its own fundamentalassumptions,methods, and goals.
65
Dagmar Neuman
66
phenomenon. Fourth, the researchermust continually adapt the different possible interpretationsthat appearwhen he or she reads throughthe data until the
basic meaning structurehas been stabilized. Finally, the researchershould not
only identify what the interviewees experience but also how they experience
this "what."The concluding model of the descriptions should relate the interviewees' expressions of what they seem to experience to how they seem to
experience it. This chapter focuses on the first, second, and fifth criteria by
using the phenomenographicmodel developed in the School StarterStudy to
illustrate the implementationof interpretativeawareness.
Study Design
Dagmar Neuman
67
deepen the understandingacquiredthroughthe interview study. They also provided validity throughtechnical triangulation(Larson, 1993), in which different
forms of data are assembled concerning the same phenomenon,and pragmatic
validity (Kvale, 1989) through putting the results of the interview study into
practice.This chapterfocuses on informationdeveloped from the initial clinical
interviews.
The Definition of the Phenomenon
A clear definition of the phenomenon to be studied, as experienced by the
researcher,is of great importancein phenomenographicresearch. If the phenomenon is not well defined, it is impossible to formulateappropriateinterview
questions or to present the outcomes of the study as representingthe variations
in the ways in which this phenomenonhas appearedto the interviewees.The definition of the phenomenonis closely related to the formulationof the research
problemthat the researcherhas set out to study.
My research problem concerned subtractionwithin the range 1-10. I had
alreadyobservedthatfor pupils displayingmathematicaldifficulties, subtraction
problems could be hard or easy depending on the numbersused. For instance,
ProblemA "Andyhad two pencils, but nine childrenwanted to make drawings;
how many more did he need?" could be hard, whereas the same problem with
seven pencils (ProblemB) seemed easy. In the same way, ProblemC, "Andyhad
nine pencils and lost seven of them; how many are left?" could be hard,whereas the same problemwith two pencils lost ProblemD could be easy.
An analysis of the strategies used by the pupils in the pilot study who displayed mathematicsdifficulties revealed why ProblemsA and C could be considereddifficult. For these pupils, exactly as for very young children,the semantic structureof the problems, not numericalfactors, seemed to be the focus of
attention when they solved word problems (Carpenter& Moser, 1984). They
seemed to experience missing addends (A and B) as addition,thinkingof addition as counting forward,and "take away" problems (C and D) as subtraction,
with subtractionas counting backward.Thus, the pupils solving ProblemA had
to count seven steps forwardand in ProblemC, seven steps backward,whereas
they had to count only two steps forwardin ProblemB and two steps backward
in problemD.
In his research,Fischer (1992) has illustratedthat there is an enormousdifference between how childrenexperience threeand four visually presentedobjects.
Whereas nearly all 3- to 4-year-olds immediately denoted a collection of three
objects as "three"without counting or grouping, hardly any of these children
could denote a collection of four objects correctly without counting the objects
or groupingthem into two groups of two.
Figure 5.1 is a picturesimilarto those I used to communicatethe phenomenon
I wanted to study. Children in my pilot studies sometimes solved problems
through these kinds of drawings. They depicted, as I saw it, the one-to-one
68
Problem A: 2 +
=9
123456789
000000000
<
Problem C: 9 - 7 =
To perceive the numerosityof the last partof a numbercan be extremelydifficult, since it can never be experiencedin an ordinal way, throughwhat Fuson
(1992) has called "count-to-cardinal"
(p. 134). The counting word relatedto the
last objectof this partnevertells you anythingaboutits cardinality.Neitherin the
missing addend,2 + _ = 9, nor in the take-awaysubtraction,9 - 7 = _, does the
word nine tell you aboutthe numerosityof the last part,seven, in Figure 5.2. In
ProblemC, nine is actuallythe first word the pupils experienceif the subtracted
partis countedbackward,andthe secondwordin the problem(seven)does not tell
themanythingaboutwhereto stopthe backwardnumerationto find the wordat the
limit of this part.If the numerosityof the last partis outsidethe subitizingrange,it
also cannotbe subitizedas a cardinalityor experiencedintuitivelyin any way at
all. We have to invent some idea or some methodto be able to know aboutit.
DagmarNeuman
69
In the pilot study, the pupils who displayed mathematics difficulties had
invented a method of "doublecounting"to deal with the numerosityof the last
part. They put up one finger for each enumeratedword when they counted this
part.Finally they "readoff' the finger configuration,for instancein ProblemsA
and C, as "one hand + 2 = 7." This double countinghelped childrenperceive the
numerosityof the last partin Problem A and told them where to stop the backward enumerationin Problem B. Yet it was a solution strategythat seemed to
stay concrete and procedural,never being transformedinto objects that could be
operatedon in thought.(See Grey and Tall [1994] for laterreportson this neverending proceduralbehavior.)
The preceding analysis enabled me to define the phenomenon I wanted to
study. It concerned the variation of ways in which to experience a numerosity
larger than three when the numerosityis presented in a subtractionproblem as
the part of the whole numberthat constitutesthe missing or lost part.
I will subsequentlydenote this missing part"thepuzzling part,"since to me it
was very confusing that preschoolerscould become aware of the numerosityof
this part without any need of the laborious double counting that seemed to be
necessary for the pupils with mathematicsdifficulties. How children became
aware of the numerousityof the puzzling part was the researchquestion that I
wantedto answer throughmy study.
To present this phenomenonto children,I needed to develop interview questions thatinvolved subtractionsof the missing addendkind and of the take-away
kind. The puzzling partin these questionsshouldbe largerthan3 and thusbe difficult to perceive intuitively. The whole numbershould not be largerthan 10 or
smallerthan7, preferablyclose to 10. (If the whole is too small, it might even be
possible to subitize the numerosityof the puzzling part.)
Four subtractionproblemsof this kind were formulated:
1. Your teacherhas 3 pencils, but there are 7 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
2. If you have 10 pencils in your rucksackand lose 7 of them, how many do
you have left?
3. Your teacherhas 2 pencils, but there are 9 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
4. Your teacherhas 4 pencils, but there are 10 childrenwho all want to write.
How many more pencils does she have to fetch?
Two additionproblemsfor which the addedpartwas the largerone were also
given to compare ways of experiencing addition and subtractionamong the
school beginners.
I also decided to let the children take part in a guessing game in which they
could make five guesses of how nine buttons were hidden in two boxes. They
counted the buttons themselves and gave them to me before I hid them. The
guessing game was given first in the interview, and it was primarilyintendedto
70
catch the children's interest.It did not always confrontthem with the phenomenon, but it was still a good problembecause five answers were given to the one
question.
The Contextual Analysis
The phenomenographicanalysis is seen as a process of exploration.It is "contextual"(Svensson, 1989), going back and forth in a sort of hermeneuticspiral,
where the partsare interpretedfrom an understandingof the whole andthe whole
from a closer analysis of the parts.The analysis in my study began in the interview situationand then continuedas one after another,the tape-recordedinterviews were listened to, transcribed,and readseveraltimes. A diffuse, global idea
about the phenomenonbegan to take form duringthis process. That global idea
was subsequentlydifferentiatedinto its constituentparts, and a more detailed
analysis was begun when enough transcribedinterviews were at hand. This
analysis was carriedout throughtwo coinciding interpretativeprocedures.In one
of them, all the answers to one question at a time were analyzed, and the individuals to whom they were relatedwere disregarded.The intentionwas to identify different ways of experiencing the phenomenon.In mutual interplaywith
this procedure,a second procedurewas carriedout wherebythe ways of experiencing were relatedto each individualin an attemptto observe whetheranswers
to several questions expressed one and the same way of experiencingthe phenomenonwithin a single interview.Tentativecategories were formed and given
tentative names. The characteristicsof each category were describedin a summaryin which excerpts from the transcriptswere included.The intertwinedprocedureswere carriedout severaltimes. At the beginning,the interpretationsoften
were overlappingor were suddenlyseen as wrong.Thus, one interpretationgradually succeeded another,with the summarieschangingaccordingly.An interpretative analysis of this kind can never be said to be definitely finished. Still, at
some point, the categories are seen as satisfactorilystable, and the researcher
decides that they can be presented.
THE MODEL REPRESENTINGTHE OUTCOMES
After the analysis is completed, an attemptis made to let the categories form
a model that, accordingto the researcher'sinterpretations,depicts the phenomenon as experiencedin the collective awarenessof the individualswho took part
in the study. These categoriesreflect what the phenomenonseems to be to those
interviewedas well as how this "what"seems to be experiencedby them. It is
often possible to relate the categories hierarchically,orderedaccordingto their
graduallygreater inclusiveness. Categories describing more inclusive ways of
experiencingthe phenomenoninclude well-integrated,still functionalaspects of
less inclusive ways. The model, thus, often picturesa kind of evolution. Yet this
does not mean thatit envisions the orderin which children'smentaldevelopment
DagmarNeuman
71
of some cognitive competenceoccurs. It is thephenomenonappearingin its variation of ways that is picturedin the model.
The model as pictured in Figure 5.3 presents my interpretationof the ways
in which the interview children experienced the phenomenonunder study. The
prenumericalcategories in the original model have been omitted from Figure
5.3 because the purpose of this chapteris to illustratephenomenographicmethods rather than to present complete research findings. In Figure 5.3 the four
categories (written in lower-case bold letters), extents,finger numbers, word
numbers,and abstract numbers,depict what the whole numbers,including the
puzzling part, seemed to be to these children. The two superordinatecategories
(written in upper-case bold letters), numerically unstructuredand numerically
structured, depict how the whole numbers in the interview problems were
experienced.
Math difficulties
Additive structures
~I tSTRUCTURED
Abstract numbers <
>
Transformed
Structuredby biggestfirst
<,___
|I
Word numbers
Structuredby biggestfirst
Multiplicativestructures
Abstract numbers
Transformed
Structuredby
Multiplesof 2 and 3
Finger numbers
Transformed
Structuredby biggestfirst
(Withthe help of the
Undividedfive)
Word numbers
Counted
Estimated
Limited
UNSTRUCTURED
<
Extents
Estimated
Limited
The categories written in lower-case italics depict more specifically how the
numerositywithin the puzzling part was experienced.When the whole number
was numericallyunstructured,the children seemed to experience this numerosity as limited, estimated, or counted. The answers to the interview questions in
these situationswere hardlyever correct.However, when the whole numberwas
perceived as numericallystructured,the answers were correct,and the numerosity of the puzzling part of the numberappearedto be perceived intuitively. In
these situationsthe part-part-wholepatternof the numberappearednumerically
restructuredby a biggestfirst structure,transformations,or multiplesof 2 and 3.
72
It is not the purposehere to describe the model in detail but ratherto present
informationto illustratethe natureof a phenomenographicmodel and the use of
the criteriafor intuitive awarenessmentionedby Sandberg(1996) in reporting
this model. The following discussion provides more informationof the "what"
and "how"aspects of the categoriesgiven in the unstructuredand structuredsections of the model. The informationdescribes the variationin the way the phenomenon is experiencedratherthan presentsan explanationof why these experiences appearthe way they do.
The Four "Whats"
Dagmar Neuman
73
to tell me where the partended. They did not yet seem to be aware of any contradictionin the use of the same counting word for whole and part.They could,
for instance in the guessing game, repeatedlyguess that there were 9 buttonsin
one of the boxes, but still some buttonsin the otherbox, or say that therewere 7
pencils missing in Problem 1 (3 pencils and 7 children)and 6 left in Problem2
(10 pencils, 7 of them lost). In Problem2, they seemed to think of the lost pencils as the ones relatedto the words ten, nine, eight, and seven. Thoughtof backward, the word seven denoted the limit of the part that should be taken away;
thoughtof forward,the word six denotedthe limit of the partleft. Maryand Joan
exemplify this early ordinalway of experiencingProblem2:
Mary: Seven ... six, five, four, three, two, one ... six left.
Then I've got four left ... or two ... four or two ... you can't be sure....
I:
E:
I:
Butisn'tthereanywayof workingouthow...
E:
No.
Couldn'ttherebe eightleft?
Eightleft!!??
Whyisn'tthatpossible?
Well,becauseI've dropped... well if you lose thatmuch,it can'tbe thatmuch!
Emma seems to be well awareof the relationbetween the two parts,but as she
explains, there is no way for her to work out the exact numberof pencils leftsomethingthat does not seem to botherher much.
One type of answer was categorizedas a counted finger number.This way of
experiencingnumberwas displayed by only one child in one of his answers (to
Problem3). After the finger numberwas displayed,this boy countedthe last part
of it with the word one related to the third finger, the word two related to the
fourth, and so on. Thus, the fingers were what constitutedthe analogue experience of the whole number,and the words were used to count the last partof the
finger number.
Anothertype of answer was categorizedas a counted word number.Here, the
words constitutedthe analogue experience, and the fingers were used to count
the last partof the word number.This way of experiencingnumberswas the one
observed in practicallyall the answers given by the pupils displayingmathematics difficulties.
I:
E:
I:
E:
74
First I sort of counted five ... then I put up two ... then I put up two more ...
DagmarNeuman
75
Whereasthese three childrenillustratehow problemsexperiencedas subtractive sometimes have to be thought of forward, when the problem becomes
numericallystructuredby the biggest first experience, Ann and Andy illustrate
how additively experiencedproblems, such as Problem 3 (two pencils and nine
children), sometimes have to be thought of backward. Both children had
answered"seven"before they explained their thinking:
Ann:
Andy:
One, two, three,four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ... andthen I thought... count
to nine ... seven ... and then I said it!
I thoughtlike this ... nine ... and then I took away two from the nine children
76
77
Dagmar Neuman
VI
VI
3+3
VI
V II
V II
VIII
VI II
V III
VIII
VIIII
VIIII
VI III
V ll
Vlll I
VIIIII
VIIIII
VI II11
V 11111
obtained,for instance,throughputtingthe resultsof an interviewstudy into practice. For example, see the teaching experiments of the phenomenographic
researchersAhlberg (1992), Lybeck (1981), Neuman (1987, 1993, 1994, 1997),
and Pramling(1991, 1994). I finish my discussion of phenomenographicmethods by briefly describinghow I used pragmaticvalidity to test the validity of the
outcomes of my study.
The interviewstudy gave me severaluseful ideas for my teachingexperiment.
Since experiencingnumbersas extents was the most frequentlyreportedway of
experiencingnumbersin my study,one idea was to introducemathematicsthrough
measuringinsteadof throughcounting.The intenthere was to help all childrensee
the extents as being divided into units. A second idea was to avoid the use of the
countingwords to begin with, since these words seemed to be used in ways that
would not be takenas sharedby all pupils. A thirdidea was to introducesubtraction before addition,since in subtraction,childrenknow aboutthe whole number
and have, especially if they form finger numbers,the possibilityto become aware
of the two partswithinthis whole withoutany need of doublecounting.
To create situationsin which the childrencould get these kinds of experiences,
the mathematicsclassroom became a fantasy land-the Long Ago Land. In this
land there were no counting words, no measures, no coins, no mathematicsat
all-but problems continually appeared for which mathematics was needed.
Thus, the children were required,bit by bit, to create together the mathematics
they needed for the moment. As they invented measures of differentkinds, for
instance, to comparetwo quantitiesof liquid, pouring one after the other of the
units into a bucket,they quickly discoveredthatthey needed tallies of some kind
to rememberhow many units had been poured. The fingers were proposed as
useful tools by most children,but some thought that strokes drawnin the sand
(thatis, on the chalkboard)could also be suitable.When discretequantitieslater
were recorded,the strokessoon became too many to subitize or representby fingers. At this, we told the childrenthat the people in the Long Ago Land recorded handsand fingers as well as just fingers, and the symbol V was introducedfor
the hand.Thus, analoguenumberrepresentationbecame structuredby the "undivided 5" before the childrenhad a reason to invent the counting words.
This is not the place for describingthe teaching experimentin detail. It might
be said, however, thatin the interview study carriedout afterthe second year, all
78
childrenin the two researchclasses could add and subtractwithin the range 1-10
over the 10 limits without any need to count or keep track.This was very different from the ways the childrenin the control group solved these kinds of problems. The outcomes of the interview study could, as suggested by Martonand
Booth (1997, p. 81), be used as "a notational path of development foci for
instruction."
CONCLUSION
The methods presentedin this monographare different, as are the goals and
underlyingperspectivesof each author'sresearch.This variationmakes the picture of what mathematicsteaching and learning mean and of how they can be
researchedrich and detailed.However, it also createsdifficulties in our attempts
to formulate criteria for what counts as acceptable qualitative research. For
instance,at the ICME-8conferencein 1996, suggestionswere made to formulate
a set of researchguidelines. Many participants,however, saw this as placing a
straightjacket upon the researcher,preventingcreativity and excluding certain
kinds of research.
To describe fundamentalassumptions,goals, methods, and knowledge (validity) claims for a given researchstudy, as was done in this chapter,would help us
judge individual studies from within their respective methodological frameworks. I hope that such descriptionscan serve as a step towardcreating a consensus for judging the quality and acceptabilityof qualitativeresearchin mathematics education.
79
Chapter 6
80
this chapteris based on the questionsthat must be asked of any researchand the
illuminationof these questionsthroughdiscussion of how they were tackled and
answeredwithin one specific researchproject.
The researchtopic comes first, and the methodologyand methodsmust be not
just "taken,readymade, off the shelf' but be chosen and adaptedcarefullyto best
access the answers sought (Burgess, 1984, p. 4). My researchexemplifies the
philosophy of theory as process:theory changing,evolving and being constructed to fit or explain new cases. One focus of my interest-and it is this that I
examine in detail in this chapter-is the phenomenon of discussion between
pupils in the mathematicsclassroom.My intentionis to discuss the processes of
selecting the appropriateresearch methodology and methods. I then illustrate
how, throughthe examinationof purposefullygathereddata,we sought features,
properties,and categories within the phenomenonthat would enable or enhance
the positing of theoriesrelatingto the effects of discussion on pupils' mathematical understanding.
RESEARCHQUESTIONS
What Provoked the Original Research Question?
The research project titled "Discussion: Is it an aid to mathematicalunderstanding?"was initiatedby Rolph Schwarzenbergerandme as a resultof a report
by a British governmentcommittee of inquiryinto the teaching of mathematics
in schools (Cockcroft, 1982) and the general reactionof teachersto that report.
The reportclaimed in paragraph243 that "discussionbetween teacherand pupils
themselves"was one of the six elements that should be includedin mathematics
teaching at all levels. As a result of this highly readablereport,teachersin great
numberstook this to mean thatdiscussion was per se a good thing, withouteither
questioningthe meaning of discussion or querying what it could achieve in the
mathematicsclassroom. The report gave the following reason for the recommendation:
Theabilityto "saywhatyoumeanandmeanwhatyousay"shouldbe oneof theoutcomesof goodmathematics
teaching.(p. 72)
This implies that mathematicstrainsone to talk clearly (which may be a worthy general educationalgoal) but not that discussion aids the understandingof
mathematics.
In fact, the Committee itself had been unable to find much evidence of the
existence of discussion. There existed at thattime considerableresearchinto the
effects of discussion on learning (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Edwards & Furlong,
1978; Mehan, 1979), and more particularly,discussion between teachers and
pupils (Barnes, Britton, & Torbe, 1986; Mehan, 1985), but nowhere could we
find any specific research to support the value of discussion between pupils
themselves (Pirie & Schwarzenberger,1988a). It was, therefore, on this latter
areathat the researchprojectfocused. Schwarzenbergerand I wanted to explore
Susan Pirie
81
82
and its contexts-ways that would offer insights into those processes inherentin
pupil-pupiltalking that might influence the growth of the mathematicalunderstanding.We wished to generalize,thatis, to producea generalpictureof the phenomenonof pupil-pupildiscussion,by abstractingfrom specificallygathereddata
those featuresthat recurand appearto characterizethis particularform of classroom interaction.More precisely, we were interestedin the generalfeaturesthat
seemed to affect the growthof mathematicalunderstanding.
APPROPRIATEMETHODOLOGIESAND METHODS
Ethnography
Several general research paradigms offered us potential methodological
stances, which I lay out briefly and examine for theirpossible applicabilityto our
project. The first is the ethnographicparadigm,the interpretationof which has
taken various forms over the last few decades (Burgess, 1984; Wolcott 1975).
Ethnography,in its broadestsense, is concernedwith the socioculturalfeatures
of an environment;with how people interactwith each other;and with the rules,
the structures,and the processes of these interactions.In general, it borrows
methods of operation-data collection and analysis-from the discipline of
anthropologyand applies them to specific subgroupingsof people within a larger defined group. We can talk of the "cultureof the classroom"and investigate
how, within this particularclosed environment,a culturedevelops that differs in
manyrespectsfrom the normallived experiencesof its participants.Ethnography
as defined by Wolcott (1975, 1982) involves the suspensionof one's own judgement that is based in one's own culturalassumptionsand demandsthat one look
throughthe eyes of those who are themselves the membersof the cultureunder
scrutiny.The intentionis to illuminatean understandingof the culture,not to predict futurebehaviors.
The notion of ethnographywas seductive.At first sight it seemed thatit would
yield the in-depthexplorationthatwe sought.On closer inspection,however,two
crucialaspects made the adoptionof this paradigm,as our unadulteratedmethodological choice, unsuitable.
The first concernedthe method of data collection. Participantobservation,so
often associatedwith ethnography,would in all probabilitypreventthe phenomenon that we wished to observe from coming into existence! It was talk away
from the presence of the teacher,but still within the cultureof the mathematics
classroom,thatwe wished to focus on, and it seemed highly likely that a knowledgeable adult observerwould by her or his very presence alter the pupils' verbal interactionswith one another.Interviewingthe pupils after a lesson on how
they had talked among themselves would also not be appropriatebecause it was
theirinitial discussion, not theirreflective reportingon it, colored by theirexpectations of what an adult would deem important,that we wished to capture.The
second problemrelatedto the suspension of the researchers'culturalview. The
Susan Pirie
83
The focus of our interest was thus talk-a specific kind of talk it is true, but
talk nonetheless-and the ways in which such talk was constructed,the language
that was used, and the types of verbal interactionsthat took place. In fact, we
were looking for some methodof categorizingthe specific pupil-pupildiscussion
that we hoped to trace. Otherresearchfocused on the analysis of talk was, therefore, a likely place to look for methodological strategies.Ethnomethodologists
and those workingthroughconversationalanalysis concernthemselves with talk,
treatingit not as a resourcefor informationon some other topic but considering
it the object of study itself.
This emphasis on the talk itself appearedto come close to some of our thinking. To understandteachingand learning,of which talk is a natural,integralpart,
we must understand the talk, its coherence, its structure, and its context.
"Conversationalanalysis has developed a conceptual machineryfor unraveling
the organization of conversation so that it may be described and analyzed"
(Hitchcock & Hughes, 1992, p. 162). Partof our aim was to describe the nature
84
Having, with some profit, surveyedthe field of anthropology-relatedmethodologies, we turned to that of linguistics. The narrow dissection of words and
meanings was not of relevance to us, but a sociolinguistic approachmight be
appropriateto our quest within the field of educationalresearch.Sociolinguists
concern themselves with the wide diversity of linguistic forms and speech patterns that occur within communicationthroughlanguage.Their aim is to unpick
the featuresof these patterns,to discover how social factors affect the development of such patterns,and to explore the effects of specific speakersand hearers
and contexts on such patterns.Their interest lies in how these social environments affect verbal interactions (for examples of this approach, see Barnes,
1982; Sinclair & Coulthard,1975). Here, too, lay our interests. What was the
effect of the classroomcontext on the languagethe pupils used when talkingwith
their peers? But more than that, what was the effect of the interactionon their
understandingof mathematics?
Sociolinguistic and ethnographicapproachescan both be used to investigatea
concern with what people are doing when they are making sense of verbalinteractions. Both approachescan be concernedwith looking at patternsand regularities in the interactionsor, indeed, with searchingfor the irregular.By examining the possibilities offeredby researchmethodsdrawnfrom both paradigms,we
hoped to be able to constructmethodsof datacollection and analysisthatallowed
us to look not so much for patternsin the speech itself as for categories of verbal interactionsrevealedby the speech.
DATA COLLECTIONAND ANALYSIS
What Will Constitute the Data?
Susan Pirie
85
in detail every utteranceof every child throughoutthe entire period of data collection! Ourfocus was discussion-a task thatwe had not previouslyundertaken.
We needed to producea definitionthatfit with the ideas impliedin the Cockcroft
report,but was preciseenoughto use for identificationpurposeswhen we listened
to verbal interactionsbetween the pupils. We producedthe following working
definition,which in fact remainedunchangedthroughoutthe rest of the research.
Discussion is*purposefultalk.Therearewell definedgoalsevenif noteveryparticipant
is aware
86
A method of analysis was needed that would look at all the incidents of discussion that occurredwithin the data. We were thus not attractedto any system
of categorizationthat dependedon a time-controlledsampling of the data. The
methodof "systematicobservation,"or "interactionalanalysis,"seemed to offer
one obvious way of dealing with the data. Basically, in these approaches,
responses or episodes are coded with a set of preselected categories (Flanders,
1970; Galton, Simon, & Croll, 1980). The choice of categoriesis inevitablysubjective, althoughit can have its basis in theory or previous research.The effect
of this methodis normallythatthe observerreturnsfrom the classroomwith only
a numericalrecordof the frequencyof the occurrenceof incidents in each category. We had a far richer primarydata source-the entire recordings-but we
could have applied some form of interactionalanalysis to it. Our reason for
rejectingthis methodof workingwas, however, not due to potentialloss of data.
We were undertakingthe researchpreciselybecause we did not know what those
categories might be. We wished to extract the categories from the data, not to
impose them on the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
A proven, powerful method whereby every episode of classroom interaction
can be categorized is that of discourse analysis (Sinclair & Coultard, 1975;
Stubbs, 1981). Under such a scheme, the whole lesson is broken down into a
hierarchyof episodes, and the individualepisodes can be furthercoded as to the
type of interactionthatthey typify. In its originalinception,the methodwas used
to deal with the form of the interactions,not the content,but it was a methodthat
held appealfor us and seemed to be adaptableto our needs.
We were able to allocate all the episodes of talk in our entireprimarydatacollection to threebroadcategories:
Talk clearly relatedto mathematics
(i)
(ii) Verbal exchanges that were incomprehensible
(iii) Social chat
Category (i) was then subdividedinto episodes that fit our definition of discussion and those that did not, and category (ii) was subsequentlyreanalyzedto
draw out those episodes that, although at first pass seemed incoherent to us,
clearly held meaning for the pupils (Pirie, 1991b). We were still faced with the
problem of how to categorize the episodes of discussion, and some element of
subjectivity seemed inevitable. Our goal was to be as open as possible to all
interpretationsof the episodes.
Barnes(1982) has done much to open up discoursein the secondaryclassroom
to the scrutinyof others.His snapshotobservationsof individuallessons, and his
analysisby meansof personalinsightfulcomments,have laid his workopen to criticism from puristswho deplorehis overt subjectivity.What such detractorsmiss,
andthe necessityof
however,is the very realvalue of his reflectiveinterpretations
just such an exploratoryapproachto pointthe way to fruitfulareasfor further,more
rigorousinvestigation.His focus is largelyon the role and the effect of the teacher
Susan Pirie
87
and on teacher-pupilinteractions,however, and offers little insight into the possible categorizationsof the phenomenonin which we were interested.Personal
insight and reflectionwere, indeed, the only ways in which we were going to be
able to startto come to grips with our data. Our aim was to be as systematicand
theoreticallyguidedas was possible in our choices of categories.
We looked to sociology for guidance.Ourcategorieswould be groundedin our
data. Ratherthan spring from our own preconceptions,they would evolve from
the data we gatheredby the process known as "systematictheoreticalsampling"
and be stabilized througha procedureof constantcomparison.Theoreticalsampling is the process whereby data are repeatedly gathered and analyzed, with
each subsequentdata-collectiondecision dependenton the analysis of the previous data collected. The "process of data collection is controlled [sic] by the
emerging theory"and the "initialdecisions are not based on a preconceivedtheoretical framework"(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45). Througha constant comparisonof episodes, initial data are examinedfor features,trends,and properties
and are explicitly coded according to these categories; new data are gathered
specifically to illuminate or contradictthese categories and are systematically
comparedagainst all previous data;furtherdata are collected and analyzeduntil
the emergingtheoryor categorizationappearsto be stable.This methodof analysis is inductive-it moves from data to tentativetheory, to new data, to refined
theory.As a methodof datacollection and analysis within the field of sociology,
it is well documentedin Glaser and Strauss(1967) and seemed ideally suited to
our intentions.Its strengthsare revealed by the ways we were able to deal with
practicalissues as they arose.
How Are Data to Be Gathered?
Turningto questions of practicality,how then should we set about gathering
the necessary data?We needed a system that was both flexible and systematic.
(See Burgess [1982] for a discussion of some of the issues related to sampling
thatarise in qualitativeresearch.)Randomsamplingof schools and classes made
no sense in our situation;we needed to observe classes where we had the maximum chance of encounteringpupil-pupil discussion. We were looking to talk
about neither "frequencyof occurrence"nor "typicalcategories"but about the
range of interactionsthat can be present. We had to collect examples of pupilpupil discussion to be able to categorize them; we alreadyknew that these were
hardto find.
Various methods were available whereby we could observe the phenomenon
of mathematicaldiscussion between pupils and its effects on understanding.One
techniqueopen to us was to take any groupof pupils, deliberatelyprovokemathematical discussion among them, and record the event for subsequentanalysis.
We had no doubt that this would be both possible and interestingand would filter out some of the complexity and wealth of uncontrollablefactors inherentin a
classroom.We should, however, then be wary of the gap between how we would
88
idealistically like childrento learn and how they did learn in the realities of the
classroom. Ourconcernwas pupil discussion within a normalclassroom setting,
in particular,discussion unaffectedby the participationof a teacher.Hence, this
method was discarded.
We focused the initial observationphase on the classrooms of four secondary
teachers who consciously and deliberately used discussion as a part of their
teaching style (Pirie & Schwarzenberger,1988a). These teachers were, in fact,
hard to find, and their classes must be considered atypical. Were our observations, therefore,in dangerof being biased by the sample we were taking?On the
contrary,we intendedto base our theorizingon the essential featuresof the phenomenonas they emergedfrom the data.Edwardsand Mercer(1987, p. 26) refer
to this biased samplingas "anintentionalconsequenceof [the] researchdesign."
We were interestednot in counting or comparingcases, but in examining and
categorizingincidents of discussion. The selection of our sample was based on
theoretical,not statistical,grounds;the validity of our findings flowed from the
evolution of the categories ratherthan from the representativenessof the study
population.
The selection of the pupils whom we would observe was also done to maximize our ability to observe pupil-pupildiscussion. The teachersidentified childrenwho were in the habitof discussing theirwork with theirneighbors,and we
explained to them that we wished to audio record their interactionsduring the
next few lessons. The teachersidentified a variety of mathematicalexperiences
and topics from the normalteaching schedules that were likely to provoke discussion among the pupils, and these we observed.
One of the crucial featuresof theoreticalsampling is that furtherdata collection is guided repeatedly by the analysis of existing data until saturationis
achieved, that is, until the emergentcategories remainunchanged.For this reason, althoughit is likely that any researchprojectwill have one main method of
data collection, there are "no limits to the techniquesof data collection, the way
they are used, or the types of data acquired"for the end purposeof illuminating
the phenomenon under examination (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 65). Several
weeks afterthe initial classroomvisits, with a view to gaining deeperinsight into
the effect of discussion, we interviewed the pupils we had observed in their
workinggroupsto elicit theirunderstandingof the topics they had been working
on. We used a loosely structuredclinical interviewing technique (Ginsburg,
1981, 1983) whereby pupils talked their way througha task and the interviewer
followed theirpaths of thinking,sometimesreturninglaterto probe more deeply
into relevantkey ideas (Pirie, 1988).
How Is the Analysis to Be Performed?
89
Susan Pirie
field notes and categorized the data under the three headings previously discussed (mathematical,incomprehensible,and chat). Still withoutconsultingeach
other, we next identified episodes of discussion accordingto our agreed definition. Finally, we came together to comparethe kinds of things we had deemed
importantto record in our field notes, our individual categorizations,and our
interpretationsof the definition when we applied it to specific classroom incidents. The purpose of this duplication of observation was to consolidate the
methods of recordingand the focus of the field notes to ensure as far as possible
that there was a common understandingof the method of observing and analyzing. Subsequently,we visited separateclassrooms, following one teaching topic
through from initiation to close. At regular meetings, each observer presented
identified incidents of discussion for joint analysis, and each incident was then
coded both by the mathematicaltopic it concernedand by any notablefeaturesit
presented.Theoreticalsamplinglends itself well to collaborativeworking, since
it depends on drawingfeatures and potentiallymeaningfulcategories out of the
data gathered.What can be seen as a problemwithin a researchdesign, namely,
differentinterpretationsof the data, can be turnedinto a strength,since interpretation by more than one person can lead to a richerfirst analysis.
The category labels for featuresthat seemed pertinentduringthat first analysis included"usingmathematicallanguage,""abouttheirlack of understanding,"
"abouthow to do it," "reflectionon their mathematics,""proof,"and "focus on
the meaningof the mathematicalproblem."None of these categorieswas intended to be exclusive, and indeed we found episodes in which we were using multiple categorization,such as "aboutthe task,""recording,"and "usingnonmathematical language"as the following example illustrates.
Four 12-year-oldgirls were tackling an investigation(Frogs) in which blackand-whitecubes are moved by slides andjumps. Their task was to exchange the
places occupied by black cubes for those occupied by the white ones and to
recordthis in some way. They decided to count and recordthe numberof moves
made.
Susanne:
Tracy:
Ann-Marie: I know!
Joanne:
Susanne:
Tracy:
Joanne:
Come on-watch her.
Ann-Marie: Can't I jump that one? Can't I do that?
Do it again and I'll count how many moves you make.
Joanne:
90
did not have an understandingof something,but knew this and thus had something to talk about; (c) they did have some understanding,which gave them
somethingto talk about.
The second group was concerned with the kind of language used-the focus
being on the languagein which the discussionwas conductedand not on the content of the statementsmade.
Again three classificationssuggested themselves. Those were (f) the speakers
lackedappropriatelanguage-they did not have the corrector useful words,(g) the
speakersused ordinarylanguage,(h) the speakersused mathematicallanguage.
It could be conjecturedthat the categorizationof language as "ordinary"or
"mathematical"would be somewhat arbitrary,since "mathematical"language
for young childrenmight be "ordinary"language for them a few years later. In
practice,however, viewing the discussion in the context in which the pupils were
workingenabledus to make decisions with little difficulty or disagreement.
The thirdgroup thatemerged was the kind of statementsthe pupils were making. A varietyof statementscould exist within any one episode. These were classified as (p) incoherent-that is to say, interactionsthatfit all our criteriafor discussion but contained statementsthat were incoherentto us, the observers;(q)
operational,or in otherwords, aboutspecific (frequentlynumerical)examples of
mathematics;(r) reflective, which we subsequentlyrenamed"abstractive"as its
naturebecame evident more in terms of statementsof generalizationsof mathematics than in terms of statementsreflecting on mathematics.
We reviewed all the datacollected and categorizedeach episode on each of the
threegroups.The example given above was categorized(a,g,q). The pupils were
talking aboutthe task of recording,using ordinarylanguage, and making operational statements.Furtherexamples of the use of this categorizationcan be seen
in Pirie and Schwarzenberger(1988a) and Pirie and Schwarzenberger(1988b).
The essence of the method of constant comparisonis the repeatedreanalysis
of existing data.Even before the decision was made to codify all the episodes in
termsof the threegroupsabove, when any new, interestingfeaturewas observed,
all the tapes previously discussed were rescrutinizedfor signs of that new feature.Althoughwe were happyto agree with Glaserand Strauss(1967, p. 30) that
"a single case can indicate a general conceptualcategory or property,"we also
wantedto capturethe richnessof each of the categoriesthatwe were identifying,
and so we looked for furtherexamples to roundout our descriptions.
An emerging problem was how to identify the growth of understandingand
relateit to the examples of discussionwe were observing.Althoughthe abilityto
talk purposefullyabout mathematicsis-as are also the abilities to write mathematics and to solve problems-prima faci evidence of mathematicalunderstanding, it is not necessarilythe cause of, or even an aid to, such understanding.At this
stagewe based ourjudgementaboutthe growthof mathematicalunderstandingon
the interviewdata, noted it, but did not do much in the way of theorizingon the
effects of the discussion for the following importantreason. It rapidly became
apparentthat the paucity of examples of discussion seen by the Cockcroft
SusanPirie
91
92
ing a whole area of possible interest, the behaviors of the pupils-both their
mathematicalbehavior and the roles they verbally adopted within their small
groups.This generationof new questionsin the course of the examinationof the
datais one of the hallmarksof theoreticalsampling,and we approachedthe second analysis, therefore,from a differentframeof reference.This time, using the
second round of data and using the same systematic individual and then joint
methodof interpretation,we deliberatelycategorizedthe incidents of discussion
from the point of view of verbalbehavior.Among others,the following headings
crystallized as relevant: "defining," "into algebra," "verbalizingfor approval
(frequentlytheir own)," "confusingeach other,"and "collaborativechecking."
This last category is worth a comment here because it illustrateshow categories evolved throughan examinationof data from a new perspective,both at
this point and at a later stage in the analysis. Up until now, we had not seen
episodes in which pupils checked their work as fitting our definition of discussion. It was quite common for one pupil to check the working of the group, but
we had not seen it as more than an aside to the generaldiscussion abouta task in
hand. The following episode, however, suggested a new category of discussion
was called for.
Janie and Meg were workingwith the image of balancing-scalepans as a representationof linear equations.For example, they had worked with the picture
shown in Figure 6.1.
Janie:
So, you've got to take the same off both sides. The same numberof tins, or
weights off this side and off there so you can get rid of them.
They later progressedto writing the picture versions with "t" for tins. (The
foregoing example would have been written3t + 3 = t + 9.) Laterstill they were
faced with 8t- 9 = t + 12.
Janie:
Meg:
8t- 9 =/ + y
Janie:
And take off a "t,"so 7t = 3 and t equals [uses a calculator;pause] ... That
can't be right. Let me do it again. Write it out again.
93
Susan Pirie
Meg:
94
threes or fours on all the investigations and totally alone on the practice days.
Classes familiarwith his methods automaticallyworkedin this way. The advantage of observingovert problemsolving of this naturewas thatthe solutionof the
problemcould be seen as a growth in understandingwithin the group, although
not necessarilyfor individuals.We became interestedin the questionDoes problem solving benefit from pupil-pupildiscussion? To get a wider perspectiveon
the effects on problem solving, we identified anotherteacherwho, by contrast,
used investigative group work as non-topic-specific relaxation between more
orthodoxspells of teaching throughexposition.
Most of the discussion that we observedtook place in small groups,but one of
our original teachers espoused a philosophy of learning based on whole-class
discussion, which frequently splintered to heated small-group discussion in
which all the pupils had to be able to justify the argumentsthey put forward.At
the beginningof the year, it was common to hearhim say, in responseto a question from a pupil, "Don't ask me, ask her, she put the idea forward."But by a few
weeks into the term,many of the pupils totally disregardedhis presence afterhis
stimulatingand often provocativeinput at the startof the lesson. A furthersubsidiary, generative question became Are there significant differences between
whole-class and small-groupdiscussions in terms of pupils' learning?
The life of a researcheris never plain sailing! At this momentthe "whole-class
discussion"teacherleft the school in which he was working to head the department of a school with a contrastingview of how mathematicsshould be taught,
namely, quietly, with individual learning materials.Ratherthan enter as a new
broom sweeping all along with him, he determinedto change the departmental
teaching approachby his own graduallychanging example. Initially the classes
he taught would still use the same individualizedmaterials,but studentswould
work at them in pairs. Although we lost the opportunityto gathermore data on
whole-class discussion, this change gave us the opportunityto observe discussion in a quite different,structuredenvironment.The natureof our methodology
meant that this for us was nothing but an advantage.A differentcontext for the
discussion might enable us to spot importantfeatures of pupil-pupildiscussion
that were not evident to us previously, which did indeed prove to be the case.
An interestingvariationof the category of "collaborativechecking" came to
light, as the following episode demonstrates.Jonaand Bette were workingon the
same material,sometimes together and sometimes doing the tasks individually
and then looking at each other's work to check what the other was doing.
Presumablybecause talking was an encouragedbut unfamiliaractivity for these
pupils in a mathematicsclassroom, they frequentlytalked aloud, but ostensibly
to themselves, as they worked.
Jona:
95
Susan Pirie
Bette:
Jona:
Bette:
Jona:
The thirdphase of data collection and analysis was conductedwith the same
methods as before but in the new, changedand focused environments.Each new
set of dataanalyzedwas used to confirmexisting categoriesor suggest new ones.
In the latter situation, all previous data were examined to see whetherthe new
classification was an anomaly of the particulardata set or a universallyimportant grouping.This may sound very tedious and time consuming, but of course
with each new analysis, the researcherbecomes very familiarwith the previous
data. In addition,the process is not of itself unending.The aim is to attaintheoretical saturationin each category. This is judged to have been achieved when
new examples of the category add nothing to the developmentof its properties.
When similarinstances are encounteredrepeatedly,the researchercan be empirically confidentthatthe categoryis saturatedand can then cease to examine such
data in the future. Data collection is then concentratedon filling gaps in other
areas pointed up by emerging theories and questions based on existing data.
When furtherdata sets suggest no new categories, then the researchcan be considered theoreticallystable.
SUMMARY
By offering a detailed account of the design of a specific researchproject, I
have illustratedthree key considerationsthat need to be addressedif we are to
successfully adaptthe researchparadigmsof otherdisciplines to appropriateuse
within mathematicseducation.The first of these concerns the researchquestion.
Tempting as it is to wish to demonstrateour independence from the enumerative methods of mathematics, the research question must always drive the
choice of methodology. Too often we hear such statementsas "I'd like to do an
ethnographicstudy"before the focus of the study has been selected. Only when
first the broad interest and then the refined questions have been teased out is it
96
I referredabove to the emergence of new categoriesfrom the data we collected in the "thwartingindividualizedlearning"environment.There were several
such categories,the most strikingof which we called "pupilas teacher."This category was characterizedby one of the pupils clearly enactingthe role of a teacher
in the interaction.We took as evidence for this role play the pupil's adoptionof
the functions of teacher talk and language offered by Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975). Having reanalyzedall previousepisodes of discussion for the possibility
of inclusion within this new category and, interestingly,having found very few
examples in any other collections of data, we looked in detail at each included
episode. Some of the more extreme episodes we separatedinto furthernew categories labeled "usingpupil answerbook" and "pupilas lecturer,"and the main
category was subdividedaccordingto whetherthe pupil spontaneouslyadopted
the role of teacheror was cast as teacherby anotherpupil. We also looked at how
faithfully each pupil played the assigned role. This subcategorization is
explainedin detail in Newman and Pirie (1990). In the cases in which the pupils
Susan Pirie
97
98
Chapter 7
99
David J. Clarke
Withinthe scope of this monograph,it is possibleto set out only certainkey features of the research activity: the principal means of data collection, and an
overview of the multipleformsof analysisthatare demandedby the complexityof
the settingand made possible by the complexityof the data.In the discussionthat
follows, specificresearchtechniquesof datacollectionandanalysisareoutlined,by
which the natureof classroomlearningmightbe put on a moreempiricalfooting.
PURPOSEIN CLASSROOMRESEARCH
The particularaim of the research discussed here is to contributeto a constructivistmodel of learning that adequatelyaccommodatesthe social activity
typical of classroom settings with specific regard to negotiation and the constructionof meaningsby learnersin mathematicsclassrooms.
Attemptsto model the learningprocess in classroom settings have employed
the metaphorof the "negotiationof meaning,"and we need explicit, viable, and
falsifiable models for the process representedby this phrase.Such models would
then serve to directour attentionto those constructsand associatedbehaviorsthat
we might study productively and, subsequently, to the methodological tools
demandedby such research.
A research procedure is requiredthat is designed to reveal the process by
which meanings are negotiated and constructed by students in mathematics
classrooms. At the heart of such researchis the question of whose accounts of
classroom activity are privileged for the purpose of understandinglearning
processes in such settings. The key to the approachdescribedhere is to ground
student accounts of classroom activities (including thoughts, motivations, and
construedmeanings) in a videotape record of specific sharedclassroom events
and to supplementeach student's account with an associated data base of other
students'accounts,researcherfield notes, and transcribedvideotaperecords.By
this approach,the researchtechniquesof classroom videotape analysis and student clinical interview are combined to best effect in a mannerdesigned to be
reciprocallyvalidatingand illuminating.
The theoreticalconstructsof meaning (Bakhtin, 1979), sources of conviction
(Frid, 1992), and classroom consensus processes (Clarke, 1986) informed the
interpretativeframeworkfor the study and, therefore,the method of data collection. Sources of conviction refer to how one determinesfacts, legitimacy, logicality, consistency, and accordance with accepted mathematicalor scientific
principlesand standards(i.e., academiccontent meanings) and to the authorities
cited by individuals to justify their statements, actions, or interpretations.
Consensusprocesses are typified by groupcompromise,refinement,and accommodation-taken to be those interactionswhereby conjectures and arguments
arising in classroom discourse are comparedand assessed (including the development of social-contextmeanings).
With regardto meaning:The presumptionsof meaning are based on community, purpose,and situation.It is futile to discuss the meaning of a word or term
100
in isolation from the discoursecommunityof which the speakerclaims membership, from the purposeof the speaker,or from the specific situationin which the
word was spoken. Indeed, it is not the word that has meaning,but the utterance.
The emphasis on utterance,derived from Bakhtin(1979), is evident later in this
chapterin a discussion and an illustrativeanalysis focusing on intersubjectivity.
The resultantframeworkbased on the characterizationof these termsservedto
identify key data types (and the associated researchtechniques)essential to the
researchdesign and also provided the theoreticalframeworkfor the interpretation of the resultantdata. Data related to negotiative situations and associated
social activity were considered essential to any analysis of such consensus
processes. The structuralanalysis of classroom text is informedsignificantlyby
the theoreticalemphasison utterance.It mustbe stressedthata theoreticalframework used in such a way confers coherence on the researchdesign and tells the
researcherwhere to look withoutpredeterminingwhat will be found.
The challenge for this type of classroom researchwas to portraythe learning
process of an individual embedded in a highly complex social context. This
learning process was taken to be an integrationof not just the obvious social
events that might be recordedon a videotape,but also the individual'sconstrual
of those events, the memories invoked, and the constructionsthat arise as a consequence. The research procedure recounted here was designed explicitly to
achieve this integration.
Centralto this researchprocedurewas the use of videotapedclassroomlessons
and video-stimulatedrecall techniqueswithin an interview protocol that sought
to obtain the following:
1. Students'perceptionsof their own constructedmeanings in the course of a
lesson and the associatedmemories and existing meaningsemployed in the constructiveprocess
2. Students' sources of conviction for the constructionof their mathematical
meanings
3. The individuals, experiences, arguments, or actions in which students
believed mathematical(academiccontent) authorityto reside
Since the concern was with the context of learningand descriptionsof teachers' andlearners'mathematical(and social) interpretationsin classroomsettings,
the researchmethods were qualitativein character.
THE PRACTICALITIESOF DATA COLLECTION
Procedure:In the Classroom
Two video cameraswere used:One focused consistentlyon the teacher,andthe
other, on a selected group of about four students.This approachdid not assume
that the studentswould be working in collaborativegroups, only that they were
seated sufficientlyclose to one anotherthat the entire groupcould be simultane-
David J. Clarke
101
102
at the time by eitherthe studentor the researcher.As with any clinical interview,
the researchermay miss one insight throughthe pursuitof another.Nonetheless,
the videotape record was substantially enriched by the student's immediate
reconstructionof those events perceivedto be significantat the time. Subsequent
analysis of interviewand videotapetranscriptscan be used to reveal relationships
of meaning that were not apparentat the time of the interview.
An importantdesign considerationis that without the videotape as stimulus,
the student'saccountis likely to be superficialand groundednot in actualclassroom events but ratherin the student's uncertainreconstructionof the lesson.
Inconsistenciesamong studentaccountsof classroomlessons provide a fascinating study in themselves, but it is the learningstimulatedby the student'sparticipation in particularclassroom events that is the focus of this research,specifically, the relationshipbetween these events and the student'sconsequentknowings. Where the purposeof analysis is an understandingof the learningprocess,
the researcher'sinterpretationof the videotapedatais likely to be inadequateand
possibly misguided without the student's account. The researcherwould lack
insight into the associations,memories, and meaningsthateach classroomevent
evoked for the student.
Procedure:The Interview
At the end of the lesson, using the video record as stimulus, the researcher
interviewedthe targetstudentsindividually.This techniqueis in widespreaduse
(see, e.g., Anthony, 1994). For the interview stage, the researcherused the video
recorder,the video monitor,the laptop computer,and a compact audio recorder
to recordthe interviewon audiotape.The video recordof the lesson was sampled
as requiredin response to the identificationof a particularepisode by either the
student or the researcher.The following example is typical of the commencement of such interviews.
I: Whatdo youthinkthatlessonwasabout?
S: Oh,linearfunctionsandhowyou graphthem.
beforethelessonstarted?
I: Wasthatsomethingthatyou understood
S: Not really.I meanI knewaboutlinearfunctions,andwe haddonea bit of stuffon
it.
graphing,butI couldn'tsayI reallyunderstood
it now,afterthelesson?
I: Wouldyou say thatyouunderstand
S: Yes, I thinkso.
aboutgraphI: At whatpointin thelessonwouldyousaythatyoucameto "understand"
ing linearfunctions?
S: I'm not sure.ProbablyafterI hadtrieda few of the problemsin the book,andthey
seemedto be comingoutOK.
in thelessonthatreallyhelpedyouto understand?
I: Wastheresomethingthathappened
S: Maybe.I'm notsure.
I. It seemedto me thatyou spenta lot of timetalkingto Simoneat one point,whatwas
all thatabout?
David J. Clarke
103
104
105
David J. Clarke
106
prerequisite to the negotiative processes by which the resolution of uncertainty is attempted. A relationship between the constructs negotiation and intersubjectivity can be summarized in the argument that one pathway to knowing
is by means of the resolution of uncertainty, that the process of resolution is
fundamentally negotiative, that negotiation is mediated by language, that language presumes intersubjectivity, and that the matter of intersubjectivity is
meaning (Clarke & Helme, 1997, p. 117).
The theoretical constructs of negotiation and intersubjectivity both require
empirical substantiation. Similarly, general statements of principle, which define
one construct in terms of another, require empirical demonstration of the postulated relationship. This is particularly obligatory when the proposed relationship
is one of process and product. Since classrooms represent legitimate sites of situated mathematical practice, this perspective supports the need for the empirical
documentation of negotiative processes in the classroom. For example, an understanding of the means by which the resolution of uncertainty might be achieved
requires an understanding of intersubjectivity as a phenomenon of social interaction. To establish this point, consider the following videotape transcript. (All
utterances are by students. K and L were subsequent interviewees, S19 and S20
were not.)
Episode 1
1. S19: It says how many sheets of graphpaperwould you need to show one million 1millimetersquares.
2. L: To show one million, you know you don't divide it by 100, because there's more
thana hundred1-millimetersquares.I mean you're going to find the areaof this.
3. K: What?
4. L: You've got to find the areaof this, there's more thanone hundred1 millimeters.
5. K: That's right. I was doing length by-oh screw that.
6. L: One hundred1-millimetersquares.Take length ...
7. K: Um, there's how many down here?
8. L: And along that side there is ...
9. K: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. How many are there down there?
10. L: There's a hundred1 millimetersthere.
11. L: No, there wouldn't be.
12. K: There wouldn't be, that's not right.
13. L: There'd be 250.
14. K: Yeah.
15. L: Yeah, there'dbe 250.
16. K: And we just totally screwed it all ...
17. L: Length of graph.
18. K: OK, so it would be length times width [inaudible]
19. L: And uh, 250 millimeters.Width ...
20. K: What's width?
21. L: That's...
22. K: That's 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, et cetera.
107
David J. Clarke
108
several utterances, each with its own immediate purpose. The interpretation of
the significance of a given episode requires an interpretation of each constituent
level: the negotiative event and the utterance.
The following episode illustrates the partitioning of text according to the
occurrence of "negotiative events" within an "episode." (K and L are student
interviewees, S20 and S22 student noninterviewees, and T is the teacher.)
Episode 2
EVENT 1
1. L:
2. K:
3. L:
4. K:
5. L:
6. K:
7. L:
8. S20:
9. K:
10. L:
11. K:
12. L:
13. K:
14. L:
15. K:
16. L:
17. K:
18. L:
EVENT 2
19. T:
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
K:
L:
K:
L:
K:
L:
K:
L:
K:
David J. Clarke
109
EVENT 3
29. L:
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Or eleven-yeah. It'd be eleven point six meters, wouldn't it, 'cause you
take off one to get the centimeters,and anotherone, yeah. [pause]
K:
[Lookingup] That's quite high, isn't it?
All right. And you've got to point out what the units [?] are, right?
L:
K:
You've got to point out what the what is?
L:
We have to show what we're multiplyingby.
[S22 says somethingto K, K laughs]
S20:
That's not how you know, you look like you know what you're doing and
you just do it.
K:
Exactly, you go into a state of total concentration,it lasts about2 seconds,
that's when you get the answer, and then you don't know what you're
doing, so it doesn't matter.Five hundredsheets equals, height equals five
point eight centimeters.I don't even understandwhat I wrote. [pause as L,
K write]
EVENT 4
36. K:
37. L:
38. K:
39. L:
40. L and K:
41. K:
42. L:
43. K:
44. L:
45. K:
46. L:
47. K:
The preceding transcription may be considered one episode in a lesson consisting of many episodes. Using structural analysis, I partitioned this episode into
four events that can be characterized as follows:
* Event 1 combines the refinement of intersubjectivity within the group with
L's first solution attempt (1 to 18).
* Event 3 involves the negotiation of appropriate units of measurement (29 to
35).
* Event 2 revisits the procedure employed in Event 1 (19 to 28).
* Event 4 reviews the procedure again and links it to the task (36 to 47).
These structural elements identified within the text may reflect parallel structures within the process of learning.
110
1ll
David J. Clarke
quately implement this approach.The research project from which the examples in this chapterwere taken used an internationalteam of more than a dozen
university academics with expertise in mathematicseducation, developmental
psychology, sociology, epistemology, values analysis, motivation,mathematics,
science education, children's conceptual frameworks, metacognition, gender,
and a range of qualitativeand quantitativeresearchmethodologies. Ratherthan
seek a consensus interpretationof an event, an episode, or an interaction,individual members of the research team were encouraged to interpretthe documented interactionfrom their own distinct, carefully articulatedtheoreticalperspective and use their particularselection for focus of study. The goal of such a
process is complementarityratherthan consensus, and each researcher'sinterpretationis accordedparity of status, subject to the same criteriaof coherence,
consistency with the videotape data, and plausibility.
CONCLUSION
In the researchdiscussed in this chapter,an attemptwas made to optimize the
use of currentlyavailable technology throughthe synthesis of classroom videotape and interview data in an integratedvideo and text document.An important,
possibly essential, perspectiveon the classroom was obtainedfrom the students
themselves in interview situations,in which the significanceof classroomevents
and their associated thought processes were reconstructedby the studentswith
the assisting promptof the classroom video record.The analysis of the resultant
data was enhancedby a frameworkfor text analysis that distinguishedepisode,
negotiative event, and utteranceand the use of an indexing tool with the capability to undertakecomplex analyses of textual data.
Recent developments in educational research (and in learning theory) have
led to the acceptanceof the idiosyncraticand legitimate subjectivityof both the
research subjects and the researcherand to the consideration of what can be
learnedfrom the comparisonof the multiple stories compiled from the accounts
of the various participants in the social setting and from the reconstructed
accounts of a research team. Judgments regarding the relative merit of one
account over anotherrelate to the purpose for which the comparison is being
made and do not call into question the value of either accountwith regardto any
otherpurpose.I would like to suggest thatit is throughthe accumulationof such
complementaryaccounts in relation to a common integrateddata set that our
portrayal of classroom learning will approach the complexity of process we
seek to model.
112
Chapter 8
This chapter is about the research methods employed in a study that explored
the nature of the teaching in a setting that might be called an "investigative
approach" to the learning of mathematics (Jaworski, 1994). There were strong
parallels between the teaching method and the investigative nature of the
research itself. Both were embedded in a theoretical base of radical and, subsequently, social constructivism. The research methodology was broadly ethnographic, using data-collection techniques of participant observation and interviewing and verification techniques of triangulation and respondent validation.
It was conducted from a researcher-as-instrument position; in other words, the
main instrument in both data collection and analysis was the researcher. This was
both inevitable and a source of serious issues, particularly where validation of
interpretations and emergent theory were concerned. The meaning of research
rigor in this context is central to the discussion that follows.
THE STUDY
I begin by briefly describing the theoretical background for the research. This
description introduces needed terminology and raises some questions and issues
that will be addressed in the subsequent discussion.
The Theoretical Background to the Research
The term investigative approach is one that gained some popularity with
respect to mathematics learning and teaching in the United Kingdom during the
1970s and 1980s. It was not well defined, but was related to the use of mathematical investigations and inquiry methods in the classroom. The research study
was undertaken to explore more precisely what such an approach involved, in
terms of classroom practices and teachers' thinking, and what issues it raised for
I should like to thankDoug Grouws and Anne Watson for their very helpful comments on
an earlierversion of this chapter.
BarbaraJaworski
113
114
BarbaraJaworski
115
116
the right. Neithermy field notes nor audio or video recordingscould capturethe
totalityof the classroom.WhateverI recordedin field notes musthave caughtmy
attentionand so had some level of significance. In the case of electronicrecording, choices had to be made about where to point a camera or place an audio
recorder.When I listened to a recordingof a lesson or interview, some aspects
stood out more than others;thus, they carriedsignificance. A majorpart of my
analysis was to recognize and accountfor items of significance.
The following text is structuredto provide details of issues of significance
throughan example of an episode that was accorded significance. In the main
text, I discuss the methodological concerns, whereas the indented text offers
descriptionsand analyses from the research.
A SIGNIFICANTEPISODEAND ITS ANALYSIS
In this episode, a teacher,Mike, in Phase 2 of the research,stoppedhimself in
the middle of an instructionto his class. My descriptionfollows:
Hebeganwiththewords,"Ingroups,decideon differentthingsto try,andaskewhat
happens?'Whileyou'redoingit...." At this pointhe stoppedandpaused,thenhe
seemed
said,"WhatamI goingto askyou to do?"He startedgivingan instruction,
to thinkbetterof it, andinsteadaskedthe classwhatinstruction
he hadbeenabout
to give.Oneresponsefromtheclasswas,"Keepquiet,"whichhe acknowledged
with
a nod,butotherhandswereupandhe tookanotherresponsewhichwas,"Askquestions."His replywas, "YES!"Otherhandswentdown.It seemedto me thatothers
hadbeenaboutto offerthisresponsetoo. (Jaworski,1994,p. 113)
This episode struckme as being an importantindicatorof Mike's approachto
teaching-thus it had significancefor the research.This significanceneeded clarification andjustification.First,it was importantto be clear aboutwhat occurred
in terms of classroom actions and spoken words. I can supportmy accountwith
referenceto my audio recordingof the event. I also fed back to the teachermy
writingaboutthe event. His agreementwhen he readwhat I had writtenprovided
furtherjustification-respondent validation. Second, I needed to explain the
event's significance for the study. My analysis of this episode follows:
The teacher'swordsseemedto say blatantly,"Guesswhat'sin my mind,"but it
appearedthat most of the class knew the answerto his question-"(You're going to
ask us to) Ask questions!"As I hadn'tknown what he wantedthem to do, I was very
struckby this. A part of his classroom rubricwas that the studentsshould ask their
own questions. He acknowledged in interview after the lesson that he was always
asking them to ask questions,hence they knew that this is what he expected of them
and knew what he wanted without his having to spell it out. When I subsequently
offered him my text to read, for respondentvalidation,he furthersaid, "I believe I
did this deliberatelyto stress the 'you can get into my head, and do.' I had not had
them long, remember."(Jaworski,1994, p. 114)
BarbaraJaworski
117
118
Cicourel furtherclaimed that the researchercan "only objectify his observations by making explicit the properties of interpretativeprocedures and his
reliance on them for carryingout his researchactivities"(p. 36).
Such interpretations,and the issues involved in making them, were the substance of this research.It was my task in presentingthem to the readerto make
their basis explicit. Cicourel's use of objectify was interesting to me because
this seemed to mirrorthe sense in which I sought to avoid subjectivity. The
word objectivityis redolent of positivist research,and in constructivistterms it
is not definable because true objectivity in terms of knowledge external to an
individual or social group can never be known (von Glasersfeld, 1987). The
term intersubjectivityhas been used by Ball (1982) and othersto capturea sense
of common knowledge arising from group negotiation in sharing and comparing interpretations.Shared meanings within a mathematics lesson might be
regarded as mathematicalintersubjectivity,central to an epistemology of the
social constructionof mathematicalknowledge. In a researchcontext, intersubjectivity involves the shared meanings that can be seen to develop through
processes of interviewing, triangulation,and respondentvalidation. It derives
from conversationand negotiation between participantsin the research,which
includes the researcher.
Such a reflexive accountingprocess in which intersubjectivityplays a partis
the "rigor"that Ball (1990) speaks of when she talks of a researchbiography:
Theproblemsof conceptualizing
qualitativeresearchincreasewhendata,andthe
of data,are separatedfromthe social processwhich
analysisand interpretation
generatedthem.In one respect,the solutionis a simpleone. It is the requirement
for methodologicalrigorthatevery ethnography
be accompaniedby a research
biography,thatis a reflexiveaccountof the conductof the researchwhich,by
drawingon fieldnotesandreflections,recountsthe processes,problems,choices,
and errorswhich describethe fieldworkupon which the substantiveaccountis
based.(p. 170)
So, in reportingmy analysis of the episode of Mike, a research biography
requiresdetails of the incidentitself, the classroomcontext in which it occurred,
the environmentin which this classroom was situated,the teacher's interpretation of the event, the teacher's comments on my analysis of the event, the reasons for this event's significancein termsof my theoreticalbase, and the relation
of my analysis to my own experience as a practitionerand researcher.
I found this complexity of detail challenging and fascinating,but a majordisadvantagewas its lengthy natureboth in the time requiredfor analysis and in the
space taken to present an account. This latterconsequence meant that very few
episodes could be reportedin detail, and many that could have contributedvaluably to conclusions were left out. For example, from two school terms of observation of lessons of a teacherand class, only three or four of those lessons were
discussed in any detail in the reportof the research.This made critical demands
in ensuringthatthose episodes selected were sufficiently generic to representthe
validity of the theory they supported.
BarbaraJaworski
119
Generalizibilityand TheoryGeneration
In additionto fieldnotes, transcriptsfrom audio- and videotapes,and one set of
questionnairedata of student's views of mathematicslessons, I had as data my
own reflective notes writtenthroughoutthe study. These consisted of day-to-day
jottings regardingincidentsI had experiencedand my own ideas and perceptions.
Sometimesthey were elaborationsof anecdotesthathad significance. Sometimes
they involved incipienttheorizing-expressing patternsI observedor attempting
explanations.Eisenhart(1988) refers to this type of data collection as researcher
introspectionin which "theethnographertries to accountfor sources of emergent
interpretations,insights, feeling, and the reactive effects that occur as the work
proceeds"(p. 106).
The incipient theorizing attemptedto express levels of generality within the
research.A criticism of qualitativeresearchmethods is that it is very difficult to
make and justify generalizationsthat apply to other settings. In-depthresearch
necessarily results in small samples from which it can be hard to extrapolate.
Delamont and Hamilton (1986) addressthis issue by recognizing the difficulty,
yet claiming that some degree of generalizationmakes sense:
Despitetheirdiversity,individualclassroomssharemanycharacteristics.
Through
thedetailedstudyof oneparticular
context,it is stillpossibleto clarifyrelationships,
Laterabstracted
sumpinpointcriticalprocesses,andidentifycommonphenomena.
whichmay,uponfurtherinvestigamariesandgeneralconceptscanbe formulated,
tionbe foundto be germaneto a widervarietyof settings.(p. 36)
In my own study, it was importantto consider how far the classroom characteristics I found significant were indicative of investigative approachesmore
generally or were of relevance to other teacherswishing to interpreta constructivist philosophy in mathematicsteaching. Furlong and Edwards (1986) make
this comment:
is committedto havingas opena mindas possibledurAlthoughthe ethnographer
it is inevitablethathe will beginhis workwithsome
ing his periodof observation,
andsomeforeshadowed
preconceptions
problemswhichwill leadhimto payattentionto certainincidentsandignoreothers.If he presentshis observations
as "objective description,"
he is probablynaivelyunawareof his ownselectivity.Ontheother
hand,if he followsa theorytoo closely,he will be accusedof selectingobservations
to supporthis ownpointof view. (p. 54)
There seems to be some skill required in weaving a path between the two
polarizationsexpressed here, and I was very much aware of the implicationsof
this for my own work. I recognizedpotentialfor what Glaser and Strauss(1967)
refer to as "an opportunisticuse of theory,"which they call "exampling":
A researchercan easily find examplesfor dreamed-up,
speculative,or logically
deducedtheoryafterthe ideahas occurred.But sincethe ideahasnotbeenderived
fromthe example,seldomcan the examplecorrector even changeit (evenif the
authoris willing),sincetheexamplewasselectivelychosenforits confirming
power.
Thereforeone receivesthe imageof a proofwherethereis none,and the theory
obtainsa richnessof detailthatit didnotearn.(p. 5)
120
For example, in the early stages of my researchI was exhilaratedby the way
that radical constructivism (then, a theory that I had only just encountered)
seemed to underpinmy perceptionsof an investigativeapproachto mathematics
teaching. It was possible to look at examples of students'mathematicalthinking
as they arose in the lessons I observed and cast these in radical constructivist
terms. However, it then became necessary to look critically at the relationships
involved to see how a theory such as radicalconstructivismwould fit the complexity of my researchas a whole.
Consideragain the episode of Mike's requiringhis class to ask questions.This
episode emerged, in my analysis, as significantfrom the lesson of which it was
part;therefore,some selection had takenplace from the dataat this stage. I needed to accountfor this significance theoretically.The theoreticalsignificancehad
two levels: (a) it fit with my own constructivistperspectiveof knowledge growth
and hence learning, and (b) it contributedto emergent theory of the practical
implications(for a mathematicsteacher,for example) of a constructivistview of
knowledge and learning.
I thus had to justify my analysis at these levels. This justification is summarized in the indentedtext that follows:
The process of asking their own questions encourages students to become
immersedin the ideas thatthe teacherwantsto be the focus of the lesson. From
asking questionsand the resultinginvestigation,studentsgain ownershipof the
mathematicsthey generate,whichprovidesan experientialgroundingfor synthesis of particularmathematicalideas. The teacher'sapproachfostersquestioning
and investigatingand,moreover,an independenceof thinkinganddecisionmaking thatcan lead to studentstakingmoreresponsibilityfor theirown learning.
This analysis rests on the constructivistview that (a) students' own constructionsare central to their developing mathematicalconcepts and (b) the
practicalteachingacts (such as requiringstudentsto ask questions)put emphasis on students' own constructionsto make these more evident in students'
knowledge growth.
Clearly, some statementshere need furtherexplanationandjustification (e.g.,
the importanceof experientialgroundingand its practicalmanifestations).It was
centralto my researchto providethis kind of critique,thatis, the requisiteexplanations andjustification.There were various levels of complexity. One of these
involved the characterizationof an investigative approachin terms of "asking
questions,""ownershipof ideas," and "takingresponsibilityfor own learning."
Were these constructs emergent from the data, or did they accord with the
researcher'spreconceptions?Was the researcherengaged in the productionof
grounded theory or in a process of exampling? Another level of complexity
involved reconciling observationswith theory such as radicalconstructivismfor example, in seeing the teacher'semphasison students'askingtheirown questions and makingtheirown decisions as contributingto students'constructionof
mathematicalconcepts.
121
BarbaraJaworski
Addressing these questions and issues requireda very detailed study of the
research data. A disadvantage of trying to provide a flavor of the research
process througha particularepisode is that, by its very nature,the episode cannot carry a sense of the interweavingof observations,perceived attributes,and
analyticalcategories.It cannot show, for example, how "askingquestions"related to "patternspotting" and "making conjectures"in other lessons and other
classrooms. It cannot show how this teacher's approachin this lesson compared
or contrastedwith approachesin his other lessons or in other teachers' lessons.
One episode cannot show that one teacherworks accordingto an investigative
approach,let alone have consequences for describing an investigative style of
teaching more generally. The overall research synthesis demands a rational
weaving of such researchoutcomes and a clarityof presentationthatallows other
researchersto judge its validity. Where an episode is concerned,I can say little
beyond what this teacheraimed to achieve and what seemed to occur in his classroom. However, by taking many such episodes from differentlessons of different teachersit is often possible to see a patternof interactionsin which students
question and investigate mathematicalsituations and in which the groundwork
for synthesis of mathematicalconcepts is prepared.Subsequently,it is possible
to take these practicalmanifestationsof aspects of theory and flesh out the theory. This is the symbiotic process that I describedearlier.
In summary,initial theory gives startingpoints for observationand selection.
Episodes selected are rich in details thatthe theoryis too narrowto predict.From
this richness, patternsemerge that not only substantiatethe theory, but make
clearer what such theory means for the practice of teaching and learning. This
enhancedtheory can then be reappliedto furtherpracticalsituationsfor substantiation and enrichment.
THE THEORY-PRACTICEINTERFACE
In my research,an example of theory arising from data was a theoreticalconstructI called the Teaching Triad (Jaworski,1992). This constructarose from a
close scrutiny of all the data from one teacher, which involved categorizing
attributesand classifying emerging patterns.It was possible to characterizeher
teaching under three headings: managementof learning, sensitivity to students,
and mathematicalchallenge. These categorieshad distinctas well as interrelated
properties.This was theorygeneration.The teachingtriademergeddirectlyfrom
the data.I conjecturedthatthis teacher'steachingcould be characterizedthrough
the teaching triad. I tested the triad on furtherlessons that had not been part of
the original analysis to see whether these also fit with the triad or whether the
triadcould offer a characterization.Considerableevidence supportedthe triad's
potential to characterizethis teaching. It was then importantto test the triad
againstotherteaching to see whetherit had potentialbeyond one teacher.Again,
evidence suggested it had. The next stage was to rationalizethe teaching triad,
an emergentconstruct,with the theoreticalbasis of the research,a constructivist
122
It's a Cuboid
(1)
This involves a group of girls, including Rebecca and Diana, who were working on questions relating to volume and surface area using a large collection of packets from commercially producedproducts.The teacher, Clare, listened to their conversationfor some
moments, and then interjected:
C1 We're saying, volume, surface area and shape, three, sort of variables, variables.
And you're saying, you've fixed the shape-it's a cuboid. And I'm going to say to you
[pause]hm
[She pauses and looks around.]
I'll be back in a minute
Cl
[but she continues talking.]
C1 Thatis a cuboid.
[She picks up a tea packet.]
C1 Thatis a cuboid.
[She picks up an electric light bulb packet.]
and...
(5) C1
123
Barbara Jaworski
Cl
This is a cuboid.
Why not?
Yes you would ...
The episode seems to split into three parts, which I characterize as follows:
statements 1-7, the teachers' initial challenge; statements 8-14, students'
engagement; and statements 15-22, further challenge. In terms of the teaching
triad, parts 1 and 3 show strong elements of mathematical challenge, part 2 provides evidence of sensitivity to students, and the ethos within which the episode
occurs is indicative of the teacher's management of the learning environment.
At the beginning of the episode, the teacher has listened to the students' discussion and made a decision to intervene. From her point of view, the problem
124
BarbaraJaworski
125
teacher's part.The girls might not take up the challenge. It might be inappropriate. They might not be able to cope with it. They might lose their own, perhaps
precarious,thinkingand possibly their confidence. The teacher,in having somehow to salvage the situation,might increase students'dependencyon her. These
were some of the dilemmas facing Clare as she chose her course of action with
the students.
For Clare,mathematicalchallenge seemed always to be allied to sensitivity to
students.She knew her studentswell, for which I had much evidence. The three
girls had previously demonstratedtheirability to thinkwell mathematically.She
believed that they had high mathematicalpotential. She also had a very good
relationshipwith them. The risks she took were allied to this knowledge. These
factors are all facets of the culturalethos of the classroom and the teacher'srole
in encouragingstudents' mathematicalconstructions.Situationswere createdin
which mathematicscould be discussed-in this case, the packaging questions.
Discussion and negotiationwere actively encouraged,with the teacherproviding
stimulationor provocationwhere she believed it was needed. Such knowledge of
students,creationof tasks, and acts of encouragementand stimulationwere part
of the teacher's managementof the learningenvironment.The classroom ethos
was a productof this managementof learning.
The next partof the episode, in statements8-14, shows a lessening of the tension as the girls began to think throughwhat had been offered. It was almost as
if they were thinking aloud, ratherthan participatingin discussion. The shapes
all have six sides. However, the meter rule and the bulb box are not the same
shape. How are they different?Well, they are the same in some respects. In this
section the teacherwas less intrusive,perhapsprovidingspace for students'constructivethinkingto internalizethe problem,but her remarkswere still focusing.
"Whatis different?"
Success in a situationlike this dependsvery greatly on the teacher's sensitivity to students' perceptions, both mathematicaland social. In analyzing why I
believed that this episode was successful with regardto the teacher's objectives
and the students'gain, I attributedit to the decision makingby the teacherat various strategicpoints. Clearlythe teacherhad to make the initial decision to intervene and to do so as provocativelyas she did. However, there was anothercrucial decision hovering in the middle stage of the episode. Were the studentsable
to take up the challenge?Could they make progress?Whatelse should she offer?
It was in makingan appropriatedecision here that sensitivity to the studentswas
most crucial. The success, or otherwise, of such episodes is very rarely due to
just chance, but usually involves a high degree of vital decision makingbased on
teaching knowledge and experience (Calderhead,1987; Cooney, 1988).
Finally, in statements15-22, the teacherseemed to decide thatshe shouldpush
further.She chose two cereal packets of different sizes but the same shape and
asked if they were the same. She was rewardedinstantlyas one girl offered the
crucial word, similar. So she pushed harder:"Whatdoes similar mean?"The
reply was not helpful. They were going roundin circles. She diffused the tension
126
BarbaraJaworski
127
128
Chapter 9
Forms of educational inquiry are shaped not only by the traditions of scientific and naturalistic research but also by researchers' epistemological assumptions-that is, by their beliefs about the nature and scope of knowledge itself. If
it is believed that knowing is a matter of saying what is objectively real, then
researchers will aim to describe and measure observable entities, to explain
these, and then to suggest ways in which the resulting understandings might best
be used. Such a belief about knowledge leads to the selection of relatively objective research methods and data, with researchers attempting to remove themselves from the subject matter of the study. However, if it is believed that knowing is a matter of having a stance within a world, then researchers will aim for
new ways of participating in that world through the construction of tentative theories and through demonstrating an openness to changing understandings and
alternative viewpoints. Such a belief about knowledge is likely to lead to
research methods and data that are more varied and more qualitative in nature.
Contrasting beliefs about what it is to know are linked with different understandings of terms like understanding. Such serious words are difficult to define
in that they come to have meaning only as they are situated (uttered) in particular discourses, such as in the alternative discourses currently vying for
researchers' allegiances. What was initially a contrast of style between research
in the physical sciences and that in the human sciences has become a methodological divide, and the notion of what it is to understand has become a measure
of the very depth of this divide. In the physical sciences, the term clusters with
words like explain, cause, grasp, and discover. However, in the human sciences,
it clusters with interpret, reason, express, and experience. This contrast relates
closely to discourses about knowledge in that the gaining of understandings in
the physical sciences is about researchers grasping reality (e.g., by measuring or
predicting an event), whereas in the human sciences it is about researchers being
grasped by reality (e.g., by experiencing and interpreting an event). Although the
former act necessitates a stance outside the event, the latter creates changes in the
lifeworlds of researchers-altering lived experience in fundamental ways.
On the assumption of a dialectical relationship between understanding and
interpretation, what it is to interpret is to be similarly defined within these con-
129
about effective research processes, shape the software produced and, consequently, shape the products(includingdata,interpretations,and explanations)of
the projectsfor which it is employed.
Some developersof computerprogramsfor dataanalysis recognize that valueladen and subjectivechoices are made at every instanceof a researchprojectand
so have createdenvironmentsthatfacilitatethe recordingof these choices as well
as the keeping of notes as new understandingsdevelop (or new theories are
built). These recordscan make the role of the researchermore open to examination and, hence, renderthe role of human agency more recognizable.One such
computerpackage, an applicationdesigned to be used as a tool in the analysis
and examinationof qualitativedata, is NUD*IST.(Richards& Richards,1990).
OUR USE OF NUDoIST
130
This chapterfocuses on how using NUD*ISTmade us more aware of the theories and expectationsthat we broughtto the analysis task. Ourworkingas a team
to use this softwarefor handlingresponses to a survey raised our consciousness
of roles that researchers,and tools they employ, play in shapingthe productsof
educationalinquiry.In this chapter,our focus on a growthof understandingand
on processes of interpretationsignifies our attemptto stay close to the text of
subjects,and to participatein its meaning,ratherthan to have our discourseproduce an object thatis distancedfrom ourselves. We recognize thatthe productof
our researchprojectis not one of the "things"of the physical sciences-it is an
expressionof a viewpoint and is open to critiqueas well as reworkingby others
as well as to furtherdevelopmentby ourselves.
It is appropriateto describebriefly the processes in using this particularpackage. We stress that this descriptionis not meant as an instructionguide and that
we are not arguingthat the programis betterthan othercomputer-basedqualitative analysis tools.
Basically, NUD*ISTis software that allows the managementand organization
of data through indexing. It can handle any digitized text-from one wordprocessed sentence to a whole book scanned into the computer's memory.
Although off-line data (e.g., videotapedor audiotapeddata) cannot be handled,
they can be linked (using other software) to digitized data and thus be manipulated by text.
The first key decision is aboutthe way the dataare categorized.Ultimatelythe
data will be entered into a treelike hierarchy,with the data points called nodes
and subnodes.The nodes at the top of the tree may be determinedby the research
design or can be derived from the data themselves. In both cases, the subnodes
will usually be determinedby inspecting the data. One node, and its subnodes,
can be reservedfor factualinformation,such as gender,datasource,and so forth,
so that cross-categorizationcan draw on this at a later date. Note that all of this
can be changed as the analysis unfolds, so researchersare not bound by initial
categorizations.
The data are typed into text files in a particularstyle. One key decision is
whetherdata are to be managedin words, phrases,lines, or paragraphs.The text
units are separatedby a <return>.The files are then importedinto the program.
It can be useful to get a printoutat this stage, since the text units have associated line numbers.
The categorization structureis then applied to the data. Each text unit is
assigned to one or more of the subnodes througha system of numericalcodes.
has the capabilityto conductsearchThis can be done by researchers,or NUD?IST
es for key words or phrasesand respondsto Boolean commands.This facilitates
the examinationof currentor potentialsubcategories.
NUD*ISToffers options to support analyses from this stage onward. These
include recoding and recategorizingentries and subnodes, adding and deleting
subnodes,analyzingdataby backgroundcategories,addingnew materialinto the
project,and recordingnotes at each stage of the analysis process.
131
The next section of this chapter elaborates our use of NUD*IST.It uses one
applicationof the tool in a study by the first two authors.It outlines the stages of
the researchand the steps in the use of NUD*IST.
Concurrently,some issues arising from the use of such tools are discussed as are some of the additionaloptions
available in the program.
THE EVOLUTIONOF THE PROJECT
In the example of the application of NUD?ISTreported in this chapter, we
describe the evolution of the project, the instrumentused, and the development
of a conceptualframework.We attemptto develop a useful frameworkfrom the
raw data and acknowledge the difficulty of accomplishingthis goal.
In 1990, Clements and Mousley reportedthe results of their researchinto student teachers' perceptions of the teaching observed during practicumsessions
(Mousley & Clements, 1990). Studentteachershad reported,on questionnaires,
that much of what they were observing in classrooms was the antithesisof both
currenttheory and the behaviors espoused in their preserviceteacher-education
course. It seemed that despite its considerablecost to universitiesas well as the
considerableenergy expendedby teachersand traineeteachers,the work experience was not enabling studentteachersto observe the regularuse of calculators
and othertechnology, cooperativegroup work, mathematicaldiscussions among
students, problem-based teaching of mathematics, the asking of open-ended
questions, and other nontraditionaltechniques. Further research by Sullivan
involving teacher-educationstudents from other institutions produced similar
results (Mousley, Sullivan, & Clements, 1991).
It seemed likely either that (a) desirablepracticeswere not being implemented in schools, and thus the observationsmade by the teacher-educationstudents
were an accurateportrayalof currentteaching,or that(b) these teacher-education
studentsmay have witnessed some high-qualityteachingbut may not have identified the featuresof such teachingbecause of the subtle, sophisticated,and complex nature of classroom interaction.Probably,both hypotheses were correct,
with the weighting of factorsvarying among differentteachers,studentteachers,
and individualschools.
This raisedthe questionof how teachereducatorscould preparestudentteachers better for close observationof exemplary practices. The key seemed to be
better preparationfor school-experiencerounds with the honing of observation
skills by using a resourcebase that included examples of exemplaryteaching.
This decision, in turn,led to discussion of which featuresexperiencedteachers
and mathematicseducatorsbelieve are desirablecomponentsof qualitypractice.
It was realized that there would not be complete agreementaboutone set of features of quality teaching.The effectiveness of pedagogicaldecisions and actions
depends on factors like their appropriatenessfor the subject matterat hand, the
currentincident,and the particularpupils' needs at any given moment.However,
it was thoughtthatit would be useful to gatherdataon some generallyagreed-on
132
featuresof high-qualityteachingas identifiedby experiencedteachersand mathematics educatorsand then to use these in creatinga resourcebase that included
videotapedlessons.
The "Quality Teaching" Questionnaire
The first step in this process was the developmentof a survey of mathematics
educatorsto seek consensus on some characteristicsof qualityteachingof mathematics. Such a questionnairewas preparedand administered.Ourresearchdrew
on both "quantitative"and "qualitative"paradigmsto allow differentbut complementarysets of survey items to provide broaderdata with epistemological
touchstones.The diverse methods of data collection were intendedto make provision for later assimilation of evidence and for close examinationof patterns
and interestinginconsistencies.
The first section of the survey consisted of one open-responseitem:
We wantyouto imaginea mathematics
lesson,at anyyearlevel,wherethestudents
arelearning,forexample,to estimatethemassof variousobjects,orto addfractions,
as a graph....Pleasewritedownthe mostimportant
or to recordgiveninformation
lessonon any of theseconcepts/skills
whicha qualitymathematics
characteristics
wouldusuallyhave.
Participantswere asked to complete this item first, before they read any categories presentedin the latterpartof the questionnaire,in orderto capturerespondents' own initial reactionsto the request.
The second, more structured,part of the instrumentused fixed format items.
Seventy-eightpairs of descriptorswere compiled from researchsummaries(e.g.,
Bell, Costello, & Kuchemann,1983), from teaching frameworks(e.g., Good,
Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983), from recent recommendations(e.g., Australian
EducationCouncil, 1990), and from the earlierquestionnaireused with the student
teachers(Mousley & Clements, 1990). The descriptorswere clusteredunderthe
class activheadingsteachingenvironment,lessonaims,lessoncontent,presentation,
ities,questions,aids,assessment,andclosure.Descriptorswerepresentedas bipolars.
Forinstance,one set of descriptorslistedin the lesson aimsclusterreadas follows:
there was no clear purpose
<--
<-
133
The survey was first piloted with twelve teachers and teacher educators.To
test the layout, length, and complexity of the form; to determineparticipants'
thinkingduringthe completion process; and to discuss with them possible solutions for any difficulties experiencedin completing the form, these respondents
were observed and interviewedas they completed the questionnaire.
After revision in accordancewith the feedbackgained from the pilot study, the
questionnairewas mailed to threegroupsof people involved in mathematicseducation. These were mainly colleagues and fellow members of two professional
associations.Forty survey responses came from experiencedteacherswho were
graduatestudents in mathematicseducation (100% return),56 from Victorian
teachereducators(80% return),and 29 from Americanteachereducators(40%
return).These groupswere selectedbecausethey representedan informedview of
currentissues in teaching and learningyet would presentopportunitiesfor comparisonsto be made between sets of datafrom differentgroupsof respondents.
DATA ANALYSIS
All 125 responses to the open-response item were word processed. The
NUDoISTprogramproduced a printoutthat identified the respondent'soccupation, country,and so forth, and the raw data (a list of descriptors,a sentence, or
a paragraph).For example, the printout reproduced as Figure 9.1 was the
response from Number 70, a mathematicseducation colleague from Victoria,
Australia.
*2
70
MESH
1
* QUESTION
- well-prepared,i.e., lesson structuredappropriately
- if relevant,a relatedconcrete/investigative
project/activity
- guided interactivediscussion leadingto conceptualunderpinnings
- should be related,where possible, to previouslearningand relatedto
children'sconceptualexperiences
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The first step in the analysis process was to separatethe phrasesinto units that
seemed to convey a particularthought. The phrases were categorized by hand
with a numericalclassification system involving a taxonomy of classroom practices-a taxonomy not developed in advance of the categorizationprocess, but
resultingfrom discussions as each phrasewas examined.
Initially, some key ideas were identified by inspection of the data. These
formedthe top-level nodes. One node was used for backgrounddata, such as the
134
2
pupil'sactivity
11
12
13
contentand activities
I 17
investigations/
problemsolving
interaction
1
I
discussion
between pupils
Althoughwe sketchedout such possible ways of organizingthe dataon butcher paper,NUD*ISTallows users to merge, cut and paste, compare,reorganize,and
rename sets of data onscreen-with a log of such theory-buildingstrategies
being maintainedby the program.
Our aim was to create a structurethat could allow categorizationand organization of the data rather than to devise a picture of some ultimate reality.
Successful developmentof the taxonomy at this stage dependednot on its correct interpretation(for many equally viable presentationscould have resulted
from the originaldata)but on its usefulness in buildingplausibleunderstandings
and richerinsights aboutelements of qualityteaching.The taxonomycould then
135
136
two entries.We decided that some of the responsesfit neatly into two categories,
and because we were less interestedin the numberof phrasesin each category
than in what was actually said (and what we could use in planning exemplary
lessons), we allowed the methodology to respond to our needs as researchers
ratherthanto be constrainedby traditionsof any researchapproaches.
It was to our benefit that we were working as a team at this stage; otherwise,
individual understandingswould not have been challenged so frequently.We
found that the NUD-ISTprogramis, as its manualclaims (Richards& Richards,
1990), more than a "code-and-retrieve"system:
The indexingdatabase can be of any level of complexity-fromthe flat lists of
to highlyorganizedandcomcodesnecessaryfor mostcode-and-retrieve
programs
Thisstructuring
allows
indexesof categoriesandsub-categories.
plextree-structured
indexingconceptsto be organizedandmanagedas theoreticalsystems,notjust as
labels.(p. 7)
Being forced to consider alternativeinterpretations,structures,and ways of
workingwas an educativeprocess in itself. We startedto discuss the notion that
the act of classificationpromotestheorybuilding, and being able to use NUD?IST
quickly and efficiently (to call up sets of phrases for comparison,combination,
and redistribution)assisted this process. It is importantto note that theory was
developing as sharedunderstandingswithin the group-not by the computer.As
Richardsand Richards(1990) note,
whattheuserdoeswiththeretrievals,usingsuchsoftware,is essentiallyoffline:all
andthe reshapingof the datain
the shapingof understanding
the theory-building,
is doneoutsidethecomputer.(p. 6)
withthechangingunderstanding,
accordance
Emerging Categories
At this stage, numbercodes were assigned to each of the text units and entered
into the computer.For the backgrounddata-for example, country of originthe whole of the survey was coded at the particularsubnode. This was done
checks aspects of one category againstthose of anotherrather
because NUD?IST
than match informationwithin any node. For example, a researchermay later
wish to ask such questions as, "Whatdid males say about problem solving and
how does this comparewith what females said?"or "How did comments about
use of manipulativesvary between Australianand USA teachers?"Searches of
this naturerequirethe personalinformationto be storedin one node and the specific topics, such as "problemsolving" or "manipulatives,"to be in different
nodes (or subnodes)so that sortingand matchingprocesses can take place.
Initially, the major categories into which all data were placed were teacher
action (1) and pupil action (2). Figure 9.3 shows a set of example phrasesused
by a respondent.The first number2 given in the tripleto the rightof each phrase
relatesto the classificationpupil action. The middle numbersindicateminorcategories from the next level of the classification tree: content and activities (12)
and interaction(13). The right-handnumber in the triple designates a further
137
subclassification-discussion between pupils (1) and investigations/problemsolving (17). It would have been possible to create many levels of classification,
but we stoppedat the point at which phrasesaboutclassroomactionwere grouped
in relationto commonly used termsaboutteachingand learningstrategies.
Physicalinvolvement
Cooperativelearning
Discussion
Problemsolving
Risktaking
(2
(2
(2
(2
(2
12
12
13
12
12
3)
3)
1)
17)
8)
4
5
6
7
8
The numbersin the right-handcolumn of Figure 9.3 are not classificationsthey are "addresses"for the original data. This program feature is important
because it enables the machine, on request,to undertakesearches for particular
strings (words, phrases,and so forth) or to reorganizedata while retaininglinks
with particularrespondentsor identifiedgroups of respondents.More important,
it enables researchersto skip quickly to the original paragraphs-the context of
the subject and his or her utterances-to check, for instance, that a phrase has
been categorizedwith consistency of meaning despite shuffling of the data during the process of building and rebuildingcategories. If we aim to stay close to
the text of subjectsand to participatein its meaning, such facilities for recall and
review are vital.
In the process of refining categories, the collections placed into particular
nodes and subnodes were printed and examined to determine whether they
formed a coherentset. Any phrasesnot congruentwith the othersin the set were
moved. To determinenames for the categories that had been created,groups of
descriptors were printed and academics were asked to suggest appropriate
nomenclature.We found that most of the suggestionsmatchedthe names we had
alreadybeen using in discussing the nodes.
It was realizedafterwardthatit would have been useful to use a coding process
to enable later ready identificationof phrases that raised interestingpoints for
furtherdiscussion-such as two obviously conflicting beliefs or a particularly
thought-provokingcomment. However, such data were not lost, for one of the
benefits of using a computerfor qualitativedata analysis is that original words,
phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs(and indeed whole chapters,papers, or
journals in other studies) can be called up later for furtherreview. Data remain,
relational and interactive,and can be traced back to their origins if necessary.
The retentionof originaldataalso means that analyses can be replicated,for purposes of adding robustness,for checking the logic of the currentcategories, for
138
testing the consistency and coherence of the conclusions, or for examining the
impact of a differentteam of researchers.
Threefacilities of the programenabledthe keeping of an "audittrail"(Lincoln
& Guba, 1985, p. 319) throughoutthe analysisstage. The firstis the abilityto save
(as documents)and recall datafrom any stage of the analysisprocess.The second
is thatNUD*IST
keeps a log of changesautomatically.A historyof what was done
thereforeforms the basis for keeping a record of, and retracingif desired, the
researchprocess.The thirdusefulfacilityis the capacityfor the researcherto notate
any entryfromwithinthe program.These facilitiesallow researchersto enterquestions arising, points of interest,links to publishedtheory (includingappropriate
quotations),commentsaboutthe researchprocess,and othernotes. They therefore
facilitate(a) the process of developing understandings,(b) the recordingof conceptualdevelopmentsthathave takenplace, and (c) the writingup at a laterstage.
They also open up the researchprocessto examinationby others.
The Categories Arising
THINKING
(21218)
Aimsto develop understandingopportunityfor studentthinking
Lesson requiresthinkingratherthan repetitionand mimicking
Promotesthinking
Lotsof thinkingby students abouttask
Speculatingon how best to solve them and solving
Thoughtaboutthe problem
CHALLENGING
(212 9)
Challenging
Challengingtask withinreach
Challengingactivities
Challenge
Shouldhave abilityforextension
differences
Challengingbut caters for individual
Figure 9.4. Responses categorizedwithin two particularsubnodes.
These groups of phrases are ready to be inspected for coherence, sense, and
relevance.Phrasesthatdo not fit can be easily moved elsewhere. Fromsuch data,
we can infer that some teacher educators see student thinking and provoking
139
Building
Understanding
Materials
Prior
knowledge
Mathematical
thinking
Connections
Conceptual
development
Reflection
Sequence
Review
I
Organizing
Nurturing Engaging Communicating Problem
forLearning
Active Pupil
topupil
discussion Solving
Ability
Clear
Levels
Personal Sharing
purpose
strategies Investigation
Clear
instructionNon-threatening
Enjoyment
Cooperative
Open-ended
Classorganization Rapport Realworld
Recording
Challenging
Questions
Relationships Motivation
Posing
Assessment
Goalsetting
Variety
Enthusiasm
Figure 9.5. Hierarchyof categories of quality mathematicsteaching arising from the data.
140
Other Possibilities for Analysis
141
142
data,factors (such as inflection and body language)that would have assisted the
accuracyof placementor summationare lost in the transcriptionprocess.
It can be noted that these problemsare relatedto the subjectivenatureof decision making and the interpretationof humanbeliefs and actions and are not in
As Giddens (1984) notes, knowledge is
any way specific to the use of NUD*IST.
framedas individualsview the real world in terms of their personalunderstandings, and these interpretationscan be made only in the light of their current
understandingsof the theories, ideas, and concepts. Furtherinterpretationtakes
place as the ideas are published and take new form in the praxis of everyday
social use. Although "moments"of decision making are not so apparentin
empirical research, they are still present, and attemptsto control such factors
bring their own set of limitationsto researchprojects.
It mustbe recognizedthatusing a computerdoes not change the fact thatinterpretive research is based on the gathering of qualitative data and that such
researchaims to understandratherthanto explain. The intentionis to captureand
interpretratherthanto generalizeor predict.The complexities and uniquenessof
an event (such as the beliefs of professionalsat a particulartime) are recognized
as objects worthstudyingand using. These objects can bring aboutchange in the
stance of individualresearchersbut should not be consideredthe replicablephenomena of empiricalresearch.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Using a computerfor handlingqualitativedatahas certainlyfacilitatedourexploandassistedin the constructionof tentarationof social actionsandunderstandings
tive understandingsaboutthese. One groupof questionsraisedin our discussions
relatedto how we, as educationalresearchers,
aboutthe use of tools suchas NUD*IST
makejudgmentsregardingwhatinformationto seek, how to seek it, how to analyze
it, and how to use it. We discussedhow the resolutionof these questionsis influenced by, and also limitedby, our own socioculturalhistoryas well as by our indiandcurrentneeds.
vidualprofessionalhistories,personalunderstandings,
Anothergroupof issues raisedin our discussionswas aboutthe sharingof findings and what is consideredby a researcherto be worthsharing.Whatis withheld
from the reader?How do we shareour findings with particularaudiences,and is
this done selectively? How accessible are the ideas presentedto the consumers
and producersof educationaltheoryin use, thatis, teachersin classrooms?
There was also discussion about how we raise the issues of the problematic
natureof judgements that have been made duringthe researchprocess. At each
stage of the process, decisions were being made abouthow to handlethe data in
its currentform, but in most researchreports,the natureof this decision making
is not presentedas problematic.The collaborativenatureof the coding, and the
verification process using other researchers,provided checks and balances and
was an integral part of the research method. We also sought to address such
issues explicitly in reports.
143
The experience of thinkingaboutthe researchprocesses undertakenhas sensitized us to the workings of interpretationwithin educationalresearch. Starting
points and further developments, analyses and theory, conceiving and reconceiving, part and whole, what-is-seen and what-is-to-be-seen-the interplays
among these are ongoing throughoutthe research.All reflect a process of gaining understanding.The researcheris involved not only in processes of representation and the creationof boundariesbut also in processes of expandinghorizons
of understanding.However, readersof publishedarticlesrarelysee them as artistic creations-pictures of the educational researchers'experiences, intentions,
and growing conceptions.And the act of readinga researchreportin many ways
parallels the creative acts of the researchersthemselves in that the theoretical
stances of the readersinform their interpretationsof, as well as their abilities to
use, the work at hand.
The data-analysisprocess using NUDoIST
taughtus as much aboutour own (as
well as each others') concepts of quality lessons and the act of writing a questionnaireitem as it did aboutthe beliefs our colleagues hold aboutquality mathematics teaching. We also learneda lot about the way differentphrasesare used
in describingteaching and were remindedcontinuallyof the vagueness of most
of the terms used. It is now hoped that we can use our collected data to engage
people in furtherdiscussion about the appropriatenessof the categories formed
and about the possibilities of developing a more common language for describing teaching. It might be noted that the developmentof a common language is
one of the characteristicsof a discipline of study, and one that educational
researchgenerally could well pursuemore actively.
144
Chapter 10
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio
145
146
147
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio
148
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio
149
students' conceptual understandingof fractions. The second test was administered exclusively to 10- to 12-year-oldchildren and was given to only 76 children.As the studentssearchedfor meaning and for explanationsof how children
were making sense of fractions,tests were analyzed much more qualitatively.
Althoughthis secondtest was a lot morerevealingthanthe first,it was clearthat
anotherform of data collection was needed before the questionsraised could be
adequatelyaddressed. It is worthmentioningthattherewas evidence of growthin
these preservice teachers' thinking about children's understandingof fractions
even as they developed the second instrument.Every question had a rationale
behindit, and many children'sanswerswere anticipated.For every potentialchildren's answer,the studentshad a conjecturefor a possible explanation.
It was during the analysis of the results of the second test that the students
became aware that the interview process might be a more effective form of data
collection for the types of questions they wished to address. Discussions of the
various readingson researchabout the learningof fractionsand the ineffectiveness of the initial datain giving insight into children'sunderstandingof fractions
pointed the group to the use of interviews.
Reflections on the Preservice Experience
It is not the purpose of this chapterto reporton the findings about children's
learningof fractions.As stated earlier,my goal is to reporton the study of preservice teachers' growth in understandingof the researchprocess and how an
investigative disposition becomes an importantpartof the teaching process.
The decision to use interviews with the children was an importantbreakthroughin the students' thinking about research. It was also interestingto see
how creative they were in thinking of ways to elicit children's thinking. The
decisions they made about the interview process were the following: (a) they
would interview some children individually and others in pairs, with the hope
that the childrenin the pairs would communicatewith each other and that their
thinkingwould be verbalized;(b) they would have two membersof the research
team conductingan interview (one interviewing,the othertakingnotes); (c) they
would audiotapethe interviews; and (d) they would pilot the interviews before
finalizing the interview structureto improve the questions posed and to learn
how to conduct interviews.
Decisions were also made about how to pick the children to be interviewed.
Childrenwere classified into three groups on the basis of the results of the second test: childrenwho got everythingcorrect,those who made consistent errors,
and those whose errors were inconsistent. The pairs were chosen in various
ways: (a) one child who made no errorswas paired with one who made errors,
(b) one child who made consistent errorswas pairedwith one who made inconsistent errors,and (c) one child who made errorswas paired with a child who
made a very differenttype of errors.At this point it was clear that this research
groupwas strugglingwith a very importantquestionthat faces researchersusing
150
BeatrizS. D'Ambrosio
151
152
Beatriz S. D 'Ambrosio
153
of the types of questions they were asking, it soon became clear that the most
informativesources of data would be mostly qualitative.The methodology used
turnedout to be quite dynamic, and new sources of data and forms of data collection were tried throughoutdifferentstages of many of the studies.
The analysis of the datawas done throughoutthe study. Every week the teachers presentedtheir findings to their small working group. The group discussion
often led to insights and suggestions. My role at this stage was to point out some
of the research literaturethat could offer insight into what the teachers were
observing and finding in their own studies. I realized that the process of analyzing and interpretingthe data providedintrinsicmotivationfor readingthe existing, related researchliterature,a level of motivation that I had little success in
generatingwith other forms of in-service experiences.
Susan's Inquiryand Her Growthas a Teacher
The following example is used to illustratethe reflectivenessof one of the participatingteachers,Susan,as she conductedher study.This teacherused herjournal entries and her reflections about children's success in problem solving as a
springboardfor her thinkingabouther practice.
In her early journal entries, Susan begins her reflections by describing her
teaching style and philosophy of educationas expressed below:
My styleandphilosophyof teachinghasbeenverymuchcenteredaroundthemasteryof thebasicsandteachingthe methodsthatallowone to arriveat the answers.
hasoftenstartedwithmanipulatives
andhands-onpracticeto define
My instruction
how a basicoperation,suchas multiplication
or division,worked.However,from
thereI wouldrevertto the text andpracticeas manyproblemsas possiblewiththe
students,developinga step-by-step
planto arriveat a correctanswer.I havefound
thatI amveryeffectiveatteachingthisway,andI haveseenstudentsmasterthefour
basicoperations
throughthismethodof teaching.
Susan was a teacherin her second year of teaching. The teacheras researcher
class was the very first class in her master's program.She had felt rewardedin
her teaching experience with fourth graders by getting children to master the
basic facts in mathematics.It was the journalentriesrelatedto this researchproject that led Susan to realize that the students were not performingas well on
problem-solvingtasks as they were on the masteryof the basic facts.
The startof thisresearchbeganwithmy ownrealizationthat,in therealworld,my
studentswouldrarelycomeacrossproblemssuchas 27 x 15.Theywouldrarelyfind
key wordsto hintat a solution.Realmathproblemscomein the formof wordsand
numberswithouta signtellingyou whatto do. Realmathproblemsrequirecritical
thinkingandplanningbeforea solutioncanbe reached.
In analyzingher thinkingaboutproblemsolving and her approachto teaching
problem solving, she began to notice some patternsof behavior.
I didnotdwellon theproblemsformorethanone or two classperiods.I wantedto
on the"howdo youknowwhatto do"
getthemcompleted,andI didnotconcentrate
154
155
Beatriz S. D'Ambrosio
her practice and the group interactionswith her peers led her to question her
assumptions and beliefs about teaching problem solving. The questioning and
raising problems from within through self-analysis took on a very different
dimension thanit might have if an outsiderwere tryingto point to "faults"in her
teaching. This is but one of the many examples whereby the teachers who
engaged in teacher research found themselves questioning their practice and
wonderingand planningwhat they might do differently.
CONCLUSION
This chapter was intended to point to some of the dimensions of teacher
researchthat can serve to foster a dispositiontowardinquiryin teaching.In both
the preservice and in-service experiences described here, teacher researchwas
used as a tool for developing, encouraging,and sustaining teachers' reflective
practice. In these experiences, qualitativemethods were the main tool used by
teachersto studythe realityof theirclassroomsand the learningof their students.
The preservice experience in particularpoints out how traditionalquantitative
methods are unsatisfying;it is not feasible to use these methods to address the
questions that teachers raise regardingthe teaching and learning occurring in
their classrooms.
The chapteralso points out how the teachers' voices are an importantcomponent of our understandingof the effectiveness of teacher researchexperiences.
Their voices also constitutean importantcomponentof our understandingof the
reality of the classroom and of children'sthinkingand learning.As teachersparticipate in contributingto the knowledge base about teaching and learning,they
become empowered,autonomousdecision makers.At the same time, the academic researchcommunitygains insights about teaching and learningthroughthe
teachers'perspectivesas they interpret,analyze, and describethe complexities of
their lives as teachersand their students'lives as learners.
156
Chapter 11
"Educationliteraturehas usually treated the alternativesto traditionalpositivistic researchas a single approach-often called the 'qualitative'approach"
(Jacob, 1987, p. 1).
Even a brief study of this book would be sufficient to dispel this notion of a
singularityof definition for qualitativeresearchwithin the field of mathematics
education.Indeed,had the editormanagedto assemble all the authorsof the preceding chaptersin one room, it is my contentionthat a very lively debate would
have ensued and thatno one approachto qualitativeresearchon the learningand
teaching of mathematicswould have emerged as triumphantand representative.
It is not even clear to me that the authorswould have been in unanimousagreement on their placing of the variety of methods in relationto the boundariesof
legitimate mathematics research mentioned in Chapter 2. What we, as
researchers,have done is takenthe traditionsof other,older disciplines and made
them our own to apply them to specific questions arising within mathematics
education.We have, in addition,attemptedto make overt the variationsand precautions that we have been obliged to employ to remain faithful to our own
notions of genuine "research."
The range of approaches,methods, attitudes, foci, concerns, and situations
encompassedis dramatic.In Chapter3, Ernestattemptsto constructa definition
of what he calls "the qualitativeresearch paradigm,"but he is quick to draw
attentionto the fact that this term can be misleading because it can enshrouda
confusion between methods and methodology; a qualitativemethodology may
well utilize quantitativemethods (Jacob, 1987). It is this confusion that sometimes gives rise to inappropriatecriticismsof the validity of certainresearch,and
I will returnto this topic later in this chapter.
Teppo opens the book with a focus on the diverse ways of knowing, and subsequent authorscapture some of the myriad ways of coming to know that are
available to us. They have not provided recipes for success but illustrationsof
the reality of qualitative research-its problems and its strengths. Recurrent
themes run throughthe chaptersthat addresssome of the fundamentalquestions
facing qualitativeresearchin mathematicseducation.It is appropriate,therefore,
to close this book, but not the debate, by teasing out some of these themes and
acknowledgingthe tasks that lie ahead.
157
Susan Pirie
158
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Shulman, 1981). Goldin, indeed, states explicitly, in
the words of Davis (1984, p. 22), "without an appropriatetheory, one cannot
even state what the 'facts' are," although some of the authorsmight disagree
about what constitutedan appropriatetheory.
Relatedto the second issue is the interactivenatureof the relationshipbetween
the theoretical underpinningsand the understandingsthat develop during the
researchprocess. It is clear that there is a need to make overt our own theoretical underpinningsin the way thatJaworskimakes very explicit in her initial radical constructivistapproach.What is of especial interesthere is that we then see
one of the inner strengthsof qualitativeresearchat work-namely, the ability of
the researcherto make design decisions throughoutthe researchprocess and to
draw on multiple perspectives to understand the phenomenon in question
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Janesick, 1994). As her gatheringof data and initial
analysisdictatethe makingof certainpragmaticdecisions, she acknowledgesthe
transformationof this theoreticalposition to that of social constructivism.I use
the word strengths here because it is the paradigmaticdenial of an absolutist
epistemology that allows for the human element, allied to the specific goals of
the research,to be influential.Indeed, for D'Ambrosio, the shifting of theoretical positions within the thinkingof the teachersshe was studyingwas one of the
majorfacets in the achievementof her goals.
The ability of preliminaryresearchfindings to influence underlyingmethodological choices is also illustratedby Pirie (see Chapter6) and by Mousley,
Sullivan, and Waywood (see Chapter9). Their requirementsfor multiple, overlappingclassificationsof certainsets of datain no way contradictthe theoretical
backgroundsof theirmethods.In contrastto the scientific tradition,thereis need
here not for a dichotomybetween right and wrong categorizations,but for a systematic, controlled searching for informative classifications that will lead to
greaterunderstandingof the teaching and learningprocesses.
The variousways thattheoryis treatedby the authors,both as a frameworkfor
researchand as the end result of the inquiryprocess, illustratethe situatedrole
that theory plays in qualitativeresearch.Selection of an appropriateframework
should be relative to the contextual needs of each research question.
Additionally,theory that is elaboratedon, or generatedby, the researchshould
be understoodwithin the context of that research(Cobb, 1994; Janesick, 1994).
This recognition of contextualrelevance makes it crucial that researcherscarefully position and describe their use of theory within the contexts of their work.
To formjudgmentsrelatedto research,we must know from wherethe researcher
is coming.
VALIDITYAND RELIABILITY
Not anythinggoes, of course. Researchis not simply looking to see what happens. "Traditionsare important,even when one takes an open stance, because
they provide a set of orientingassumptions"(Jacob, 1987, p. 40). To undertake
Susan Pirie
159
160
WhereDo WeGofromHere?
Susan Pirie
161
analysis?The interactionhere is not to set up one method as preferableto another, but in the interestsof credibilitywhen reporting,we must, once again, return
to the notion of being as explicit as possible in the details we make available to
those who would judge our research.
LANGUAGE
In theiropening paragraphs,Mousley, Sullivan,and Waywood raise one of the
fundamentalconsiderationswithin qualitative research that is not given sufficient prominence by other authors. This is the issue of language. By its very
nature,qualitativeresearchdemands that we move "the whole problem of language from its peripheraland incidental position into the center."This means
more than acknowledgingand defendingloss of detail when we reduce auraland
visual data to writtenverbaldata.We tradein words-the words of the teachers,
the words of the students,the words of our own reporting.We need to concern
ourselves with the reality that we can only define and describe categories and
emergenttheories throughlanguage. We observe and personallyinterpretclassroom contexts, and, leaving aside the question of whetherwe need language for
thought, we certainly need language to attemptto convey these thoughts to an
audience.
"Texts are not simple mirrorsof reality"(Nielson, 1995, p. 8). When we give
voice to our interpretations,our meaning is mediated through words, both by
ourselves and by our audience.The category labels we assign and the constructs
we define are frequently attempts to capture initially nebulous qualities and
behaviors.We can, as Goldin does in his scriptedinterviews,take greatcare with
our own language, but the responses are not given with such care! Students
respondto tasks spontaneouslyand without attentionto the possibility of misinterpretation.In the very structuredsetting in which he works, Goldin is able to
endeavorto confirm his interpretationsby encouraging"the child to constructa
concrete,externalrepresentation."In more open classroom settings, such confirmatoryevidence is rarelyavailable.We constructour own personalmeaningsof
the discourse that we hear-and indeed we can do no other-but there is a need
to be alive to the notion that the meanings are ours and, further,that others will,
in turn,impose meanings on our words that are dependenton their histories and
culture.Mousley et al. make overt theirawarenessof the eventualitythatas ideas
are publishedthey inevitably take on new form in the everyday praxis of social
use. Language is not merely one of "a new set of researchemphases"(Ernest)
but at the very core of all we do in a qualitativeapproachto the study of mathematical education.
REPORTINGTHE RESEARCH
Whateverform of datais selected for analysis and however carefulwe attempt
to be in the linguistic interpretationsof these data, one furtherproblemremains
162
when it comes to reportingqualitativedata. As Jaworskisays, "a major disadvantage"of qualitativedataaretheir"lengthynature... in the space takento present an account."Whetherthey take the form of shelves of videotapes or reams
of transcriptsand field notes, it simply is not feasible to offer the readerall the
data on which conclusions have been based. We are obliged to offer our summaries, interpretations,and selections of what we deem importantfor the reader
know. We may claim that a single reportedcase can indicate a general conceptual category or property,that it is sufficiently generic to be taken as indicative
of the theory we are suggesting. Necessarily, however, it is ultimately "the
degree to which an informedreaderis convinced" (Jaworski)that proves to be
the test by which the researchand resultanttheoreticalimplicationsare judged.
We are forced to returnagain to the problem and necessity of validating our
work,for others.
As Mousley et al. suggest, developing technology may be coming to our aid.
Software such as NUD*ISTmakes handlingthe vast quantitiesof data somewhat
easier, but more than that, such productsallow others to access the data and see
the analyticaldecisions that were made by the researchers.The actual paths of
theory building become accessible; the actual data become available for replicating the analysis or, indeed, for carryingout alternativeanalyses for the same
or differentpurposes.This lattersuggested use of the data raises new questions
concerningthe ethics implied by the transferenceof ownershipof data.This and
other ethical issues are discussed in the next section. Until technological
advances become even more accessible to the general reader,however, we are
dependenton the extent to which we are seen to be trustworthyin our reporting-until perhaps the definition of reader takes on another meaning, and
researchis communicatedthroughalternativetechnologies as yet undreamed.
ETHICALISSUES
One final concern, conspicuous by its absence within this collection of writings, needs raising:a considerationof some of the fundamentalethicalissues that
qualitativeresearchraises. These, I contend, are more acute than in quantitative
approaches.There is the dangerthat we are less able to accordanonymityto the
people involved. Caughtby the need to give sufficient detail to enable readersto
exercise theirpowers of judgmentaboutthe validity of the researchfindings, we
may find that merely changing the names of the participantsmay not disguise
their identity. The specifics of the detail may be enough to identify the school,
class, or subject.Of even greaterconcernis the widespreaduse of video data.At
oral presentationsof research,such as at conferences and seminars,the temptation to illustrate,enhance, or at least enliven the delivery with video clips from
the data is very strong. Anonymity here is impossible. Traditionally,subjects
have been assuredof the confidentialityof theircontributionto the advancement
of knowledge, but nowadays an additionalfactor is at play. With the ease of
widespread, internationaldissemination of research, there is the desirability,
163
Susan Pirie
164
References
Ahlberg,A. (1992). Att mota matematiskaproblem: En belysningav barns lirande. [Meeting mathematical problems: An elucidation of children's learning]. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Altheide, D. L., & Johnson,J. M. (1994). Criteriafor assessing interpretativevalidity in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
485-499). ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.
Altrichter,H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachersinvestigatetheir work:An introductionto
the methodsof action research. New York:Routledge.
Anthony,G. (1994). Learningstrategiesin the mathematicsclassroom:Whatcan we learnfrom stimulated recall interviews?New Zealand Journal of EducationalStudies,29(2), 127-140.
Ascher, M. (1991). Ethnomathematics.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Aspray,W., & Kitcher,P. (Eds.). (1988). Historyand philosophyof modernmathematics(Minnesota
Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XI). Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Austin, J. L. (1962). Sense and sensibilia. (G. J. Warock, Ed.). Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
AustralianEducationCouncil. (1990). A national statementon mathematicsfor Australianschools.
Canberra:AustralianEducationCouncil.
Bakhtin,M. (1979). Theaesthetics of verbal creation. Moscow: Bocharov.Cited in Todarov(1984).
Ball, S. J. (1982). The verificationand applicationof participantobservationcase study.In case study
methods5. Perspectiveson case study:Ethnography(pp. 141-164). Deakin, Australia:University
of Deakin Press.
Ball, S. J. (1990). Self doubt and soft data: Social and technical trajectoriesin ethnographicfieldwork. QualitativeStudies in Education,3(2), 157-171.
Barnes, D. (1982). From communicationto curriculum.London:Penguin.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, the learner and the school (revised).
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1986). Language, the learner and the school (3rd edition).
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Barnes, D., & Todd, M. (1977). Communicationand learning in small groups. London:Routledge
& Keegan Paul.
Barrata-Lorton,M. (1976). Mathematicstheir way. Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartolini-Bussi,M. G. (1994). Theoreticaland empiricalapproachesto classroom interaction.In R.
Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straesser,& B. Winkelmann(Eds.), The didactics of mathematicsas a
scientific discipline (pp. 121-132). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Bassey, M. (1990-1991). On the natureof researchin education(Parts 1-3). ResearchIntelligence,
36, 35-38; 37, 39-44; 38, 16-18.
Bauersfeld, H. (1992). Classroom cultures from a social constructivist'sperspective. Educational
Studies in Mathematics,23, 467-481.
Bauersfeld,H. (1994). Theoreticalperspectiveson interactionin the mathematicsclassroom. In R.
Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Straesser,& B. Winkelmann(Eds.), The didactics of mathematicsas a
scientific discipline (pp. 133-146). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Bell A. W., & Bassford,D. (1989). A conflict andinvestigationteachingmethodandan individualised
learningscheme-a comparativeexperimenton the teachingof fractions.Proceedings of the 13th
InternationalConferencefor the Psychologyof MathematicalEducation,(pp. 125-132). Paris.
Bell, A. W., Costello, J., & Kuchemann,D. (1983). Research on teaching and learning. Windsor:
NFER-Nelson.
Berger, P., & Luckmann,T. (1966). The social constructionof reality. Reprinted.London:Penguin
Books, 1967.
Bishop, A. J. (1985). The social constructionof meaning:A significant developmentfor mathematics education?For the Learningof Mathematics,5(1), 24-28.
References
165
166
References
References
167
D'Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematicsand its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learningof Mathematics,5(1), 44-48.
Darling-Hammond,L. (1996). The rightto learn and the advancementof teaching:Research,policy,
and practicefor democraticeducation.EducationalResearcher,25(6), 5-17.
Davis, P. J. (1993). Applied mathematicsas social contract.In S. Restivo, J. P. van Bebdegem, & R.
Fisher (Eds.), Math worlds: Philosophical and social studies of mathematicsand mathematics
education (pp. 182-194), Albany: State University of New York Press.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1980). The mathematicalexperience.Boston: Birkhauser.
Davis, P. J., & Hersh, R. (1988). Descartes' dream. London:Penguin Books.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learningmathematics:The cognitive science approach to mathematicseducation. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Davis, R. B. (1992). Reflections on where mathematicseducationnow stands and on where it may
be going. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbookof research on mathematicsteaching and learning
(pp. 724-734). New York: Macmillan.
Davis, R. B. (1994). What mathematicsshould students learn?Journal of MathematicalBehavior,
13, 3-33.
Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A., & Noddings, N. (Eds.). (1990). Journalfor Research in Mathematics
Education,MonographNo. 4, Constructivistviews on the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachersof Mathematics.
DeBellis, V. A. (1996). Interactionsbetweenaffect and cognition duringmathematicalproblemsolving: A two-yearcase studyoffour elementaryschool children.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,
RutgersUniversity GraduateSchool of Education,(UniversityMicrofilms No. 96-30716).
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1991). Interactionsbetween cognition and affect in eight high
school students' individual problem solving. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the
ThirteenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation(Vol. I) (pp. 29-35). Blacksburg,VA: VirginiaPolytechnic
Instituteand State University, Division of Curriculum& Instruction.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1993). Analysis of interactionsbetween affect and cognition in elementaryschool childrenduringproblemsolving. In J. R. Becker & B. Pence (Eds.), Proceedings
of the FifteenthAnnualMeetingof the NorthAmericanChapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation (Vol. II) (pp. 56-62). Pacific Grove, CA: San Jose State
University Centerfor Mathematicsand ComputerScience Education.
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (1997). The affective domainin mathematicalproblem-solving.In
E. Pehkonen(Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-firstConferenceof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. II) (pp. 209-216). Helsinki, Finland:
University of Helsinki Departmentof TeacherEducation.
Delamont, S., & Hamilton, D. (1986). Revisiting classroom research: A cautionary tale. In M.
Hammersley (Ed.), Controversies in classroom research (pp. 25-43). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction:Enteringthe field of qualitativeresearch.In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbookof qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Descartes,R. (1955). A discourse on method.Translationin R. Descartes,Philosophicalworks, Vol.
1. New York: Dover Press. (Originalwork published 1637)
Devlin, K. (1997). Mathematics:The science of patterns. New York: Scientific AmericanLibrary.
Donmoyer,R. (1996). Educationalresearchin an era of paradigmproliferation:What's a journaleditor to do? EducationalResearcher,25(2), 19-25.
Dossey, J. A. (1992). The natureof mathematics:Its role and its influence. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbookof research on mathematicsteaching and learning (pp. 39-48). New York:Macmillan.
Dryfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematicalthinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advancedmathematical thinking.Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Dunne, M., & Johnston,J. (1992). An awarenessof epistemological assumptions:The case of gender studies. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 14(5), 515-526.
168
References
References
169
170
References
Goldin, G. A., DeBellis, V. A., DeWindt-King,A. M., Passantino,C. B., & Zang, R. (1993). Taskbased interviews for a longitudinal study of children's mathematical development. In I.
Hirabayashi,N. Nihda, K. Shigematsu, & F-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth
International Conferencefor the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. I) (pp.
197-203). Tsukuba,Japan:PME ProgramCommittee.
Goldin, G. A., & Landis, J. H. (1985). A problem-solvinginterview with "Stan"(age 11). In S.
Damarin& M. Shelton (Eds.), Proceedings of the SeventhAnnual Meeting the North American
Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 100-105).
Columbus,OH: Ohio State University Departmentof EducationalTheory and Practice.
Goldin, G. A., & Landis, J. H. (1986). A study of children's mathematicalproblem-solvingheuristics. In L. Burton& C. Hoyles (Eds.), Proceedings of the TenthInternationalConferencefor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) (Vol. I) (pp. 427-432). London: University of
London Instituteof Education.
Goldin, G. A., & McClintock,C. E. (Eds.). (1980). Taskvariables in mathematicalproblemsolving.
Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematicsand EnvironmentalEducation.
Reissued by Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia (1984) (acquired by Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).
Goldin, G. A., & Passantino,C. B. (1996). A longitudinalstudy of children'sfractionrepresentations
and problem-solvingbehavior. In L. Puig & A. GutiErrez(Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth
International Conferencefor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation (PME) (Vol. III) (pp.
3-10). Valencia, Spain:Universidadde Valencia Dept. de Didactica de la Matematica.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York:
Longman.
Goswami, D., & Stillman,P. (1987). Reclaimingthe classroom: Teacher research as an agencyfor
change. Upper Montclair,NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. 0. (1994). Duality, ambiguityand flexibility: A procepturalview of simple
arithmetic.Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,25(2), 115-141.
Greer,B. (1996). Theories of mathematicseducation:The role of cognitive analysis. In L. P. Steffe,
P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp.
179-196). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Guba,E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourthgeneration evaluation.London:Sage.
Habermas,J. (1971). Knowledgeand humaninterests.London:Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action (2 vols.) (T. McCarthy, Trans.).
Cambridge:Polity Press.
Hammersley,M. (1990). Classroomethnography.Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.
Hammersley, M. (1993). On constructivism and educational research methodology. PME News
(May). Oxford:OxfordUniversity Departmentof EducationalStudies.
Hammersley,M., & Atkinson,P. (1990). Ethnographyprinciples in practice. London:Routledge.
Harding,S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminismand methodology:Social science issues. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Harding,S. (1991). Whosescience? Whoseknowledge?Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Harr6,R. (1979). Social being. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Harre,R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursivemind. London:Sage Publications.
Hart,K. (Ed.). (1981). Children'sunderstandingof mathematics:11-16. London:John Murray.
Hart,L. (1986). Small groupproblemsolving as a data source for the individual.In G. Lappan& R.
Even (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation:Plenary speeches and symposium (pp. 120-127). E. Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Departmentof Mathematicsand
Departmentof TeacherEducation.
Hatano,G. (1982). Learningto add and subtract:A Japaneseperspective.In T. P. Carpenter,M. M.
Moser, & T. A. Romberg(Eds.), Additionand subtraction:A cognitiveperspective.Hillsdale, NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
References
171
Henriques,J. H, Urwin, W., Venn, C., & Walkerdine,V. (1984). Changingthe subject:Psychology,
social regulationand subjectivity.London:Methuen.
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1992). Research and the teacher. London:Routledge.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.(Reprintedin FontanaLibrary.)Glasgow: William Collins, 1962.
Hoyles, C., Healey, L., & Sutherland,R. (1990). The role of peer group discussion in mathematical
environments:Reportto the LeverhulmeTrust.London:University of London.
Hubbard,R., & Power, B. M. (1994). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbookfor teacher
researchers.Portsmouth,NH: HeinemannPress.
Ihde, D. (1997). Experimentalphenomenography.New York:Longman.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinkingfrom childhood to adolescence.
London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitativeresearchtraditions:A review. Review of EducationalResearch,57(1),
1-50.
Janesick,V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitativeresearchdesign: Metaphor,methodolatry,and meaning. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbookof qualitativeresearch (pp. 209-219).
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jaworski,B. (1992). Mathematicsteaching,what is it? For the Learningof Mathematics,12(1), 8-14.
Jaworski,B. (1994). Investigatingmathematicsteaching: A constructivistenquiry.London:Falmer
Press.
Joseph, G. G. (1991). The crest of the peacock. London:I. B. Tauris.
Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The connection between researchand practice. Educational Researcher,
26(7), 4-12.
Kieran,C. (1994). Doing and seeing things differently:A 25-year retrospectiveof mathematicseducation researchon learning.Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,25(6), 583-607.
Kieren, T. E., & Pirie, S. E. B. (1991). Recursion and the mathematicalexperience. In L. P. Steffe
(Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 78-101). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Kilbom, W. (1979). PUMP-project-backgrund och erfarenheter(The PUMP-project,background
and experiences). FoU nr. 17. Stockholm:Liber.
Kilpatrick,J. (1987). What constructivismmight be in mathematicseducation.In J. C. Bergeron,N.
Herscovics, & C. Kieran(Eds.), Proceedings of PME 11 Conference,(Vol. 1, pp. 3-27). Montreal:
University of Montreal.
Kincheloe, J. (1991). Teachersas researchers: Qualitativeinquiryas a path to empowerment.New
York:FalmerPress.
Kitcher,P. (1984). The nature of mathematicalknowledge.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Kitcher,P., & Aspray, W. (1988). An opinionatedintroduction.In W. Aspray & P. Kitcher (Eds),
History and philosophy of modernmathematics(MinnesotaStudies in the Philosophy of Science,
Vol. XI, pp. 3-57). Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress.
Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics:The loss of certainty.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kuhn,T. S. (1970). The structureof scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Kvale, S. (1989). To validate is to question. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of validity in qualitative
research (pp. 73-91). Lund:Studentlitteratur.
Kvale, S. (1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of
PhenomenologicalPsychology, 25, 147-173.
Lakatos,I. (1976). Proofs and refutations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Larson, S. (1993). Om kvalitet I kvalitativa studier. (On quality in qualitative studies). Nordisk
Pedagogik, 4(93), 194-211.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimateperipheralparticipation. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
172
References
LeCompte,M. D., Millroy, W. L., & Preissle,J. (Eds.). (1992). The handbookof qualitativeresearch
in education. San Diego: Academic Press.
Lerman,S. (1996). Intersubjectivityin mathematicslearning:A challengeto the radicalconstructivist
paradigm?Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,27(2), 133-150.
Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. J. (Eds.). (1992). Assessmentof authenticperformancein school mathematics. Washington,DC: AmericanAssociation for the Advancementof Science.
Lester,F. K., Jr., Kehle, P. E., & Birgisson, G. (1996). In pursuit of practical wisdom in mathematics education research. Paperpresentedat the ResearchPresession of the Annual Meeting of the
National Council of Teachersof Mathematics,San Diego, CA.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba,E. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingston,E. (1986). The ethnomethodologicalfoundationsof mathematics.London:Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Lybeck, L. (1981). Arkimedesi klassen: En amnespedagogiskberattelse. (Archimedesin the classroom: A subjectpedagogical story) Goteborg:Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.
Lyotard,J. F. (1984). Thepostmoder condition:A report on knowledge.Manchester:Manchester
University Press.
Maher,C. A., & Martino,A. M. (1996). Young childreninvent methodsof proof: The gang of four.
In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer(Eds.), Theoriesof mathematicallearning (pp. 431-447). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Marton,F. (1981). Phenomenography:Describingconceptionsof the world aroundus. Instructional
Science, 10, 177-200.
Marton, F., Beaty, E., & Dal'Alba, G. (1993). Conceptions of learning. InternationalJournal of
EducationalResearch, 19, 277-300.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marton,F., & Neuman,D. (1996). Phenomenographyand children'sexperienceof division. In L. P.
Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematicallearning
(pp. 315-334). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understandingand validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(3), 279-300.
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (Eds.). (1989). Affect and mathematicalproblem solving: A new
perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
McLeod, D. B., Carpenter,T. P., McCornack,R. L., & Skvarcius, R. (1978). Cognitive style and
mathematicslearning:The interactionof field independenceand instructionaltreatmentin numeration systems. Journalfor Research in MathematicsEducation,9, 163-174.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Mehan,M. (1985). Structureof classroomdiscourse.In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbookof discourse
analysis (Vol. 3) (pp. 119-131). London:Academic Press.
Mellin-Olsen, S. (1987). Thepolitics of mathematicseducation. Dordrecht:Reidel.
Merton,R. K. (1968). Social theoryand social structure.New York:The Free Press.
Meyer, R. (1995). Servicing-in:An approachto teacherand staff development.TeacherResearch,2
(1), 1-16.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman,A. M. (1990). Animadversionsand reflectionson the uses of qualitative
inquiry.In E.G. Eisner& A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitativeinquiryin education(pp. 339-357). New
York:TeachersCollege Press.
Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mousley, J., & Clements,M. A. (1990). The cultureof mathematicsclassrooms.In M. A. Clements
(Ed.), Whithermathematics?(pp. 397-406). Melbourne:MathematicalAssociation of Victoria.
Mousley, J., Sullivan, P., & Clements, M. A. (1991, July). The perceptions which studentteachers
have of teachingpractices in classroom observed duringfield experience.Paperpresentedat the
annualconference of the MathematicsEducationLecturer'sAssociation, Perth.
References
173
174
References
References
175
176
References
Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld,E., Richards,J., & Cobb, P. (1983). Children'scounting types. New
York:PraegerPublishers.
Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. (1996). On the natureof a model of mathematicallearning.In L. P. Steffe,
P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp.
477-498). Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London:
Heinemann.
Strauss,A. (1987). Qualitativeanalysisfor social scientists.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Strieb,L. (1993). Visitingandrevisitingthe trees.In M. Cochran-Smith& S. L. Lytle (Eds.),Inside/outside: Teacherresearchand knowledge(pp. 121-130). New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Stubbs, M. (1981). Scratchingthe surface:Linguistic data in educationalresearch.In C. Adelman
(Ed.), Uttering,muttering,collecting, using and reportingtalkfor social and educationalresearch
(pp. 114-133). London:GrantMcIntyre.
Svensson, L. (1989). Fenomenografi och kontextuell analys. Phenomenographyand contextual
analysis). In R. Sali (Ed.), Som vi uppfattardet. Elva bidrag om inlmrningoch omvarldsuppfattning (As we see it. Eleven papers on learning and understandingthe world around us) (pp.
33-52). Lund:Studentlitteratur
Svensson, O., Hedenborg, M. L., & Lingman,L. (1976). On children'sheuristicsfor solving simple
additions.ScandinavianJournal of EducationalResearch, 20, 161-173.
Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematicalthinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced
mathematicalthinking(pp. 3-21). Dordrecht:Kluwer.
Teppo, A. R., & Esty, W. W. (1994). Problemsolving using arithmeticand algebraicthinking.In D.
Kirshner(Ed.),Proceedingsof the SixteenthAnnualMeetingof the NorthAmericanChapterof the
InternationalGroupfor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 24-30). BatonRouge, LA:
LouisianaState University.
Teppo, A. R., & Esty, W. W. (1995). Mathematicalcontexts and the perceptionof meaningin algebraic symbols. In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the
SeventeenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of MathematicsEducation(pp. 147-151). Columbus,OH: ERIC Cleaminghousefor
Science, Mathematics,and EnvironmentalEducation.
Tiles, M. (1991). Mathematicsand the image of reason. London:Routledge.
Todarov, T. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin:The dialogical principle. (W. Godzich, Trans.) Minneapolis:
University of MinnesotaPress.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Humanunderstanding,I. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Treffers, A. (1991). Didactical backgroundof a mathematicsprogramfor primaryeducation.In L.
Streefland(Ed.), Mathematicseducationin primaryschool: On the occasion of the opening of the
FreudenthalInstitute.Utrecht:Centerfor Science and MathematicsEducation.
Tymoczko, T. (Ed.). (1986). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics.Boston: Birkhauser.
van Oers, B. (1996). Learningmathematicsas a meaningfulactivity. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P.
Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematicallearning (pp. 91-113). Mahwah,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Vico, G. B. (1858). De antiquissima Italorum sapientia. (Pomodoro, Trans.). Naples: Stamperia
de'Classici Latini. (Originalwork published 1719.)
Vico, G. B. (1961). The new science. (T. G. Bergin & M. H. Fisc, Trans.).GardenCity, NY: Anchor
Books. (Originalwork published 1744.)
von Glasersfeld,E. (1987). Learningas a constructiveactivity. In C. Janvier(Ed), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3-18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
ErlbaumAssociates.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1989). Constructivismin education.In T. Husen (Ed.), Internationalencyclopedia of education (Supplementaryvol., pp. 162-163). Oxford:Pergamon.
von Glaserfeld,E. (1991). Radical constructivismin mathematicseducation. Dordrecht,Kluwer.
von Glasersfeld,E. (1995). Radical constructivism:A way of knowingand learning.London:Falmer
Press.
References
177
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The developmentof the higher psychological processes.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Walkerdine,V. (1988). The masteryof reason. London:Routledge.
Walkerdine,V., & The Girls and MathematicsUnit. (1989). Counting girls out. London: Virago
Press.
Wang, H. (1974). From mathematicsto philosophy. London:Routledge.
Wells, G. (1994). Changingschoolsfrom within: Creatingcommunitiesof inquiry.Toronto:Ontario
Institutefor the Study of Education(OISE).
Werner, H. (1973). Comparativepsychology of mental development. New York: International
Universities Press. (Originalwork published 1940.)
Wilder, R. L. (1981). Mathematicsas a cultural system.Oxford:PergamonPress.
Wittgenstein,L. (1953). Philosophical investigations( G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Wittgenstein,L. (1978). Remarkson thefoundationsof mathematics(rev. ed.). Cambridge,MA: MIT
Press.
Wolcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools. Human
Organisation,34(2), 111-127.
Wolcott, H. (1982). Mirrors,models and monitors:Educatoradaptationsof the ethnographicinnovation. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnographyof schooling: Educationalanthropologyin
action (pp. 68-95). New York: Holt Reinhart& Winston.
Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. London:Ellis Horwood/Tavistock.
Zang, R. (1994). Inferringinternalstrategicproblem representationand its development:A two-year
case study with four elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers
University GraduateSchool of Education,(UniversityMicrofilmsNo. 95-14127).
Zang, R. (1995). Inferringinternalstrategicproblemrepresentationand its development:A two-year
case study with Marcia.In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the
SeventeenthAnnual Meeting of the North American Chapterof the InternationalGroupfor the
Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 199-203). Columbus, OH: ERIC
Clearinghousefor Science, Mathematics,and EnvironmentalEducation.
Zaslavsky, C. (1973). Africa counts. Boston: Prindle,Weber & Schmidt.