beverorm

ee 0G
ee
Book N
o.

ingem

aut
|

~&.

a
| tTT
“TELEPEN. :

Sm ps

“a ‘nat
ee nt
Te
2h
ate ae

Developing Mathematical Triniing.

s

“6
A reader edited by Ann Floyd
of the Open University

A
WY ADDISON-WESLEY PUBLISHERS LIMITED

in association with the OPEN UNIVERSITY PRESS YJ

London ° Reading, Massachusetts * Menlo Park, California °

Amsterdam * Don Mills, Ontario * Manila * Paris ¢
Singapore * Sydney * Tokyo
Published in 1981 for the Open University by
Addison-Wesley Publishers Limited, 53 Bedford Square,
London WC1B 3DZ

Selection of the material and previously ene

material © 1981 The Open University

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the written permission of the publisher.

Set by the Castlefield Press of Northampton

Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd,
Bungay, Suffolk

ISBN2201 10237 4
ABCDEF 8987654321
Chairman Ann Floyd

Leone Burton
Nick James
Roger Lowry
John Mason
Jean Nunn
Tim O’Shea
Michael Peet
Glenna White

Designer Roger Laishley

Secretary Chris Golding

Many other people have also made contributions to the course.

This reader is one part of an Open University integrated teaching system and
thus the selection is related to other material available to students. It is
designed to evoke the critical understanding of students. Opinions expressed in
it are not necessarily those of the course team or of the University.
Contents

Section 1 The historical context

Introduction 5

1 When will they ever learn? 6

Alistair McIntosh
2 Mathematics, its challenge to primary school teachers 12
from 1930 to 1980
Sr Mary Timothy Pinner

Section 2 The contemporary context

Introduction 26
3 Mathematics in primary education for England at
HM Inspectors of Schools
4 Mathematics in secondary education in England 38
HM Inspectors of Schools
5 The mathematical performance of 11 year olds in England 54
and Wales in 1978: the first report from the Assessment
of Performance Unit
D.D. Foxman, M.J. Cresswell, M. Ward, M.E. Badger,
J.A. Tuson and B.A. Bloomfield

Section 3 Developing mathematical thinking

Introduction 68

6 The desire to learn 71

Magaret Donaldson
7 The formation of mathematical concepts 7
Richard Skemp
 egetPT Seyeee

Developing Mathematical Thinking

8 A comparative study of the order of acquisition of the

concepts of weight, area and volume
Eryl Rothwell Hughes
Thinking about problems 117
George Polya
10 The metaphoric mind: the gift of beginning 120°
Bob Samples
11 And now for something different; teaching by not teaching 124
Sandy Dawson and John Trivett
12 Language and cognitive development 135
Dan Slobin
13: ‘Mathematics? I speak it fluently 139
p
h
eS
Seen
a
ee
Para
David Pimm

Section 4 Some particular topics

Introduction “Se
14 Young children’s addition 153
Kathy Hebbeler

: Bs Learning difficulties 162

Herbert Ginsburg
16 Decomposition and all that rot 177
Stuart Plunkett
17 Coping with word problems: observations of 186
V.D. Petrova’s class
Jeremy Kilpatrick (ed.)
18 Learning their tables: a suggested reorientation 193
Alistair McIntosh
19 Taking time out 201
Daphne Kerslake
20 Teaching algebra 205
. David Hale
21 A structural approach to primary school geometry 210
David Fielker
Pip From edges to solids 218.
Marie Kuper and Marion Walter
 =o, onHic and Carole Schior
ra
27 I:Doing, talking and recording with a whole classin a
_ comprehensive school
BesesVertes .

2ations ina comprehensive school

andy Carter
 Acknowledgements

_ The publishers are grateful to the foliowing for their kind permission to reprint
material in this book: Chapters 1 and 18: Alistair McIntosh; Chapters 3, 4 and 5:
The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office; Chapter 6: Fontana Paper-
backs; Chapter 7: Penguin Books Ltd (Copyright © Richard Skemp, 1971);
Chapter 8: Macmillan Education; Chapter 9: Princeton University Press (How to
solve it: Copyright © G. Polya, 1957); John Wiley and Son Inc (Mathematical
Discovery); Chapter 12: Scott, Foresman and Co (Psycholinguistics: Copyright
© Scott, Foresman and Co 1971); Chapter 14: Kathey Hebbeler; Chapter 15:
H. Ginsburg and Van Nostran Reinhold Co Ltd; Chapter 16: The Mathematical
Association; Chapter 17: University of Chicago Press; Chapter 19: Daphne
M. Kerslake; Chapter 21: David Fielker; Chapter 22: Marie Kuper and Marion
Walter; Chapter 23: C.L. Taylor; Chapter 24: Professor A.C. Bajpai.
What is mathematical thinking? A simple answer is that it is what mathematicians
do. But what do they do? Certainly they do not spend their days doing beauti-
fully laid out calculations with never a single mistake, nor in constructing elegant
proofs with never a faltering step. Their time is much more likely to be spent
investigating problems of various kinds, in the course of which they will go up
many a blind alley, following up hunches: it is most unlikely that they will pro-
ceed unerringly to any sort of solution without a single digression. Of course,
mathematicians are more adept investigators than their colleagues with other
specialisms for two main reasons. To begin with, thanks to their extensive ex-
perience of such problems, they are likely to have developed a set of useful tools
in the form of standard procedures which they can use whenever they see the
need. They can readily solve many kinds of equation and perform calculations.
Their second advantage lies in the fact that they have probably learned a great
deal about useful ways of attacking mathematical problems which make them
likely to proceed more quickly.
But the need to investigate and solve mathematical problems is not restricted
to the professional mathematician. The layman needs to solve problems too,
though they may be less mathematically esoteric. He, too, will benefit from
having a set of tools, even if it is a relatively limited set, and from having a
general idea about how to tackle an unfamiliar problem.
Thus in the school years the needs of the future mathematician and his friends
with other interests are much the same: both of them need to develop math-
ematical thinking in the sense described above. This book and the Open University
course of which it is a part are concerned with how this might be achieved.
This view of mathematical thinking as the thinking that is needed to solve
unfamiliar mathematical problems is far from new. Polya put this well, many
years ago:
‘Mathematical know-how is the ability to solve problems — not merely
routine problems but problems requiring some degree of independence,
judgment, originality, creativity.’ (see chapter 6, p. 71)
Yet such mathematical thinking is sadly lacking in many classrooms today. The
1979 report on secondary education includes the statement:
‘There was little feeling that one can puzzle out an approach to fresh
problems without having to be given detailed instructions,’ (see chapter 4,
p.38)
while the first report from the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) based on
a 1978 survey, concludes
Developing Mathematical Thinking
— y
“Most eleven year olds can do maths involving the more fundamental con-
cepts and skills and do simple applications. There is a fairly sharp decline
as understanding is probed more deeply into more comales settings and
unfamiliar contexts.’ (see chapter 5,p. 54)
The situation does not seem to have changed much over the years. The Bch he
comment was made by an HMI in 1895:

‘The accuracy of the work is all that can be desired, and in many cases
marvellous: at the same time the oral test shows that the children are
working in the dark . . . [This] shows itself in the inability . . . to solve
very simple problems.’ (see chapter 1, p. 6)
Difficulty in problem-solving seems to have been with us for some while. This is
attributable to at least two factors. One of these is that the standards by which
the results of mathematics education are judged too often concern only the
children’s facility with tools — multiplication, adding fractions and so on. The
pressure on teachers is predominantly in terms of these. Far less external con-
cern is expressed about children’s problem-solving. The 1979 report on secondary
education, referred to above, puts this clearly:
‘Many schools are not finding it easy to strike an appropriate balance
between the varied demands which are being made on them at the moment.
. The dilemma . . . is accentuated by current demands for “greater
numeracy” because the notion of numeracy is so often ill-defined. In a
great many cases the schools are responding by concentrating narrowly on
computational skills, devoid of context or application, in a way which
easily becomes counter productive. The notion of numeracy should cer-
tainly include more than accurate computation — it should include . . . the
ability to apply knowledge in fresh circumstances.’
The second factor contributing to the difficulties children have with problem-
solving is an uncertainty as to how such mathematical thinking can be developed.
Now in fact a great deal of general advice about teaching mathematics has
been given over the years, and implicit in much of it is the view of mathematical
thinking already described, as well as the means of developing it. Alistair McIntosh
summarises such advice well:

‘Use materials and start from practical activities. Give children problems
and freedom initially to find their own methods of solution. . . Emphasise
and encourage discussion by children.’ (see chapter 1, p. 6)
This book and its associated course wish to make strategies for developing
mathematical thinking much more explicit. The vision is of children working
away with enthusiasm in a great variety of meaningful contexts. Sometimes
there will be open-ended investigations, perhaps of patterns with numbers or
shapes. On other occasions the focus of interest might be one of the four basic
operations of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing; children might be
trying to find quicker ways of adding two digit numbers than simply counting
on one at a time, for example. Yet again the activity might be playing math-
ematical games with each other, or trying to programme a computer. Whatever

Z
 ee

Overview

_ the activity, children will expect there to be comprehensible reasons for what
they do, or for what happens in any set of circumstances. They will question
each other, their teachers, and themselves. Whenever it is helpful they will make
a record of their actions and the reasons governing them, as well as any con-
clusions they draw.
The essence of this approach is captured in the phrase ‘do, talk and record’,
first used by Nick James, now a member of the course team, but then an advisory
teacher. Children do all manner of activities, talk about them with each other
and their teachers, and record some of what happens.
The sceptic might be forgiven for remarking that such an approach might
work very well with a small group of well-motivated children, but with a class of
thirty or more it is a recipe for deafening chaos in which little productive work
ever gets done. The same sceptic might well comment that this approach to
developing mathematical thinking might be a good idea now and then, but that a
great deal of other time would have to be spent in developing mathematical
tools, which would, he was sure, require a completely different approach. He
might be persuaded that the tools could be developed as a natural spin-off by
the following anecdote from one of those case studies.
Two practising teachers, Deryn Harvey and Carole Senior, describe in chapter
26 how a group of children were working together on sharing counters equally
between a group of people. The idea of dealing them out one by one, like a pack
of cards, came naturally enough, and the process was soon speeded up when
someone suggested that it would be quicker to deal the counters out three at a
time. The other children could see the sense of this, and the group continued to
do this for a while until one of them, Stephen, claimed to have a much quicker
method for the current problem involving 72 counters and 6 people. This was to
give each person 10, leaving 12 over, so that there would be 2 more for each
person. Stephen had to. convince the group that this really worked, and when
they all adopted the same method, this led naturally, without any mystifying
sleight of hand, to the conventional method of doing division. Through exploring
ways of sharing out counters ‘fairly’ these children had acquired one of the
standard tools in the school curriculum. But this was not all they gained from
the experience, for it had also involved them in exploring problems for them-
selves. Furthermore, the arithmetic made sense — they understood it.
One enormous advantage of teaching mathematics in this way is that child-
ren do actually enjoy tackling problems, as long as they present attainable
challenges: they will engage in such activity for its own intrinsic satisfaction, as
Margaret Donaldson suggests in chapter 6. Furthermore they engage in math-
ematical problems quite spontaneously and often find solutions quite independ-
ently. Kathy Hebbeler, in chapter 14, describes the ease with which many pre-
school children can solve addition problems, given a practical context. Herbert
Ginsburg, in chapter 15 describes his analysis of the difficulties two nine year
olds and two eleven year olds were having with formal arithmetic. He found
that they all had evolved quite viable methods of their own which were quite
adequate in most circumstances. The trouble was that their informal methods

‘3
 ie
4

Developing Mathematical Thinking a

bore little relation to the conventional formal methods they were expected to
be using. In chapter 10, Bob Samples describes the enthusiasm with which child-
ren explored a set of pendulums, and Christine Billinge describes in chapter 23 -
how her pupils were absorbed in investigating a variety of geometric patterns,
often finding their own original ways of expressing these.
This book then puts forward the view that mathematical thinking will be
developed most effectively by involving learners in a wide range of manageable
challenges; in some cases the creativity will lie in the means of solution, as in
individual methods of doing calculations, and in other cases the creativity will lie
in both means and ends, as in more open-ended investigations of patterns. Its
five sections consider this from different perspectives. .
Section 1 sets the historical scene: its two chapters draw heavily upon quota-
tions from a wide range of past documents, concerning both what it was felt
mathematics education should be and what it in fact was.
Section 2 amplifies this by drawing a much fuller contemporary picture,
including extracts from two recent reports from the Inspectorate, and the first
report from the Assessment of Performance Unit.
Section 3 explores the nature of mathematical thinking described above in
more detail and depth. Some of its chapters are a psychological background for
doing, talking and recording. Others explore aspects of the approach more fully.
One key theme is the use of language in the mathematics classroom: if children
and teachers are to discuss mathematical ideas with each other, some thought
needs to be given to what is involved in communicating such ideas.
Section 4 is a collection of writings about particular mathematical topics
such as addition, tables, algebra, geometry, and word problems.
Section 5 is four accounts, by practising teachers, of what is involved in
developing mathematical thinking in this investigating, problem-solving and
discussing manner when there are thirty or more children to be considered.
They all feel it can be done, though they do not minimize the initial difficulties.
Introduction
When faced with a contemporary challenge, it would be wise to find out whether
past experience might not provide some useful insights. Certainly it has been said
more than once that mathematical education was more satisfactory in the past
than it currently is. If that is indeed true, then perhaps we should find out why
and thus discover a means of improving the present situation.
The two articles in this section follow this line of enquiry. Between them
they span a wide range of reports from the Inspectorate, specially appointed
commissions, and a few other sources; they look back over the last hundred ©
years or more, thus including the entire period of universal elementary education.
Both articles are primarily collections of quotations with commentaries.
In chapter 1, Alistair McIntosh concludes that the general state of affairs has
changed remarkably little; he can find no conclusive evidence that there was ever
a period when the situation was markedly better. Furthermore he maintains that
there have been few, if any, new insights into more effective ways of developing
mathematical thinking.
In his view the real problem is not deciding on the best advice to give, but in
ensuring ‘its translation into accepted and practical terms’. However, as the
nature of the advice is to use practical activities, allow children to discuss and
argue, and to find methods for themselves, the demands on teachers are consider-
able. Chapter 2, by Sister Mary Timothy Pinner, is much concerned with this. She
maintains that from the teacher’s point of view, things have in fact changed con-
siderably over the last fifty years, and that much more time and space is needed
to enable teachers to cope with the challenge posed by the need to develop a
rationale for their actions when faced with an explosion of curriculum materials
of all kinds. She would like to see a situation in which groups of teachers investi-
gate these challenges together. Ifit is a good thing to allow and encourage children
to tackle problems collectively, then teachers should be enabled to do the same.
1 When will they ever learn?
Alistair McIntosh
Source: Forum, vol. 19, no. 3, summer 1977

There are a great many things I want to say about primary mathematics: but
some may not be true, in which case they will confuse the issue, and others may
indeed be true, which will only confuse the issue even more.
However I can start from certain assumptions.

1 Most people are aware that there is a great debate going on.
2 Most people are not aware that it has been going on for over a hundred years.
3 At least as much sense (and nonsense) was being talked then as now.
4 It may help to give some glimpses of the historical perspective.
What follows then is largely a collection of quotations from the past 150 years
of debate about mathematical education at primary level. The bases for selection
were that I had read them (though much is excluded), had found them stimulat-
ing, and believe them relevant. I admit to a certain malicious glee at the sure
knowledge that some will misconstrue my personal attitude to certain of the
extracts. They will read approval where there is none, and disapproval where I
registered agreement.
So my preface will end with another assumption.

5 It is more important that people should think than that they should think
what I think.
‘Standards of instruction to allow a school to be certified as efficient
(1876/7)
50 per cent of those above 7 years will be individually examined (in
reading, writing and arithmetic). One half of the children examined ought
to pass in two subjects. One half of the children so passing ought to pass
in arithmetic.
7—8 years: | Form on blackboard or slate from dictation, figures up to
20. Name at sight figures up to 20. Add and subtract figures
up to 10: orally from examples on the blackboard.
8—10 years: Simple addition and subtraction of numbers of not more
than 4 figures: multiplication tables to 6 X 12.
 When will they ever learn?

10+ years: The four simple rules to short division (inclusive).’

(Report of the Committee of Council on Education, 1876/7)
The new code of 1877 set standards for payment by results in elementary
schools.
Standard I was intended for 7 year olds.

“Addition and subtraction of numbers of not more than 4 figures. Multi-

plication tables 6 X 12.’

In 1875, 11 per cent of children aged 10 and over were still in Standard 1. In
that year only 60 per cent of Standard 1 children examined in the East Midlands
passed.

“We set four sums for each standard and a child earns the grant, as a rule,
when two are right.’

How well did they retain this knowledge, drilled into them in Standard I, when,
four or so years later, they were in Standard V?

‘In a class of 58 children in Standard V, only 11 could encounter with

success the difficulties of a sum in simple addition. (1879)
( 62 ae cent of Standard V children took 1 from 10000 correctly.
c. 1910)
Comments by HMIs of the time:

‘I must confess to some surprise at the extremely poor result in arith-

metic. (Kent and Sussex 1875)
If children fail in other subjects they fail more often here (in arithmetic).
It is a subject which seems beyond the comprehension of the rural mind.
In arithmetic, I regret to say worse results than ever before have been
obtained — this is partly attributable, no doubt, to my having so framed
my sums as to require rather more intelligence than before: the failures are
almost invariably traceable to radically imperfect teaching. (Stafford and
Derby, 1876)
The failures in arithmetic are mainly due to the scarcity of good teachers
of it. (Devon 1876)
Ask a pupil—teacher how he can tell by simple inspection that 1980
contains the numbers (i.e., is divisible by) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11; the
pupil—teacher gasps for breath, and the head-master hides in the classroom.
(1896)
The accuracy of the work in Standards I and II is all that can be desired,
and in many cases marvellous: at the same time the oral test shows that
the children are working in the dark. In these standards, at least, far too
much time is given to the mechanical part of the subject. The result of this
unintelligent teaching shows itself in the inability of the upper standards
to solve very simple problems. (1895)
There is a prevailing opinion that the London elementary school child-
ren of today are slower and less accurate in computation than they were
ten years ago/I have searched for evidence in support of this contention,
but have failed to find it. I am, therefore, inclined to relegate the belief
to that group of opinions which have reference to the annual deterioration
of Academy pictures, the increasing degeneracy of each new generation of

7
Developing Mathematical Thinking

men, and other palpable fictions. But even if there has been a slight ios of
accuracy, there has been a great gain in intelligence; and intelligence iis an
equipment incomparably more valuable than facility in calculation.’
(Board of Education, Special Reports on Educational Subjects, vol. 26,
p. 16, 1912.)
‘It is the experience of many good teachers that . . . it is found to be
unnecessary before ihe sixth year is passed . . . to do any formal Arith-
metic on slates.’
(Reports, 1895/6)
‘The conscious teaching then of number, as of other definite lines of
thought, is to be begun in the classroom with a pupil whose age is not less
than six years.’
(Board of Education, op. cit. p. 61, 1912)
‘Instruction in many primary schools continues to bewilder children
because it outruns their experience. Even in infant schools, where innova-
tion has gone furthest, time is sometimes wasted in teaching written “sums”
before children are able to understand what they are doing. The NCDS
Survey shows that 17 per cent of children start doing sums in infant schools
before the age of 54.
(Plowden, Children and their Primary Schools, p. 196, 1966.)
‘There was no evidence that the amount of formal number knowledge
attempted in the infants department bore any relation to attainment later
on in the junior school.’
(Biggs, Mathematics and the Conditions of Learning, NFER, p. 267, 1967.)
‘Recent statistical research (carried out by the Committee of Seven of
the Northern Illinois Conference on Supervision) points to the probability
that in our traditional curricula we teach the rules of arithmetic much too
early and that great waste of time and effort on the part of both pupil and
teacher could be avoided by deferring for some years instruction in such
rules as long division. (Among the many striking results of the Committee’s
inquiries is the discovery that the optimum mental age for beginning to
learn long division is 12 years 7 months).’
(E.M. Renwick, The Case Against Arithmetic, 1935)
‘In general we feel that the results show that teachers of first year
secondary school children should not, except in the case of very bright
children, take their understanding of multiplication and division for granted?
nee Brown, in Mathematics in School, vol. 6 no. 1, p. 10, January
1977:
‘If a child be requested to divide a number of apples among a certain
number of persons, he will contrive a way to do it, and will tell how many
each must have. The method which children take to do these things, though
always correct, is not always the most expeditious. . . To succeed it is
necessary rather to furnish occasions for them to exercise their own skill in
performing examples rather than to give them rules. They should be allowed
to pursue their own method first, and then should be made to observe and
explain it; and if it were not the best, some improvement should be
suggested.
Examples of any kind upon practical numbers are of very little use,
until the learner has discovered the principle from practical examples.
 When will they ever learn?

When the pupil learns by means of abstract examples, it very, seldom hap-
pens that he understands a practical example the better for it; because he
does not discover the connexion until he has performed several practical
examples, and begins to generalise them.’
(Intellectual Arithmetic, by a teacher of youth, pIV, 1840)

“One general point we noticed throughout the interviewing (with 10—12

year olds) was that almost all children could produce successful strategies
{ for solving problems, even when they did not recognise the operations
involved.’
csae Brown, in Mathematics in School, vol. 5 no. 5, p. 16, November
1976.

‘A footnote to Schedule I requires you (i.e., HMI) to satisfy yourself

that the reasons of arithmetical processes have been properly explained
and understood. This is a department of school work which has been much
overlooked. . . It is therefore desirable that you should very frequently
ask the teacher of the class to give a demonstration lesson on the subject;
and he should so work out an example on the blackboard as to make the
reason for every step of the process intelligible and interesting to the
scholars. You should point out that no instruction in the rules of arithmetic
can be really valuable unless the process has been made visible to the
scholars by numerous concrete examples, by actual weighing and measur-
ing, by transactions with real coins. . . When children obtain answers to
sums and problems by mere mechanical routine, without knowing why
they use the rule . . . they cannot be said to have been well versed in
arithmetic.’
(Reports, 1895)

The Hadow Report on The Primary School (1931) is a document of unresolved

conflict. Its brilliant vision of the primary school in general terms clashes sharply
with the sometimes reactionary observations on arithmetic.

‘The criterion (of the Junior School) must above all be the requirements
of its pupils during the years when they are in its charge, not the exigencies
of examinations or the demands of the schools and occupations which
they will eventually enter it wilbest serve their future by a single-minded
devotion to their needs in the present, and the question which most con-
cerns it is not what children should be . . . but what, in actual fact, children
are. (p. xiv)
It must remain important to emphasize the principle that no good can
come from teaching children things that have no immediate use for them,
however highly their potential or prospective value may be eames 7
p. 73
The curriculum is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience
rather than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored.
(p. 75)
We believe that arithmetic in the primary school should mainly be
concerned with the fundamental processes or “rules’’. (p. 140)
It is common knowledge that abstract numbers present no difficulties
to children. (p. 140)
It is not reasonable to expect a child in the primary school to justify
the process he employs, say, in subtraction.’ | (p. 141)

2
 ST Se yeas ee ee ee ae
: . ie
[ ip i :. *

Oe
pi
Developing Mathematical Thinking ¥
“

Curriculum Bulletin No. 1: Mathematics in Primary Schools (1965) and The

Plowden Report (1966) can be considered together. The one strongly influenced
the other. Both make assertions which are impressive, but not quite convincing.
Curriculum Bulletin No. 1 is a much stronger document for mathematics: but
Plowden contains some toughness which is often overlooked.

‘(There is) unchallengeable evidence that sound and lasting learning can
be achieved only through active participation. (Curr. Bull. p. xi)
Although discovery methods take longer in the initial stages (between
the ages of 5 and 8 or 9) far less practice is required to obtain and main-
tain efficiency in computation when children have been enabled to make
their own discoveries. : (Curr. Bull. p. xi)
When children explore for themselves they make discoveries which they
want to communicate to their teacher and to other children and this results
in frequent discussion. It is this changed relationship which is the most
important development of all. (Curr. Bull. p. 1)
Instead of being presented with ready made problems in a textbook the
children find their own problems or are given them in a “new form”.
(Plowden, p. 237)
There is ample evidence that many of the claims for the new approach
(to mathematics) are well founded.’ (Plowden, p. 238)

The Report makes five suggestions for evaluating children’s progress:

‘1 Objective testing within schools.
2 Primary schools should hear regularly from secondary schools how their
children compare over a period with children from other schools.
3 HMI should help teachers to know what to expect from children in the
circumstances of their neighbourhood.
4 Surveys of the quality of primary schools by HMI at regular intervals.
5 Recurring national surveys of attainment. (from pp. 201—2)
The new approach . . . has not removed the necessity for a very care-
fully thought out scheme of work in junior schools, for careful individual
records of progress, for practice in computation and for accuracy.’
(Plowden, pp. 237—238)

Bennett’s Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress is critically examined by Gray and
Satterly in Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 1. They conclude that, at best,
no valid conclusions can be reached on the basis of the published evidence. He
has failed adequately to control for external factors such as the eleven-plus, the
research design has serious flaws, and the statistical and educational significance
he attaches to his results is both exaggerated and one-sided. Two relatively minor
instances are given here:

‘A possibly inconvenient result showing that high-achieving boys in in-

formal classes do very well indeed in mathematics is, apparently, “difficult
to interpret since this group contains only four boys and is thus unlikely
to be reliable”. (p. 92). This is a perfectly proper caution. It comes as a
considerable surprise, therefore, to find in the very next sentence that
Bennett’s interpretation requires our acceptance as reliable of a result
based on only three girls in formal classrooms. (Gray, p. 50)
It could of course be argued that the sample studied is not representative

10
 When will they ever learn?
of primary teachers as a whole. This may be true, but the HMI study of
teaching practices, contained in the Plowden Report, found little regional
variation (Bennett, p. 54)
_ The various categories were far from being evenly spread over the areas
of different authorities.’ (Plowden, p. 102)
The fact is that Bennett makes a number of sensible and useful comments and is
worth reading provided that one accepts only those assertions and opinions for
which intelligible and corroberative statistics are given.
‘It is surely time to ignore the rhetoric which would have us believe that
informal methods are pernicious and permissive. (Bennett, p. 163)
The central factor emerging from this study is that a degree of teacher
direction is necessary.’ (Bennett, p. 162)

Postscript
Sixty to one hundred years ago, steps for the improvement of primary math-
ematics were being advocated. They included, as we have seen:

1 Don’t start formal work too early.

2 Use materials and start from practical activities.
3 Give children problems and freedom initially to find their own methods of
solution.
4 Children must have particular examples from which to generalise.
5 Go for relevance and the involvement of the child.
6 Go for reasons and understanding of processes. Never give mechanical rules.
7 Emphasize and encourage discussion by children.
8 Follow understanding with practice and applications.
It is doubtful if one child in a million has received a mathematical education
consistently following these principles at every stage. Recent reports, and recent
research, have done little more than expand on these rather aged methods,
currently called ‘progressive’.
Like Ballard in 1912, I can find no evidence that standards are falling. What
should concern us far more is why the lessons of sixty years ago, consistently
advocated and upheld since then, have not yet extensively been put into practice.
The aims are almost universally agreed in principle: their translation into accepted
and practical terms for the majority of primary teachers has not yet come about.
The current outcry is against a revolution which has not yet happened. If we
take, not a timid and unnecessary step back, but this belated and modest step
forward, I am prepared to believe that standards would rise.

11
_ 2 Mathematics: its challenge to
primary school teachers from
1930 to 1980
Sr Mary Timothy Pinner
Source: specially written for this volume

Introduction
‘It is more important that people should think than that they should think
what I think.’ (McIntosh, see chapter 1, p. 6)
There have been so many challenges placed before primary school teachers in the
last few decades that it would not be surprising if they had given up thinking.
These challenges may be viewed in the context of general educational trends in
which three broad stages may be identified (Taylor, 1978):

Before the 1960s Although some reorganisation of school structures is apparent

and there is evidence of the introduction of some progressive ideas into primary
school, there was really little change in the technology of teaching.

During the 1960s These were years of unparalleled expansion at all levels. There
was express interest in innovation both in content and in method and numerical
growth provided expanding resources which resulted in new projects, programmes,
journals and numerous conferences and meetings. Developing sociology and
psychology provided background theory. However, many of these influences
came from outside the school.

During the 1970s This was a time of steady state after expansion and before
contraction. The emphasis began to centre on the teacher as the organiser of
teaching resources and as a school-based curriculum designer.

In addition, teaching had become a much less private activity both within a
school, namely, team teaching and more open classrooms, and outside the school,
namely cooperation with social workers and the demands for accountability and
standards.
Since it is useful to consider changes in mathematical education in the context
of changes in primary education, and since, for various historical reasons, it
seems appropriate to consider the first stage mentioned above in two parts,

12
 Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

pre- and post-1950, the following plan has been adopted for analysing the
challenges facing teachers:
1 1930-1950: providing some educational and mathematical background to
the later years of major change.
2 Primary education 1950—1980: exploring some developments and public-
ations and their relationship to the three broad stages in educational trends.
3 Mathematics 1950—1980: exploring developments and publications in mathe-
matical education and their relationship to the three stages and to general
primary education changes.

1930—1950
The deliberations of these two decades, although inevitably interrupted by the
war years, prepared the way for the developments and publications of the later
years both in relation to primary education and mathematics. It is also import-
ant to remember that the implementation of the 1944 Education Act provided
the environment in which the primary school curriculum could be developed.
However, before that the Consultative Committee on the Primary School, chaired
by Sir William Hadow, had challenged some of the traditional curriculum patterns
in its report presented in 1931:

‘The traditional view, still widely held, that memory is especially strong in
young children and that the primary stage is pre-eminently the time for a
great deal of routine work, requires large qualification. Reliance should be
placed at this stage not only on mechanical memory, but also on that
aspect of memory which is assisted by reasoning and understanding . . . the
power of reasoning in children between the ages of 7 and 11 appears to be
more highly developed than is generally supposed.
We are of the opinion that the curriculum of the primary school is to be
thought of in terms of activity and experience rather than knowledge to be
acquired and facts to be stored.
The traditional practice of dividing the matter of primary instruction
into separate “subjects” should be reconsidered. The treatment of a series
of central topics . . . may be a useful alternative . . . it is however essential
that adequate drill be provided in . . . arithmetic.’
(Recommendations 19—34)
These recommendations required the teacher to relate the organisation of teach-
ing situations to the learning needs of the pupils; individual work and group
activity were to be combined with traditional class teaching. However, although
the heavy responsibility imposed on the teacher to be imaginative, adaptable and
creative was recognised, the support needed by the teacher was not yet fully
appreciated, since the main suggestions for help related to material facilities
(buildings, class size, etc.) and initial training (three years rather than two being
suggested). The importance of in-service support became apparent later as the
implications of the new ideas emerged.
References to mathematics in the report were very brief, only half a paragraph
in conjunction with science (which is mentioned first) being included in the

13
Developing Mathematical Thinking

main sections. The emphasis was consistently on content, even in the appendix,
‘Suggestions for teaching the various branches of the curriculum’. Some extracts
are revealing: since they indicated that a synthesis between the child centred/
experience theme of the general curriculum and the content of the arithmetic
syllabus had still to be more fully explored:
‘Arithmetic should mainly be concerned with the fundamental processes or
“rules”. The chief problem for the teacher is how to secure a thorough
mastery of these basic operations without devoting too much time to them
. the fundamental operations belong to the abstract side of mathematics
and are most simply and effectively dealt with in the abstract a+, any dis-
cussion as to the way processes should be taught may be left to the numer-
ous text books on method . . . but the knowledge (of how a process works)
is no substitute for rote knowledge (of the facts).. . however . .. increasing
attention should be paid to the application of arithmetic to matters in the
children’s environment . . . money, shape, size, weight.’ (pp. 175—182)
Computational accuracy and practical exploration were both advocated but the
reader is left with a sense of unresolved tension between these aims. Perhaps this
is one of the reasons why the Mathematical Association took so long to produce
its first Primary report (1955), which, by its own admission, was the outcome of
many deliberations. Three separate committees were established (1938, 1946,
1950), although some continuity was maintained since two people served on all
three and the unpublished scripts of earlier deliberations were always available
for consultation. The reasons for the delay in publication are instructive. The
war interfered with meetings of the first committee, though it had already em-
barked on its task of considering the teaching of mathematics to children under
eleven when war was declared. It had concentrated its attention on the content
of a Junior school syllabus, enquiring into current practice and preparing a detailed
arithmetic programme for discussion. The second committee, appointed for four
years, ran out of time. This is not surprising since it listened with great sensitivity
to the challenge of its time:
. it did not share the belief of its predecessor that a curriculum should
be drawn up prescribing the mathematics to be taught at each stage of the
primary years. Instead, the members discussed children’s approach to
number through play and the use of apparatus; much time was spent grad-
ing the steps of a new process and considering the apparatus through which
it should be learnt. This led to deeper inquiries into the nature of the pro-
cesses themselves and further questioning of the nature of children’s math-
ematical development.’ (Preamble p. v)
In the light of this accumulated wisdom and experience, the third committee
presented their own formulation of a small body of principles for teaching
mathematics at primary level. These principles will be more fully discussed in
a later section.
The Hadow report had recommended a child-centred curriculum; subsequent
decades presented a developing theory of psychology and more mathematical
content for integration into this curriculum. The accident of war and the courage
of a group prepared to ‘hasten slowly’ provided time for growth. Time and space

14
 Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

are essential for growth and maturation for children and educators. But, by 1950,
the input of theory and content had only just begun; the challenge of change
and the need for time and space to reflect and make decisions were to be key
themes in the next three decades.

Primary education 1950—1980

The three stages mentioned in the introduction are reflected in both the timing
and the content of three primary school reports published in these decades:

1 Primary Education, Ministry of Education, 1959.

2 Children and their Primary Schools, Plowden Report, 1967.
3 Primary Education in England, DES, 1978.

The first of these took up themes explored previously:

‘The report (Primary school 1931) emphasises that . . . the curriculum
is to be thought of in terms of activity and experience rather than know-
ledge to be acquired and facts to be stored.’ (p. 7)
It then asked teachers to give more critical consideration to the quality and sub-
stance of what children are asked to learn. The structure of the primary school
and the fields of learning it presents were considered in detail, but one theme
about the teachers’ role begins to emerge: their responsibility for informed choice.

‘The arrangement of the room (for infants) and the uses to which the
equipment is put are the teacher’s responsibility . . . equipment and
materials will fail in their purpose unless through them the children learn
effectively and learn what is of value. Whether or not they do this depends
largely on the teacher’s power to think ahead and organise. It is a pity
there has been so much misunderstanding about what is called “activity”
. . . the teacher’s responsibility for what is offered to the children. .
for the maintenance of good standards of performance is in no way
diminished. . . .
... the different parts of education are closely interwoven . . . but not
all haphazard and without plan . . . the whole kept steady by records of
general and individual achievement.
School schemes . . . provide a framework within which the individual
teacher can make adjustments and adaptations . . . they have to be con-
stantly under review and checked against the teachers’ experience and
their records of what has been profitable and valuable to do.’
(pp. 45, 52, 61, 97)
This role of responsibility was outlined in general and then elaborated in relation
to particular subjects. Some of the mathematical references are cited here because
they indicate trends which will recur in later documents.
‘All apparatus used should have a purpose which the teacher clearly
understands even if the children do not.
Teachers must carefully consider mathematical ideas and relations or
they cannot see the structure of the knowledge they wish children to have
or diagnose a child’s difficulties.

15
 Y

Developing Mathematical Thinking

Cooperation between teachers .. . to preserve continuity of teaching of

mathematics; discussion of how children have learned, their achievement
of ideas and processes, what they have not done . ... meetings are [essential
to communicate] the knowledge and judgement of the previous teacher
(which is more reliable than testing).’ (pp. 191, 196, 201)
Activity with a purpose can only be achieved by the teacher’s planning, coordin-
ating and cooperating, so that the child’s individual progress is assured. The
import of the teacher’s role in the child’s development was even more clearly
spelt out in the Plowden report (1967) where, after discussing the structure of
primary education and the children in the school, a section on the adults in the
school began with the statement:
‘In every section of our report we have been forced back to the teacher’s
role and its importance,’ (§873)
and immediately this role was set in the context of the child:

‘Our study of child development has emphasised the importance of matur-

ation in learning. The corollary is not to make the teacher’s role passive
but to underline the importance of diagnosing children’s needs and poten-
tialities. (§874)
Similarly, as we have surveyed the ways children learn, the demands
made on teachers are frighteningly high. . . . the teacher who used to give a
set lesson could manage on a little knowledge and use it over and over
again. Far more knowledge about subject matter and how children learn is
called for in teachers who continually have to exercise judgement, to think
on their feet . . . they have to select an environment which will lead to use-
ful discovery .. . to lead from behind.’ (§875)

But the report continued by elaborating on the varying forms of on-going support
for teachers, presenting in-service education as a challenge and a responsibility:

‘The unique freedom of English schools is defensible only if teachers prove

themselves equipped to meet its demands. Initial training is no more than a
basis. In-service training a necessary superstructure.’ (§1013)

Noting the place and purpose of school-based support:

‘There is an important place for both informal consultation and more

formal discussion among staff as a whole . . . staff meetings should be held
regularly and there should be a central theme for discussion of which ad-
vance notice has been given.
Now that the primary curriculum is being widened it is increasingly
difficult for them [heads] to keep up to date with all developments and it
is sensible that they should invite the help of assistant teachers in preparing
schemes, in giving advice to their colleagues and in selecting books, materials
and equipment.
(But) support from within is not enough. . .
We have been impressed by the work of advisory teachers . . . who con-
centrate on help for teachers . . . much of their time being spent teaching
in a classroom.’ (§ §933, 934, 946)
Noting also the available external structures:

16
 Le le Yen:— i ernw
-
"et

Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

‘One term courses provide a flexible means of meeting changing needs,

giving teachers time to become familiar with new content and methods
and to try out experiments free from day to day teaching responsibility.
National courses can make new findings known . . . those who attend
them can help local courses . . . in their home area.
Local courses ought to start from a knowledge of what local teachers
are doing; they can provide opportunities for teachers to meet others...
the work done on courses can be followed up in teachers’ groups or in
schools. The diffident can be encouraged to break new ground but not so
hastily that disheartenment is the outcome.
Residential courses have a value of their own . . . in local centres equip-
ment and materials can be tried out and discussed and ideas gained at
residential courses can be appraised after being tested in schools . . . In
rural areas the follow up is best provided by meetings in different schools
. . with advisory teachers.’ (§1017—1020)
The challenges of change were not merely listed but the means for their dynamic
implementation were outlined:

*,.. the future will depend on the extent to which we can produce teachers
with the necessary knowledge and understanding to use and improve the
material made available to them... .
This slow building up of teachers . . . is perhaps the most difficult and
rewarding aspect of in-service education.’ (§ 1019)
The third report (1978), surveying primary education, evaluated the education
of a representative sample of children at certain stages in the primary school.
The main issues centred round the curriculum, its effectiveness for children
and its implementation by teachers. The survey presented teachers with facts
about children’s observed achievement in varying organisation situations and
noted both persistent difficulties and methods being used to solve them, diffi-
culties relating to learning and teaching. Some of the mathematical references
contained more detailed comment on trends already noted in the earlier reports:
‘Even when the curriculum is clearly defined and priorities are agreed upon,
the range of work and the range of pupils presents a formidable challenge
to the knowledge and skill of an individual teacher.’ (§840)
How could this challenge be met?
‘Some schools already adopt forms of cooperative or team teaching which
allows teachers to work from their strengths.
If a teacher is only a little unsure, guidance from a specialist may be
enough. . . in some cases a specialist may have to take full responsibility
for aclass . . . but the class teacher is best placed to coordinate their whole
programme’. (§842—844)
But:
‘The great majority of teachers with posts of special responsibility have
little influence on the work of other teachers . . . they need time to per-
form their duties, (§845)
which include having:

17
 oe

Developimg Mathematical Thinking

‘. . . to draw up schemes of work, give guidance and support to other staff.
. . . be responsible for procurement of resources, develop means of assessing
the effectiveness of the guidance and resources they provide, visit other
classes .. . and keep up to date.’ ($846)
And finally the survey elaborated not merely the need for in-service education or
its possible patterns, but its specific aims, pointing to two major functions:
‘1 Positive staff development based on the strengths of the individual, —
2 Raising the expectations which teachers have of children and so achiev-
ing a clearer definition of the curriculum.’ (§865)
Or, in even more detail:

‘Courses should enable teachers to understand the nature of these skills

(mathematical and others) and how to teach them in a context which relates
to the rest of the school work and the real world in which children live.
. . . helping teachers to assess children’s capabilities . . . by observing
their work and by diagnostic tests . . .
‘ .. . becoming familiar with a range of teaching techniques, to under-
stand the advantages and disadvantages of each, and choose what is im-
mediately best . . . a choice taking account of the teacher’s strengths .. .
[for] a technique beyond a teacher’s operational skill will be inefficient.’
(§856—861)
These reports, then, present a series of educational challenges to teachers:
‘How to organise learning activities/experiences for children.
How to organise learning activities for individual children.
How to organise progressive learning activities for individual children.
How best personally to organise progressive learning activities for individual
children.
How to collaborate with colleagues in organising.’

Mathematics 1950—1980
The three stages mentioned in the introduction are again reflected in the publica-
tions relating to mathematics:
Before 1960s: Teaching of Mathematics in Primary Schools, Mathemati-
cal Association, 1955.
During 1960s: Mathematics in Primary Schools, Schools Council and
HMSO, 1965.
Primary Mathematics — a Further Report, Mathematical
Association, 1970.
During 1970s: |Mathematics 5 — 11, HMI discussion series, 1978.
However, two dimensions of change and their inter-relationship must be con-
sidered in this section. They are both mentioned in the Mathematical Association
report (1955) cited above: curriculum content and the learning processes. The
report considered both aspects, stating that:
‘The aim of primary teaching is the laying of a foundation of mathematical
thinking about the numerical and spatial aspects of the objects and activities
which children of this age encounter’ (p. v)

18
 i Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

- But the emphasis of the report was on children and their learning:

‘Children developing at their own individual rates learn through their

active response to the experiences which come to them; through construc-
tive play, experiment and discussion children become aware of relationships
and develop mental structures which are mathematical in form and are the
only sound basis for mathematical techniques.’ (p. v)
Two aspects of understanding were considered important:
‘the teacher’s understanding of how children learn,
the child’s understanding of concepts’

and both of these present challenges to the teacher not merely at an organisational
level but also in terms of justifying the approaches employed. The report’s three-
fold analysis of ideas about mathematics in primary schools highlighted the
levels of understanding required by the teacher:

‘1 the interaction between a child’s mind and the concrete situations of

his environment, i.e. the substance of his experience,
2 the growth of mind and mental powers as they are exhibited in the
child’s growth towards mathematical thinking,
3 the mathematical ideas themselves and their development and inter-
relation.’ (§1.0)
Activity and experience, as advocated by the primary reports, is now related to
mathematics and this clearly places additional demands on teachers to under-
stand both mathematics and mathematical thinking. The report attempted to
give some ideas about teaching approaches discussing children at different stages;
it also notes some pitfalls and challenges for the teacher:
‘Chronological age is not of itself a test for readiness for a new process.
(§ 1.11)
Sprinkling apparatus about the classroom and leaving the rest to the child-
ren ... does not of itself provide rich experience.
A child’s experience is total, mathematics is part of it and can only be
isolated in the mind of the teacher. . (§2.11)
In topic projects . . . teachers need to foresee the enquiries children will
make and offer materials to evoke further experiment . . . much of the
help the teacher will have to give will be individual and will make demands
. . never met in class teaching. (§2.93, 2.95)
In group work it is assumed that the teacher can ascertain the child’s rate
of progress. . . . in testing it is necessary to go behind and beneath the
superficial response . . . to investigate the underlying mental activity.
. .. a true test of mastery of a mathematical principle or process is an
ability to apply it to a new situation. . . . testing is a continuous process
bound up naturally with the process of learning. . . . it is a daunting task
relating to each individual. (§5.2, 5.22)
There is a quantity of apparatus on the market and teachers need to exa-
mine it critically before adopting it. . . the criterion is whether children
in fact learn from it and this can-only be decided by the teacher after
observation.’ (§6.61)
These comments match almost exactly the list of concerns noted in Primary

19
Developing Mathematical Thinking

Education (1959) both generally and mathematically. Some guidance was given
to teachers about ‘activity’ teaching for specific topics but the summary of
research on mathematics teaching was mainly related to arithmetic and showed
that teachers too lacked experience and activity of their own on which to reflect.
However, Mathematics in Schools (1966) showed that thinking and activity were
taking place. It provided an illustrated account of both children and teachers
exploring mathematics, indicating in considerable detail the type of activity
which was being undertaken in classrooms, schools and teachers’ centres at this
time. This experience was the background to the second Mathematical Asso-
ciation report in which there was much more conscious awareness of the changes
teachers were having to face: ;
1 mathematical education rather than arithmetic techniques,
2 understanding and developing a child’s mathematical learning,
3 new ideas in mathematical content requiring both personal understanding
and the development of appropriate teaching methods.
This report was keenly aware of the changes not merely in relation to the child
but also in relation to the teacher and so (as in the Plowden report) the emphasis
was shifted from the child’s activity to the teachers’ professional development.
Changes in the classroom were continually related to developing understanding,
to organisation, and to subject content:
‘The things a child says and does . . . are to the discerning teacher sightings
by which to assess progress along the path of understanding. Much of the
research into stages of developing understanding is based on observation
. . . (so, too) the teachers’ opportunity to recognise understanding arises
from discussion (between teacher and children) . . . (also) children derive
insight and understanding from active experience; opportunities to describe,
discuss or depict what they have been doing provide the means by which
this can be brought about. Teachers have a dual role to play . . . by under-
standing children’s capabilities and ways of thinking (i.e. being a good
listener, following and developing the child’s line of thought) . . . and by
grasping the essentials of mathematical thinking (exploring the growth
and development of mathematics at their own level so as to be able to
communicate these insights to children).
There is no ready-made prescription with a guarantee of success to
answer the problems of class organisation . . . teachers need the opportunities
to discuss together the work which they largely do in professional isolation
... the habit of working together for teachers and children is a first pre-
requisite for successful class organisation. Many teachers are faced with the
problem of change in their approach to the learning of mathematics . . .
their greatest help is to meet others and discuss ideas and problems ...a
sense of oneness with others will ensure growing confidence for those who
are hesitant.’ (chapter 1)
This report then recognised both the aspects of change confronting the teacher
of primary mathematics and the difficulties inherent in the situation. The sug-
gested solution was the active involvement of teachers in their own development
and the practical model which received the most attention was the teachers’
centre.

20
 A iy NT Rae

Mathematics: its challenge

to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

‘In seeking to promote understanding in pupils, the teacher’s starting point is

_ toendeavour to realise personally the nature of understanding as an essential
element in mathematics itself and in the learning and teaching of the subject.
Teachers themselves are the ones to decide in experiment how changes
can be planned to the children’s best advantage but there is an obstacle at
present. Because of the rapidity with which change has come about not
many teachers in the primary school have been able to acquire the neces-
sary knowledge to appraise and assess the opportunities with which they
are now faced. They do not always know, for example, where the particular
mathematical items they teach lead nor how the work is to be followed up
in subsequent years. An overall integrated view of the subject to serve as a
kind of map to guide the teacher is lacking, as are the tools to produce
such a map. . . The roots of the problem lie deep . . . mathematics began
for most of us in the traditional study of arithmetic. We did not at the
time reach the stage of reflecting on the subject as a mode of thought and
of considering its origins, conceptual basis content, scope and structure;
in short asking what the subject is all about.’ (Appendix)
This, then, is the challenge with which the report concludes:

‘The difficulty is to keep abreast of current knowledge. Change has become

the outstanding feature of the educational scene and constant re-education
and re-adjustment are demanded of all concerned. The teacher’s job has
taken on an entirely new look.’ (Appendix)
From now on the interrelation between the two dimensions of curriculum con-
tent and the learning processes becomes a new challenge to the teacher; already
confronted by the expansion and development of content and alternative ap-
proaches to organising learning experiences in the primary school, these must be
combined in the compilation of guidelines and schemes. Curriculum develop-
ment and its evaluation are underlying themes to the primary survey; not only
what is being taught and how, but also how effectively and the means of remedy-
ing identified deficiencies. The HMI handbook of suggestions Mathematics
5 — 11 aimed to give teachers some guidance in these areas, and since it was pub-
lished after the primary survey, its suggestions may be examined in this context.
The primary survey reported that 88% of the schools sampled had a scheme
of work or guidelines for mathematics, the handbook of suggestions sought to
ensure that help is given to
‘that large number of teachers who experience difficulty in translating the
the scheme into an effective mathematics programme’ (p. 7)
The task was not minimised in any way:
‘the primary teacher today is faced with a considerable task brought about
by the changes which have taken place in mathematics. These have involved
new content, new terms, new concepts and what may be regarded as a new
approach to the teaching of the subject . . . the primary teacher confronted
with the task of providing wide experience for children can be bewildered
by the wealth of apparatus, material and equipment available. Informed
choice must be made bearing in mind the needs of individuals in the class,
in the school.’ (p. 7)

21
Developing Mathematical Thinking

And again, working through ‘integrated studies’ ensotial

-oP

‘requires understanding of the mathematical potential of a wide variety of

situations and this in turn demands more mathematical knowledge than
many teachers possess.’ (p. 7)
Since the task is formidable for the individual, it is clear that planning is vital
and cannot be achieved by teachers in isolation. Teachers are encouraged to
make ‘continuing attempts to develop their professional judgement’ and Math-
ematics 5 — 11 indicates areas in which this judgement may be required and °
some means by which this development may be achieved. This developmental
approach for teachers is clearly illustrated in the section on mathematical aims:
‘Aid to help Listed below are some of the aims within the primary
plan programme school from which objectives will later be derived. It
is not an exhaustive list and the order is to some extent
arbitrary.
Area for profes-- It will however allow the teacher to consider their
sional judgement relative importance
Means of develop- and encourage discussion with colleagues who share in
ing judgement the planning of work throughout the school.’
(p. 5)
Areas in which professional judgement may be required are illustrated:

‘Assessment might be regarded as a procedure which challenges the teacher

to define aims and objectives more clearly and subsequently leads to more
effective teaching and learning. . . the results may or may not reflect
what the teacher believes she has taught. . . these procedures require great
courage and professionalism. (p. 10)
...a careful scrutiny of materials, schemes of work, of text books, work-
cards, equipment and apparatus to see if they are providing what is re-
quired. (p. 11)
The teacher has to use judgement, continually making decisions about the
need to repeat experiences, to extend them, to consolidate vocabulary, to
question, to answer. . . (p. 14)
Teachers need to choose words with care; they also need to see that child-
ren use words with care; they also need to help children see the common
factors there are in what appear to be different experiences. (p. 18)
Establishing a proper balance between investigation, experiment, memor-
isation and routine practice is a problem for every school and every teacher.
(p. 42)
The pacing of work calls for careful professional judgement based on
knowledge of both children and subject. (p. 75)
The use of this material (structured apparatus) is a skilful matter and
primary teachers need to recognise the range of experience to which
children can be introduced in the different aspects of the work.’ (p. 82)
Means of developing this judgement were often linked to the area of exercise.
However, some more general approaches were also indicated:

‘This judgement (relating to evaluation and diagnosis) can often be shar-

pened by collaborative work within the school or the teachers’ centres.
(p. 11)
22
 Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

Teachers need to keep careful records of each child’s progress and know-
ledge . . . find out its extent by observing and questioning; . .: this should
take place regularly.
This booklet has been issued in the hope that it will provoke discussion.
Teachers should be familiar with some of the extensive literature which is
available and engage in discussion of the material with other teachers in
the school. (p. 82)
In-service education must be directed above all to the development of the
teacher’s capacity to make judgements . . . (p. 11)
with courses not only offering opportunities to stimulate development
and helping teachers achieve realistic goals but also enabling them to im-
prove on their own understanding of mathematics and the way children
learn.’ (p. 12)
Collaboration and discussion were keynotes of the handbook as expressed in the
final exhortation:
‘it is hoped that this book will contribute to the continuing discussion of
what ought to be taught and what might be taught and that further clari-
fication of these two matters will also help those concerned to decide on
the methods and forms of organisation best suited to their purposes.’

The primary survey provided evidence that some teachers with a post of special
responsibility for mathematics gave vitally important support to other members
of staff. The handbook endorsed this role linking it with the theme of discus-
sion and collaboration:
‘[They can] concern themselves with far more than the organisation of
mathematical books and apparatus .. . [they should] instigate in-service
training within the school and work alongside teachers in their classrooms
to further the process. . . through support at this level other teachers gain
knowledge and confidence . . . and there develops a coherent and system-
matic policy for mathematics throughout the school.’ (pp. 11, 75)
These reports, then, basically repeat the series of educational challenges already
offered to teachers with the addition of a substantial new element, so that the
culminating challenge of the series becomes:
‘How to collaborate with colleagues in organising progressive mathematical
learning activities/experiences for individual children.’

Conclusion
Alistair McIntosh, in Chapter 1, reflects mainly on some of the problems of
teaching arithmetic and the advice given to teachers in this context. The advice
has changed little through the years and yet, regrettably, it has not been ‘ex-
tensively put into practice’. However, as the documentation in this article shows,
these problems and this advice need to be considered in a wider context.
What are the problems of teaching children other mathematical concepts?
How are the problems and advice related to considerations of how children think
and learn mathematics?

23
 ‘ ¥ M4 a a Ei Ae eee ee Siok 7
* Aap Oe hd ae rig hy
eos:e is= 3 - ae
eS
ee
be ve
re
Developing Mathematical Thinking

What is the relationship of the BONES to the various dimensions of curriculum

structuring? —
How can teachers be helped to organise and reflect on their ecu of math-
7
ematics? ‘
y
:
A teacher’s confidence may be weakened through lack of knowledge in two ‘
a
4
é
areas: 4

1 Personal mathematics. Did they as children

(a) start formal work too early?
(b) use materials and practical activities?
(c) find their own methods of solution? ‘
(d) have opportunities for discussion?
(e) see the relevance of mathematical ideas?
(f) Was most of their own early mathematical work computation?

2 Classroom procedures. Do they understand

(a) the value of a variety of teaching approaches?
(b) the learning situations created by specific experiences and apparatus?
(c) Have they retained not just the content but also the insight gained in
initial/inservice education or has the enthusiasm generated by some
experiences dispersed with time?
(d) Are they able to apply ideas for teaching mathematics to their own
classroom?
(e) Are they able to create the appropriate experience for an individual
child to learn or clarify a specific idea (such as, use or devise suitable
apparatus)?

In summary, the contemporary challenge of mathematics in the primary school

raises certain questions for teachers:

1 Do [understand the main idea of this (specific) topic?

2 Do Iknowsomething of its relationship to other aspects of this topic, to other
mathematical topics and to topics outside mathematics?
3 Can I myself recognise when to use this idea?
4 What do I know about how children learn this idea? What other ideas does it
depend upon knowing (essentially), where will children have difficulties initially
and later?
5 Which experiences/apparatus may help them learn the idea and overcome
difficulties? Am I conversant with a variety of experiences/apparatus relating to
this idea?
6 How should I introduce this idea to these children?
7 How can I recognise children’s lack of understanding?
8 How can I create opportunities for discussion with children about this idea?
9 How can this idea be related to other (non-mathematical) classroom activities?

This list of questions is not intended to be exhaustive, but simply to raise some

24
=e
ey
Mathematics: its challenge to primary school teachers from 1930 to 1980

_ Of the issues continually facing a teacher in relation to a succession of math-

ematical topics. However there are two more important questions:

10 Can I find someone to talk to now if I have any difficulties?

11 Do I share approaches and learning situations with others through displays
and/or discussions?
An affirmative answer to each of these two questions changes the whole context
of the earlier set from ‘I’ to ‘we’ so providing the supportive atmosphere for
thinking constructively, for developing professional judgement and for meeting
the contemporary challenge of mathematics.

References
Report of the Consultative Committee on the Primary School, Board of Educ-
ation, HMSO, 1931.
Research and Reform in Teacher Education, William Taylor, NFER, 1978.
Primary Education, HMI, HMSO, 1959.
Children-and their Primary Schools, DES, HMSO, 1967.
Primary Education in England, DES, HMSO, 1978.
The Teaching of Mathematics in Primary Schools, Mathematical Association,
Bell, 1955.
Mathematics in Primary Schools, Curriculum Bulletin No. 1, HMSO, 1966.
Primary Mathematics — a Further Report, Mathematical Association, Bell, 1970.
Mathematics 5 — 11, HMI, HMSO, 1979.

25
 SECTION 2 The contemporary
context
<<K<XKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK#KKK§CK#KXK#CKK&KKKKXKKKKKKKKKKKKRKKS

Introduction
This section consists of extracts from three recent reports, two concerned with
primary and one with secondary education. Each of them is based on large-scale
surveys, though they were not all carried out in the same way, partly because ~
they were done for different purposes. The primary and secondary reports from
the inspectorate (chapters 3 and 4) are distillations from observations in a large
number of classrooms: they present a picture of contemporary classroom prac-
tice in all its variety, and comment favourably or unfavourably as the case may
be. In the primary case their comments also draw upon the results of a written
test, but this plays a relatively minor role. The survey of the mathematical per-
formance of 11 year olds, carried out by the Assessment of Performance Unit
(chapter 5) is of a very different kind: its brief particularly excluded any com-
ment on individual schools, however anonymously, for its purpose was to provide
a national picture of the mathematics that children could or could not do. Its
report is therefore based on the results of tests. These were predominantly
written ones, sent to the schools with pupils involved in the survey for their
- teachers to administer. However, a small proportion of the tests were of a prac-
tical kind, and these were given to the pupils concerned by a team of peripatetic
testers.

26
 ae

ae,

3 Mathematics in primary education in

England
HM Inspectors of Schools
Source: Primary Education in England, a survey by
HM Inspectors of Schools, HMSO, London, 1978. Chapter 5,
sections 6.28—6.31; chapter 8, sections 8.21—8.22, Appendix | (vi).

<SKKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKXKKKXKKXKXKXKXXKXKXKXXXKXK

[This chapter contains virtually all the material pertaining to mathematics in the
primary survey. It falls into four parts. The first part contains some general ob-
servations, while the second describes in more detail the mathematics being taught
in primary classrooms, together with some comments on teaching approaches.
The third part deals with the written mathematics test, coded E2, with some
comments on the results. Finally the last part consists of some brief overall
conclusions. ]

General observations
The findings of this survey do not support the view which is sometimes expressed
that primary schools neglect the practice of the basic skills in arithmetic. In the
classes inspected considerable attention was paid to computation, measurement
and calculations involving sums of money, though the results of these efforts |
were disappointing in some respects.
In describing what their schools set off to achieve in mathematics, heads’
comments indicated clearly that they attached considerable importance to child-
ren achieving competence in the basic skills of arithmetic and understanding
mathematical processes. There was almost universal reference to the rules of
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, to computation and to con-
cepts such as weight and number. This common view was reflected in the state-
ment of one head who said his intentions were: ‘To teach the children their
tables. To teach the four rules of number in relation to money, decimals, frac-
tions, time and measurement, along with some basic geometry. To show why
and how these processes work so that children can understand them and use
them accurately.’ Many heads also referred to the importance of children gaining
confidence, enjoyment and satisfaction from their work in mathematics.
Children were given individual assignments of work in mathematics in over
four-fifths of all classes. In half of the 9 and 11 year old classes and in two-
thirds of the 7 year old classes the allocation of individual assignments was a
usual method adopted for organising the work in mathematics. The presentation

20
 Developing Mathematical Thinking pre eat See Reteey aetie

of assignments was usually by means of commercially published work cards,

work cards devised by the teacher or, to a lesser extent, the use of textbooks.
In most classes where textbooks were used, they were employed appropriately —
to introduce a new aspect of mathematics or to provide suitable practice in a
particular process. Commercial work cards were used to present work in almost
all 9 and 11 year old classes and in nearly three-quarters of the 7 year old classes.
Work cards devised by the teacher were less frequently used in the older classes
but extensively used in 7 year old classes.
Children were grouped by ability for their work in mathematics more com-
monly than in any other subject. There was a tendency in a number of classes to
use individual work-card assignments when it would have been more appropriate
to draw the group together to work from the blackboard or from a textbook.
Direct teaching and discussion have an important part to play in the teaching of
mathematics and in some classes this was inhibited by too great a reliance on the
use of individual assignment cards. Television programmes were used in the
teaching of mathematics in about a fifth of the 9 and 11 year old classes.

Content
In the majority of classes arithmetic was given appropriate attention and in no
class was this aspect of the work in mathematics being ignored or neglected. In
all the classes attention was given to calculations involving whole numbers and
the processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, although this
kind of work was not sufficiently emphasised in about a fifth of the 7 year old
‘classes. In about a third of classes, at all ages, children were spending too much
time undertaking somewhat repetitive practice of processes which they had al-
ready mastered. In these circumstances there was often a failure to make increas-
ing demands on the children’s speed or accuracy, or to introduce new and more
demanding work. This and other issues concerning the teaching of mathematics
are discussed in [. . . the later section on the mathematics test E2, taken by 11
year olds involved in this survey.]
In almost all the classes some work was undertaken which was designed to
help children to understand place value. Work was also given to help them to
recognise simple number patterns. For the younger children this included acti- |
vities such as counting by adding in 2s, 3s, 5s and 10s, doubling numbers or
identifying odd and even numbers. For older children the work included the full
range of multiplication tables and finding multiples and divisors beyond the
limits of the tables. In nearly nine out of ten of the 11 year old classes this work
involved drawing children’s attention to some of the broader implications, such
as understanding that the order of numbers can be changed without affecting the
result in addition or multiplication but that this is not so in subtraction or division.
This kind of work was taking place in less than half of the 7 year old classes.
Activities involving counting and estimating took place in most classes although
there was room for more of this kind of work in about half of the classes. Practical
activities designed to promote the understanding of quantitative description and

28
ee
Mathematics in primary education in England

the ideas of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division were introduced in

_ well over four-fifths of the 9 and 11 year old classes and nearly all the 7 year old
classes. However, in over half of these classes the practical activities undertaken
were insufficiently demanding, for example, they were often confined to repeti-
tive activities involving measuring and weighing and the children’s attention was
not drawn to the mathematical implications of what they were doing.
The notion of a fractional part was introduced when discussing everyday
things in over half the 7 year old classes, four-fifths of 9 year old and nearly all
11 year old classes, although in many classes this was only touched on and the
work was not fully developed. For the younger children the work was mainly
concerned with practical activities involving halves, quarters or thirds, while the
older children progressed to the idea of equivalence and the techniques em-
ployed in the calculation of fractions. In a few 7 year old classes children were
introduced to the notion of decimals, usually associated with the recording of
amounts of money or metric measures. It was more common for such teaching
to be introduced at a later stage, within the programme of about three-quarters
of 9 year old classes and almost all 11 year old classes. Nine out of ten 11 year
old classes were taught to carry out calculations involving the four rules of
number to two decimal places or more.
The importance of learning to handle money in everyday transactions and
acquiring a sense of its value in relation to simple purchases was recognised in
almost all the classes. Work involving the measurement of length, weight, area
and time took place at some time in nine out of ten classes at all ages, the work
progressing as the children grew older. For example, while 7 year olds were fre-
quently taught to tell the time or measure each other’s height, 11 year olds were
often introduced to the twenty-four hour clock, carrying out assignments based
on rail or flight schedules, or to activities such as calculating the area of the play-
ground or the height of the school building. Occasionally such work was linked to
ideas in elementary physics as, for example, when the children in an 11 year old
class made simple pendulums, recorded the number and rate of oscillations and
determined their relationship to the length of string and the weight of the pendu-
lum bob. In another 11 year old class the study of a river in science involved the
estimation and calculation of speeds and the amount of water flowing; the child-
ren measured the width and depth of the river and the slope and angles of the bank.
When children are asked to ‘find the answer’ to a problem in arithmetic, they
are usually being asked to complete an unfinished statement; for example, ‘six
and nine more make . .’, or ‘81—16=. . .’, or again‘(4X 320)—(2 X55) =...’
If, however, the missing part lies in the middle of the statement it may be re-
presented by a symbol; for example 6+ = 15, or again 1280—O = 1170. The
use of symbols gives precision in the recording of mathematical statements; some
symbols are essential to any progress in mathematics and were taught in all
classes. In about half of the classes children were introduced to additional sym-
bols such as ‘box’ diagrams or arrows. Where children understood the meaning of
these symbols and could use them appropriately to express a mathematical
relationship, this provided a useful dimension to their work in mathematics. For

29
 it

Developing Mathematical Thinking

some children, however, a proliferation of symbols tended to create confusion —

rather than clarification. In some cases, particularly in the older classes, more
attention could usefully have been given to more precise and unambiguous use
of ordinary language to describe the properties of number, size, shape or position.
Children used various forms of visual presentation for their work in math-
ematics in about four-fifths of all the classes. This ranged from making simple
table squares with multiples picked out in colour, to the drawing or construction
of block or line graphs, pie-charts or three-dimensional shapes. In about a fifth —
—
of the classes there was evidence of mathematics being linked to work in other
areas of the curriculum, and this sometimes provided opportunities for visual e

presentation of mathematical data. For example in an 11 year old class children

visited a church as part of a local study and were able to watch the bellringers at
work. They observed the different order of the changes rung and, on their return
to school, considered the possible presentations. Subsequently the children
devised a diagram to illustrate the possible sequences.
Mention has already been made of the link between mathematics and physical
science. This connection could be more fully exploited in the work children do
both in mathematics and science as in a 9 year old class where children were con-
structing a model following a visit to a windmill; discussion of the gears provided
the teacher with the opportunity to introduce the notion of ratio and to follow this
up in the children’s work in mathematics. Again, in a 7 year old class the children
were working on ‘ourselves’ as a mathematical topic. They recorded and con-
structed graphs of their bodily measurements and, using a stopwatch, recorded
each other’s variations of pulse rate following the performance of a number of
different physical activities.
Many ideas encountered by children, for example weight, volume, density,
speed or velocity are common to mathematics and physical science but the con-
nection was rarely made explicit. Similarly, precise measurement is essential to
_ both disciplines but techniques of measurement acquired in mathematics were
seldom applied to the children’s work in experimental science or vice versa.
Geography is another subject where ideas common to both subjects, for example,
scale, coordinates, direction finding, angles, or longitude and latitude, were sel-
dom linked in the work which children did in either subject; much more could
be done in this way, especially with older children.

Mathematics test (E2)

[This test was given to 11 year olds in the survey, and yielded further information
on the children’s abilities.] :
Most of the items used in this test are to be included in future surveys and so
cannot be made public. Those reproduced [here] have been chosen to indicate
the range of items. They include some on which children scored well and others
that many found too difficult. The percentage of children getting each item right
is shown to the right of the test. The children were generally allowed 45 minutes
to complete the test, but longer if they were still making progress through it.

30
 Correct
responses
(%)

Ann Bob Carol David Eric Fred

Each time somebody buys a savings stamp for 10p

they stick a square on the chart.

(a) Who has saved most?

(b) How much money have the children

saved altogether?

How much change would you expect from a £1 note

if you spent 43p?

Cc | ' This 4 centimetre square

Icm Ic m has been cut into 5 pieces
| | A, B, C, D and E
" { The shape of D is a square.
Icom 2cm

{ {
+ 2cm> <2cm >

Which two pieces can be fitted together to make a square?

| have these coins in my purse.

Put a ring around the sums below which | can pay exactly.

8p 2p 54p 66p 69p

31
Developing Mathematical Thinking

Correct J
i
ELieeae ein responses fl
Paddington 06 15 | 07 50 09 45 | 1045
(%) q
06 55 | 08 24 IO. TOSS
Swindon 07 38 | 09 08 10 54
Bath 08 14 | 09 44 1129 | 1218
Bristol 08 30 | 1000 1145 | 1235

This is part of the railway timetable, showing the times of trains

leaving Paddington and the times they leave stations on the way to
Bristol.
Use the information from the timetable to answer this question:
Which is the latest train which | could take from Reading to be
in Bath by 2 o'clock in the afternoon?

The cost of a week’s shopping

Pern eae Mics Jones. Mrs Smith |Mrs Brown] Mrs Green
£10.00 | £7.50 £5.50 £8.20
£ 1.50 [£0.72 £0.85 £1.20
£3.53 | £2.75 £2.65 £3.25
How much does Mrs Brown spend altogether on a week’s
shopping?

G 16 x 35 = 560
so 17 x 35 = 560+0

Underline the number for which 0 stands

A 560 Cai?
Beads D167) Ee 37

H -** isa3 figure number

Tick the true statements

* must be bigger than 99

** must be bigger than 100
** must be smaller than 999
* must be smaller than 1000
"** must be
mMmOoOQOWDLD> bigger than 199

a2
 K Which fraction is smallest?
=
Put a ring around the smallest fraction.
Fi S :
; 4

| _L Acclass has between 20 and 30 children.

4 if When they have teams of 6 there are no children left over.
= When they have teams of 5 one team is short.

a? A How many children are there in the class?

370 Fe a a
BS 6 BRAGA eas
Be] z ESAS RaROee se
. BAR Ch BRM Me
4 Pll Ate ah Sach
ERUEEAERSeE
| beta Aves a a)Cr <heb
| elon ed sled abe a3
& ip: ONATEi ade ES
. (Sues e keen
j ee ties lt
q ee ee Pons) AP yp
; lta lateven ce. ets ||
q RS ae RS
Z Pe eA ee ule
g SRNR SEB Re
. Peete
OPS) ee toed |
| Pavol e CeBeeeces ae
ee SR SUeERIR aS
vans a eh Pte tot ya
ta 0 oe Pe 4 2
is 2 Dp sd
ere miles
‘Se This graph can help you to convert miles to kilometres, or
kilometres to miles.
Use the graph to convert 1.6 kilometres to miles.
Developing Mathematical Thinking .

Correct |
Gy responses
(%)

Match each hollow object with its net,

eg 4 is the net of cylinder c

5 76

The 4991 11 year olds who sat the mathematics test, E2, were drawn from 346
of the sample schools, i.e. all sample schools with 11 year olds. The test contains
fifty items. Of these, ten were concerned with the properties of whole numbers,
ten with handling everyday situations and ten with geometry; twelve dealt with
graphical representation and the remaining eight were a miscellaneous group.

34
 Mathemasies in primary education in England

The detailed statistical analysis of the resultsis shown in

i tables 1 and 2. A mean
total raw score was obtained of 27.97 out of 50 as compared with the anticipated
score of about 25 [. . .]; 10 per cent of the children scored more than 41, and
9.6 per cent scored 14 or less. There was no statistically significant difference in
the total scores achieved by boys as compared with girls, though the boys did |
significantly better on the items concerned with graphical presentation.
Educational judgement, as well as statistical analysis, is required in inter-
preting the results of the test. It is hoped that the test items [included here] will
help teachers and others to form a view of how well the children performed.
Subjective examination by HM Inspectors of responses to the full test leads to
the view that the results are disappointing in some respects when account is
taken of the amount of time that is given to mathematics in primary schools.
There is a variety of reasons why children may fail to give a correct answer.
Some children probably read questions incorrectly and a small number [. . .]
could not read them at all. Even so, the test results may well indicate that be-
tween 10 and 15 per cent of children have difficulty in counting and adding
accurately when using groups of tens and units. Some 60 to 70 per cent of
children managed sums involving somewhat more complicated numbers, though
some of these children may have been perplexed where they were required to
produce two or more correct answers (see examples D and H); the percentage
of correct responses falls noticeably where an unusual symbol is included (50 per
cent of the schools appear not to introduce the U0) of question G), or where there
was need for a clear understanding of place value (particularly question H).
The responses to the two graphical items [included here] may show that
teaching too seldom goes beyond this to the point where children become

Table 7 E2 mathematics test, Total raw score. Percentile distribution for boys,
girls and all pupils, age corrected to 11 years 2.5 months
Possible range of scores O—50

Percentile Boys’ score Girls’ score Boys’ score All pupils

minus girls’ score

90 41.8 40.2 (+1.6) 41.0

80 37.8 36.5 (+1.3) 37.1
70 34.4 36.5 (+1.1) 33.9
60 31.5 30.5 (+1.0) 31.0
50 28.4 27.9 (+0.5) 28.2
40 25.6 25.1 (+0.5) 25.4
30 22.9 22.4 (+0.5) 22.7
20 19.4 - 19.3 (+0.1) 19.3
10 14.6 14.8 (—0.2) 14.7

It can be seen that as the level of scoring increases, the slight superiority of
boys over girls also increases. There was no statistically significant difference in
the total scores achieved by boys and girls.

35
Developing Mathematical Thinking

familiar with other forms of graphical presentation, e.g. linear graphs. On the
other hand, the geometrical items shown were dealt with successfully by three-
quarters or more of the children; others involving transformational symmetry or
requiring an appreciation of changes of compass bearing were, not surprisingly,
found more difficult.
Taking the test as a whole, it is clear that more children would have scored
better if they had appreciated the general rules that can be seen operating in the
large number of separate examples they work during mathematics lessons in
schools, so that, for example, the answers to questions G and I could have been
obtained by inspection.
The children spend a considerable amount of time on mathematics and the
work in this subject is better matched to their abilities than is the work in most
other subjects — though the more able children often work at too low a level. In
the light of these efforts, the scores achieved in the NFER mathematics test,
E2, are disappointing.
It seems clear from this part of the survey that individual assignments should
not be allowed to replace all group or class work in mathematics. Teachers can
by working regularly with a group or the whole class, quicken the pace of mental
response and encourage accuracy. They may also, in these circumstances, more
readily draw children’s attention to general rules in the work they do and so help
to create a better understanding of the ways in which numbers behave. Children
need to practise mental and written calculations in the four rules of number,
including whole numbers and, when they are ready, decimals and fractions.
They also need to use numbers in connection with practical activities. The forms
of questions and the forms of answers required ought to be varied so that children
are not put off by an unusual word, or combination of words or symbols. More
of the examples worked by children could usefully lead to multiple answers. The
work in mathematics should not be confined to the four rules of number: child-
ren in those classes where the programme included all mathematical items taught
to 80 per cent of classes for the age group did better in the mathematics test.

Comment

Mathematics is given a high degree of priority in the curriculum of the primary

school. For average and less able children within the classes inspected, the work
in mathematics, together with that in reading, was more consistently matched to
children’s capabilities than their work in any other area of the curriculum.
However, for the children who showed most marked mathematical ability the
work was often too easy and it is a matter for concern that these children’s
abilities were not fully extended in their work in this subject. The responses to
the NFER mathematics test E2 show that the efforts made to teach children to
calculate are not rewarded by high scores in the examples concerned with the
handling of everyday situations. Learning to operate with numbers may need to
be more closely linked with learning to use them in a variety of situations than
is now common.

36
 Peewee
<page
t
Oe . uk ete hen+
area
t
“SaeeS a4 *
are. i a sal ae ae
>

_ Mathematics in primary education in Reoliia

Table is ED mathematics test. Percentage of children anawering each item
correctly
ne a
Item Percentage of Item Percentage of
number correct answers number correct answers

1 (Aa) 94 26 (K) 40
2 (Ab) 84 27 (F) 64
3 87 28 60
4 96 29 76
5 92 30 49
6 82 31 18
7 86 32 62
8 (C) 92 33 55
9 78 34 60
10 V2 35 54
if 80 36 52
42 86 37 42
13 15 38 23
14 (B) 83 39 42
15 (D) 59 40 84
16 57 41 37
17 (E) 47 42 (G) 37
18 41 43 17
19 (J) 69 44 30
20 (N) 76 45 (M) 28
21 (L) 49 46 35
oe 45 47 20
23 71 48 27
24 31 49 19
25 (1) 61 50 (H) 20

Note: The letters shown after fourteen of the item numbers correspond to the test items
reproduced.

The extensive use of individual work-card assignments resulted in some children

repeating known processes rather than being taken on to the next stage of their
learning. In addition there is a place for more direct teaching of a whole group or
class in mathematics. Most classes were grouped according to their attainments
for work in mathematics and this arrangement could provide opportunities for
teachers to deal with a particular topic or process with a whole group. In some
cases it is more efficient to teach the whole class than to attempt to teach each
new aspect of mathematics individually to each child. Challenging questions
and quick recall of number facts, including multiplication tables, are essential in
the learning of mathematics and often require a lively and sustained contact
between a teacher and a group of children.

37
4 Mathematics in secondary education
in England |
HM Inspectors of Schools

Source: Aspects of Secondary Education in England, A survey by

HM Inspectors of Schools, HMSO, London, 1979. Chapter 7,
sections 4,1—4.25; sections 5.8—5.11, sections 5.20—5.28,
sections 6.1—6.18, sections 10.12—10. 17.

[This chapter contains a substantial proportion of the mathematical material in

the secondary survey. The extracts chosen fall into four parts. The first deals
with particular content areas — arithmetic, algebra, geometry and logic. The
second describes the availability and use of practical materials. The third part
focuses upon the teaching approaches found, and the ways in which pupils
responded to these, and the fourth part contains some general conclusions.]

Some aspects of content

The place of arithmetic and standards in it
Standards of competence in arithmetic are a matter of public concern and
debate. Concern over standards in arithmetic has been expressed for a great
many years, but at the present time discussion is complicated by recent changes.
There have been changes in syllabuses, and changes in social needs, arising from
new patterns of employment and from the availability of calculators and com-
puters. In almost all of the schools seen in the survey very considerable time was
spent on arithmetic; and the skills in which, it is said, some school leavers lack
proficiency were certainly being taught. All the schools gave a prominent place
to practice in the four rules of number, including work with money, decimals
and fractions. They expected their pupils to know the elementary number facts
of addition and multiplication on which the more advanced processes are based.
Where there were weaknesses it was hardly ever through lack of attention to the
problem.
In spite of this in the course of the survey some schools were found where, as
in former times, the arithmetical competence of some of the pupils was un-
acceptably low. Not infrequently this was associated with difficulties arising
from the catchment areas which the school served, and where this was so, full
allowance must be made. The improvement of standards of mathematical attain-
ment involves more than teaching method alone.
Before possible ways of improving arithmetical competence can be discussed,
it is necessary to recognise the extent of the problem. The weaknesses in arith-

38
 + bee

Mathematics in secondary education in England

metic were, for instance, such that there could be a poor response from a class
~of pupils who were asked to multiply by 10 or by 100. Some pupils had difficulty
even with doubling simple numbers, and many saw no absurdity in answers to
elementary calculations which were wrong by a factor of 10 or 100. Thereisno
abrupt discontinuity in the spread of mathematical ability, and whatever provi-
sion may be made in special schools there will always be some children in
ordinary schools who achieve only minimally in the subject.
The problems which affect the majority of the school population are, perhaps,
indicated by the following two quotations:

‘This group (say, the bottom ten in the year group) were able to calcul-
ate using the “four rules” and pencil and paper. Their grasp of fractions
was appreciably better than that of decimals. They were unable to make
rough estimates with any real confidence. In most other respects they could
deal with “down-to-earth” mathematics, but were not always confident
when reading the textbook on a new aspect of the subject. They made
many of the classical mistakes in changing the subject of formulae.’
‘Work with the least able 15 to 20 per cent gives cause for some con-
cer: their grasp of basic principles and their ability to retain knowledge
and draw on skills other than those immediately practised is poor. Teach-
ing approaches need revision and greater thought needs to be given to
nurturing understanding and confidence than to covering the syllabus.’

If all schools were no worse than this there might be less concern about standards
than is being publicly expressed at the moment. But these paragraphs were
written after visits to grammar schools which were by no means inferior schools
of their type. The paragraphs are a warning against expecting too much in the
matter of numeracy from schools which cater for the full range of ability.
In the descriptive accounts which were written about the schools visited,
general comments that pupils were competent in basic arithmetical skills out-
weighed adverse comment by about two to one; although highly adverse com-
ments were more common than high praise. However, where understanding of
the essential ideas was concerned the balance of comment was unfavourable.
A more quantitative appraisal of the overall position was provided by HMI’s
answers to the question ‘Is there competence in realistic arithmetic?’ The word
‘realistic’ is important. Success in repetitive exercises on (say) technical points
involving the manipulation of fractions or decimals was, in itself, not taken as
sufficient evidence of competence. Competence demanded a certain ability to
apply skills, and to choose a skill which was appropriate.
Pupils on GCE courses were assessed as competent in 86 per cent of the
schools in the sample providing such courses; the corresponding figures were
62 per cent for CSE courses and 37 per cent for non-examination courses. (These
assessments made some allowance for the different standards to be expected at
these different levels.)
The effect of modern courses on arithmetical competence has received ex-
tensive public discussion. The differences between traditional and modern courses
are by no means clear cut, and proper levels of arithmetical competence can be

39
Developing Mathematical Thinking

achieved in either framework. An analysis was made of the erica to which

pupils on traditional, compromise and modern courses were competent in realistic
arithmetic. The analysis was restricted to the 161 full-range comprehensive
schools for which comparable data were available.
Modern courses received somewhat less favourable assessments in this respect, —
and this applied to courses at each level - GCE, CSE and non-examination. In
many cases compromise courses had been developed by schools with the ex-
pressed intention of avoiding the deficiencies in arithmetic and traditional —
algebra to which they believed modern courses were prone. In this aim these
courses had succeeded.
Problems often arise when pupils have to apply arithmetical skills, but some
pupils have difficulties enough in performing standard calculations in isolation.
The survey produced many cases of pupils having difficulties with fractions and
decimals. These topics have presented difficulties in schools for as long as they
have been studied, and there is no sound evidence which permits comparisons
between generations. However, within the context of the classroom, with a teacher
asking familiar questions, most pupils achieved a certain competence in these mat-
ters. The roots of this competence could, however, be distressingly shallow; and
if the teacher of another subject expected a fresh application of the ideas, or if
the pupils were presented with an unexpected test in unfamiliar language, failure
was frequent. This has long been so; and a cure is unlikely to be found by an
unrelieved diet of further practice on a succession of narrow techniques. The
development of pupils’ arithmetical skills as well as the development of more
general mathematical abilities depends on the approach that is adopted to the
subject matter. Teaching approaches are discussed [.. . later on in this chapter].
Much of the arithmetic teaching seen during the survey gave a larger place to
elementary statistics and to the calculation of probabilities than was given in the e
e
e
e

past, and this trend is to be encouraged. Some schools also gave a place to the
investigation of number patterns; studying, for example, sequences of numbers -
growing according to some law. This gave opportunities to conjecture results, to
test the conjectures and to relate arithmetic and algebra. On the other hand,
some traditional pieces of arithmetic, such as tests of divisibility, were little in
evidence. Items such as this could be studied more, not as routine skills, but for ee
e

the opportunities they offer for investigation and discussion.

Provision for algebra S

Algebra had a more uncertain place in courses, and there were considerable
disparities between what was attempted in different schools. The amount of
algebra which it is feasible to undertake with pupils of different mathematical
attainment varies greatly, but even so schools varied much in the algebra which ve
_

they considered appropriate for pupils of comparable ability. Traditional courses

usually made more provision for repetitive exercises on matters of technique,
such as the use of brackets and the handling of formulae. However these aspects
of algebra received some degree of attention whatever the type of course, and

:
the proficiency of the pupils was not always proportional to the effort expended.

40

?J
 Bae
Se b
eet
te- orn

Mathematics in secondary education in England

The attention given to traditional, manipulative algebra was assessed in the

different courses provided, in each school visited. Where schools provided GCE
courses, reasonable attention was given in 84 per cent of the cases; 67 per cent
of the schools providing CSE courses gave reasonable attention to traditional
algebra in these courses. In the remaining cases insufficient attention was given
to this aspect of mathematics, or the evidence was unconvincing.
Traditional, compromise and modern courses in the 161 full range com-
prehensive schools were compared for the provision they made for traditional
algebra. At GCE level the percentage of schools making reasonable provision for
traditional algebra were 96, 86 and 75 per cent respectively. At CSE level the
percentages were 84, 72 and 60 per cent.
Comparable assessments of non-examination courses are not given because
they raise different problems. In many cases where algebra was taught in non-
examination courses it was excessively preoccupied with mechanical skills and
insufficiently concerned with uses which the pupils could understand. Some-
times these courses contained no algebra at all when a modest amount, within
the pupils’ capabilities, would have been appropriate. These issues are part of the
much larger problem of designing courses for the less able.
The exercise books in a number of schools showed that although a great deal
of time was spent on algebraic manipulation, at whatever level this was done,
only little of this time was spent applying the techniques to problems or using
the techniques to deduce further information in some other area of knowledge,
such as science or craft. Algebra was rarely used to investigate popular number
tricks and puzzles.
Some aspects of algebra are covered in modern (and compromise) courses
which were not covered in traditional ones. Traditional algebra was concemed,
almost entirely, with using symbols to denote numbers, but non-numerical
entities can be described by algebraic symbols using ideas such as sets, relations,
transformations, groups and matrices. Modern courses often included some
matrix algebra — commonly in connection with transformations of the plane.
They usually included something of the algebra of sets (although nothing of the
theory), but this was little developed and even when it was done it was not
necessarily taken even as far as the experimental derivation of the elementary
laws of Boolean algebra. Vector algebra occurred quite frequently, but this was
not unknown in traditional courses. Symmetry was quite extensively studied,
using a small number of over-worked examples, such as folded ink-blots. But
there was little analysis of more complicated symmetric patterns and very little
that could properly be described as the algebra of groups. The view that modern
courses are more concerned with ‘abstract’ algebra than traditional courses were
has little foundation and the traditional algebra seen in courses of all types was
taught in a predominantly abstract way.
The time has come for a careful reappraisal of the aims and content of algebra
courses, and of ways of teaching the subject. In any case the teaching of tradi-
tional algebra has long presented difficulties in schools and it is a branch of
mathematics which remains a mystery to many adults. The advice given in the

41
Developing Mathematical Thinking
publications of the professional associations over the yeu: is insufficiently
known; it could be more extensively practised.

Geometry and spatial ideas

The geometrical experience of almost all pupils in the earlier years of the second-
ary school involves practical work in two and, more rarely, three dimensions.
Common objectives across the whole ability range are that pupils should learn to
draw simple diagrams using geometrical instruments, and that they should know
and understand the common properties of geometrical figures. Courses usually
contain Pythagoras’s theorem, the properties of parallel lines and of circles. In
most schools considerable time is spent on numerical calculations of length,
angles, area and volumes. In almost all courses leading to external examinations
these calculations also involve trigonometry. However, in the mathematics lessons
observed, although much time was spent on calculations with these physical
quantities, the teaching was seldom concerned with whether the pupils could use
the appropriate measuring instruments properly, except the ruler and protractor.
The survey confirmed the common belief that the study of geometry as a
deductive system has declined. Deductive geometry involves the demonstration
of properties of plane figures, which are often intuitively obvious, by means of
logical proofs of Euclidean type. The reduced emphasis on proofs of this kind
cannot be a matter for regret as far as the majority of pupils is concerned, be-
cause in the past logic for its own sake was appreciated by only a small minority.
It must however be a matter for substantial regret that nowadays very able
pupils are not receiving any effective substitute for what they have lost. Further,
it seems that the logical coherence of related results, together with the logical
demonstration of results which are not intuitively clear from an appreciation of
the symmetry, is insufficiently stressed in the courses given to many pupils of
average ability.
Newer types of course introduce ideas such as rotation, reflection, translation
and magnification. This work is often related to the algebra of vectors and
matrices. These ideas can be organised in a logical way, but this aspect received
little emphasis in the lessons seen, even with the abler pupils. Sometimes atten-
tion was given to the ways in which transformations combine, and not infre-
quently the work was well illustrated by diagrams.
At all levels of ability there was much drawing of graphs of mariy kinds,
although insufficient attention was given to the mp asc At of graphs from a
variety of sources.
The practice continues in schools of providing technical drawing as a separate
examination option, and it is taken by pupils with widely varying abilities,
although it is not commonly taken by pupils at either end of the ability range.
This subject makes a substantial contribution to the geometrical knowledge of
many pupils, but knowledge of this kind appears to be seldom assessed by current
employers’ tests. In schools technical drawing is most frequently treated as a
technical skill and its wider educational potential is insufficiently realised. The
best current practice needs to be more widely known.

42
 Mathematics in secondary education in England

Mathematics as a logical system

The mathematician can see his subject as a logical system, and perceive the inter-
relations between the various parts. With the courses seen on the survey there
could be little expectation that even the abler fifth year pupils could develop
much appreciation of what this means. This was true whether the courses were
described as ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’. There was minimal opportunity to see any
overall logical structure, because for so much of the time the pupils were operating
within a comparatively short-range set of rules. There was little encouragement
for abler pupils to develop any overall view of what mathematics was about, or
to become familiar with ideas of proof as a mathematician understands them. [ *
Pupils certainly did not meet the idea of proof within a clearly defined math-/|)
ematical system, to which there were parallel, equally acceptable logical systems.
This is a stringent requirement, which was not met in the past either; but it was |
one of the aims when modern syllabuses were introduced, and more could be | ¢
done to achieve it.
Excessive time was spent in some ‘modern’ courses on a surfeit of rather
trivial exercises which were originally intended to explain the logical structure
of the subject; but these exercises were not developed enough to do so. Thus, it
is possible to use modular arithmetic as an example of an axiomatic system, or it
can be used to illuminate logical points concerning the number system in every-
day use; but it serves no purpose if it is studied only at the level of self-contained
exercises.
In a similar way, the language of sets and relations was originally developed to
clarify logical ideas within mathematics. But if, as in many courses, the ideas are
taken no further than the initial exercises, the serious purposes are not served.
ae

Provision of materials

The use of practical material

In general there was a disappointing lack of reference to the applications of
mathematics throughout the teaching of the subject. The use of realistic source
material such as timetables, catalogues, newspapers, magazines, plans, maps or
instruction manuals was very limited. Material of this kind, and an experimental
or practical approach to some of the topics in the course, were found in some 10
per cent of GCE courses, in 20 to 24 per cent of CSE courses and in some 30 to
40 per cent of non-examination courses.
Extended work based on topics or projects occurred in some 25 to 30 per
cent of CSE and non-examination courses, but very little in GCE courses. Schools
were found where a topic approach led to work of high quality. In one CSE Mode 3
course the staff, working as a team, had been at pains to produce unusually good
source material for reference. This included actual copies of official forms, order
forms, tax tables, ready reckoners and timetables. The work arising was largely
arithmetical but because of the expert way it was handled it provided a useful
preparation for life after school.

43
Developing Mathematical Thinking —

In another school the exchange rates used in money calculations were kept
right up to date, and the pupils were using carefully selected resource material to
create attractive, well-designed workcards themselves. The pupils devised ques- .
tions as well as answering them, using books not on mathematics but on general
topics.
The topic approach is, in itself, no guarantee of quality and it does not
necessarily involve the pupils in pursuing individual lines of investigation. Some
courses of outwardly the same structure as those above were open to grave ob-
jections. There were cases where pupils worked through printed handouts in a
highly directed way, and appropriate resources were lacking. In one school, work
was done on ‘calculating devices’, but no such devices were to be seen, and the
pupils regurgitated material from folders produced by ‘other pupils in previous
years. Pupils working on ‘surveying’ or ‘mechanics’ did nothing of either, but
copied material from obsolete textbooks. In another school the pupils had been
given exercises headed ‘calculating machines’ but there were no machines, and
they had been kept occupied by doing the addition of six figure numbers with
pen and paper.
ee]

Calculators
The price of electronic calculators dropped dramatically in the course of the
survey. Towards the end, it was common to find pupils using their own cal-
culators, although teachers did not generally encourage their regular use except
within statistics courses. It was probably too early to expect that the impact of
very cheap electronic calculators on the teaching of computation should have
been fully considered. The necessary change of emphasis from routine paper and
pencil calculations to approximation, estimation and mental manipulation of
relatively small numbers in order to check the operation of calculators has not
yet been appreciated. The new approaches which are possible in mathematics at
all levels of ability, and the wider range of problems which can be attempted,
have still to be exploited. It is not the intention of the examination system to
hinder the introduction of new ideas into the curriculum, and at present some
examination syllabuses permit the use of calculators, although many do not.
However, questions about the use of calculators in schools need to be decided on
merit, and not pre-emted by the current examination syllabus.
There was a vestigial and declining use of mechanical calculators; but the use
of the slide rule was common, with between 30 and 40 per cent of pupils on
examination courses being introduced to them, though it was not clear whether
they were used especially to help in the understanding of ratio, or more generally
as calculating aids.
The availability of electronic calculators for schools is increasing rapidly
and the real impact of cheap computer power has yet to be felt. Over the next
few years opportunities for the use of these facilities are likely to increase, and
their proper use will demand radical rethinking of some parts of the syllabus.

44
 “4 ‘ at eee’ ; 3 ; ¥

Mathematics in secondary education in England

Computers
The computer could provide an exciting stimulus, as a report on a boys’ grammar
school showed:
‘Computer studies pupils were so well motivated that they were often at
school at 8 o’clock in the morning and still at school at 6.30 at night in
order to use the terminal. Such momentum was generated with pupils
creating and solving problems that work would have continued even with-
out the presence of a teacher.’
On the other hand the presence of the machine did not necessarily provide the
stimulus, for in some schools there were computer terminals which were not
being used.
Most of the work done with computers in the fourth and fifth years took place
in the context of either CSE or O-level computer studies courses within an option
scheme. There were very few schools which had non-examined computer studies
or where use of the computer was part of the mathematics courses.

Table 7 Schools and pupils involved in the use of computers: by type of school

Type of school*

Mod Gram FRComp RR Comp Trans All schools

Percentage of schools
involved
Year 4 17 6 31 31 19 23
Vv ear5 16 6 33 29 15 23
Number of schools 94 51 163 45 26 381

Percentage of pupils
involved
Year 4 4 1 5 3 2 4
Year 5 S 1 5 3 2 4
Approx number of
pupils in each year
group (thousands) 11 5 36 8 5 64

*Mod: secondary modern; Gram: grammar; FR Comp: full-range comprehensive (11—18);

RR Comp: restricted-range comprehensive (11—16); Trans: school in process of transition.

The lower involvement of grammar schools, and the overall involvement of only
4 per cent of the pupils may be noted.
Some further 9 per cent of schools made use of the computer in some other
way, mostly by running computer clubs.
National examination statistics show a similar picture, with a steady increase
in the number of schools offering courses, but with only a minority of pupils
involved even in schools where computing facilities are available. These figures
suggest that the impact which the computer has made on school courses is much
less than is often suspected.

45
 SE. Se Tea Tipe aise ache BierieReeser fe

Developing Mothemanont Thinking

The advent of microprocessors will ake cheap computer power available on

a significantly different scale in the future. However, the take-up of computer
studies courses is limited if these are available only as options, and different
methods will have to be used if increased numbers of school pupils are to appre-
ciate the capabilities of these remarkable machines. Possible strategies might
include the use of computers to run simulations in science and geography, to
provide data bases in history and to investigate numerically some of the ideas —
current in many modern mathematical syllabuses. No activities of this kind were
reported in the survey.

Teaching approaches and pupils’ responses

The classroom approach
The impressions which a pupil receives of mathematics at school and the mem-
ories which he carries of the subject into later life depend on the style of teaching
he receives. Style is difficult to define, and difficult to assess in statistical terms,
but it is a major factor in the provision which a school makes for the teaching
of the subject. Over the first three years, while the predominant method was
traditional class teaching, variations on this pattern were frequent; but in the
fourth and fifth years the influence of examinations is stronger and the prevailing
approach to mathematics teaching observed in the survey was narrow.
While teacher and pupils alike worked hard and showed commitment and
considerable interest and enthusiasm for the subject, in the majority of the class-
rooms the teaching did not aspire to do more than prepare the pupils for exam-
inations. By this criterion, the material for study was selected and the effective-
ness of the work judged. In addition, it was evidently believed that the best
preparation for examinations was direct practice of the kind of question that
is eventually asked.
The work was predominantly teacher-controlled: teachers explained, illustra-
ted, demonstrated, and perhaps gave notes on procedure and examples. The
pupils were led deductively through small steps and closed questions to the
principle being considered. A common pattern, particularly with lower ability
pupils, was to show a few examples on the board at the start of the lesson and a

then set similar exercises for the pupils to work on their own. There were few
questions encouraging wider speculation or independent initiative. At its best,
and given pupils who were sufficiently capable, this style of teaching achieved
what it set out to do. At the worst it became direct ‘telling how’ by the teacher,
followed by incomprehension on the part of the pupils. What was lacking in this
approach, even at its best, was a sense of genuine enquiry, or any stimulus to
curiosity or appeal to the imagination. There was little feeling that one can
puzzle out an approach to fresh problems without having to be given detailed
instructions.
Oral work was too often limited to brief responses from a few pupils in answer
to questions that provided no opportunity to exchange ideas or examine hypo-
theses. The work for the least able was sometimes designed to make the minimum
linguistic demands. We quote some observations of this kind:

46
 ¥ Rts
o

Mathematics in secondary education in England MNa

a
1 |

‘What was lacking in the teaching was any real development of mathematical aESi“ga
r
Fehay
%
language, communication, discussion, group work or sustained math- E Re
\ oat

ematical investigation undertaken independently of the teacher. The pupils’

response to this seemed to be one of quiet diligence (true of the general
attitude in this school) without any commitment or enthusiasm. Their cal-
culations were accurate, there was little participation, contribution or
apparent enjoyment of the subject.’ (Mixed modern) as
TER
ear
iy
par

‘The lessons seen at all ability levels were traditionally presented with little
demand being made on the pupils to use mathematical language other than
in simple monosyllabic responses. Even the more able pupils were reluctant andes
py
to use mathematical vocabulary although it may have been known to them.
For almost all pupils any discussion of mathematical problems and ideas
was a novel experience.’ (Mixed comprehensive) td
— PP
ee
he
A
‘Very little opportunity was given for the pupils to express themselves g

orally in mathematics lessons and this resulted in some very confused

Soa
statements in the exercise books when anything in the nature of an ex-
planation was demanded.’ (Mixed modern)
‘The teaching depended too heavily on text books and worksheets. Seldom
was there any direct teaching, or good oral work with lively responses. Too
often there was a lack of pace; classes were noisy and restless and at times
there was an obvious lack of sympathy between the pupils and the teacher.’
(Mixed comprehensive)
‘The teachers used language only to instruct, explain and illustrate; rarely
were questions asked of pupils requiring thought and alternative answers,
although there was some individual discussion of pupils’ difficulties. It
cannot have been easy to discuss concepts and their relationships with
pupils over half of whom were non-indigenous, but the attempt needed to
be made from the time pupils entered school. Staff spoke of the difficulty
pupils had in understanding problems and formulating them mathematically,
but this activity is a part of mathematical education.’ (Mixed modern)
The potential of mathematics for developing precision and sensitivity in the use
of language was underused; and this underuse was, as often as not, deliberate.
The teachers evidently considered that the use of symbols and the performance
of numerical calculations presented problems enough. The writing of continuous
prose was hardly ever required, and there was small demand even for the pupils
to present a clearly expressed logical argument, in which symbols and English
words formed a grammatically connected paragraph. While this was the pre-
vailing mode, some freer and more open use of language was certainly found; .
and some of the happiest exchanges were quite informal. A boy stopped his
teacher on the stairs and urgently asked for confirmation of a method by which
he wanted to estimate the number of seeds in a sunflower head; in a few
moments of profitable conversation the boy refined and improved his idea. But,
in general, insufficient value was attached to this kind of simple conversation
about the mathematical aspects of everyday things.
As a closely related matter, there was perhaps insufficient practice of very
simple mental arithmetic, aimed at building up confidence on examples which
were well within the pupils’ capacity if they were given sufficient time for
reflection. In many schools the common practice of timetabling mathematics in

47
Developing Mathematical Thinking

double periods meant that brief daily practice in simple mental arithmetic ‘(one 3
considered desirable) was no longer possible even if the teachers had wished to —
provide it, and it appeared that no effective substitute for these short bouts of ©
frequent practice had been found out.
The requirements of examinations (as they were perceived), unconsidered
reaction to public criticism and, in some cases, the teachers’ insufficient general
knowledge of the applications of the subject combined to bring about a narrow B
approach to mathematics, as a whole, and to arithmetic in particular. This was ,
’
often so even when the school’s schemes of work professed aims which were :
more liberal. The extent to which this criticism applies is indicated by the overall
graded assessments for mathematics provision given in section 10. The provision
was considered unsatisfactory for the more able pupils in some 15 per cent of
the schools, unsatisfactory for the average pupils in 26 per cent, and for the less
able in 47 per cent. The most frequent cause was the narrowness of the approach,
and when the provision was no more than ‘acceptable’ (without rising to “credit-
able’) the cause was often the same.
The following observations, made in two schools, describe the situation in
many others:

‘The teachers themselves said that the teaching style consisted of teaching
the rules and then applying them. In many of the lessons seen, these rules
were taught without any attempt to base them upon understanding and
often concerned numerical ideas which were unrealistic. To give one ex-
ample,.pupils were taught to correct numbers such as 2.6676 to 3 decimal
places although many of them had little idea what a decimal was. Express-
ing 10p as a decimal of a pound or the length of their pencil as the decimal
of a metre proved extremely difficult. In another lesson pupils had been
taught to use square root tables but found the question “Can you work
out an approximate value of the square root of 10 without using your
tables?” very strange. Applications referred to by teachers were invariably
of the textbook exercise type; problems from everyday sources, whose
point could be seen by the pupils, were seldom presented. The teaching
approach was resulting in the withering away of common sense.’
(Mixed modern)

‘The main things contributing to the low assessment in mathematics are

the lack of variety in the content of the courses and the dull, unimaginative
approach in the teaching. The top band are prepared for the 16-plus exam-
ination but the work seen during the survey visit — and references to
previous exercises — indicated an over emphasis on the four rules in arith-
metic. Any work in algebra relied on certain rules like “change the side
and change the sign”, and for calculus notes were dictated and no attempt
was made for pupils to understand what was happening.’
(Mixed full range comprehensive)

Arithmetical computation and the needs of the outside world

Teachers tend to be polarised in their attitudes to arithmetical computation. A
substantial number of teachers regard computational practice as an end in itself,
although the majority probably recognise the need to apply computational skills
to needs arising elsewhere. Sometimes the mathematics staff within a school

48
 ¥

were divided on this important matter, and quite different emphasis was given to At)

the practice of routine skills with different classes in the one school. In other
schools a consensus had been reached; but there were wide differences between
‘schools in the extent to which calculations with fractions or decimals received
Tegular practice, and in the extent to which they were practised with reference
to a variety of realistic applications. It was very common for the schemes of
work in the schools visited to refer to the need to relate the mathematics taught
to the problems of everyday life, but the convincing realisation of this aim was ale
SD
ian
ee
a
tae
pAEat 8
much more rare.
While arithmetic was much practised it was comparatively rare to see the
skills used to build up further knowledge. Thus practice of addition and multi-
plication was seldom incorporated in the investigation of any deeper questions
such as the properties of prime numbers, or of the numbers which arise when
objects are packed or stacked in various ways. An investigation of (say) the
properties of recurring decimals was rarely used to stimulate further practice on
division. Practice was nearly always regarded as a sufficient end in itself.
The following account relates to a boys’ modern school, catering for the
ability range 0 to 60, which is exceptional only in the degree of deprivation
amongst its pupils. It exemplifies in an acute form a much more general problem:

‘The objectives of the mathematics department are expressed almost en-

tirely in terms of arithmetical skills; this is highlighted by the fact that the
highest objective, even for the most able pupils, is CSE Commercial Arith-
metic and Statistics. Having considered the deprived nature of the area and
the quality of the intake in which, about fifty per cent have learning
difficulties (linguistic or mathematical or both), the head of the depart-
ment has decided that these narrow objectives are the only objectives
which are realistic in the circumstances. Narrowness also characterises the
teaching style; few resources are used other than textbooks; although the
pupils work individually most of the time this is mainly on repetitive
mechanical exercises providing only negligible opportunities for initiative.’

Often the teacher’s response to weaknesses in calculation was a direct attack on

the standard procedures for calculation, believing that pupils would learn simply
by watching the processes performed and repeating them afterwards. On some
occasions these methods appeared to work satisfactorily, at least in the short
term. But such a concentration on calculation, devoid of application and motiv-
ation, was often counter productive, and the teacher’s problem was to recognise
when the method was failing and to know what else might be tried. This is
illustrated by these extracts from accounts of two mixed modern schools.
‘There is real concern about the lack of basic skills in arithmetic, but efforts
to remedy this take the form of more and more sets of questions on frac-
tions and decimals without identifying the basic number deficiencies that
are at the heart of the problem. It is not surprising that mathematical
activity could not be found in other areas of the curriculum and in science
mathematical work was avoided where possible.’
‘This was a school in which the mathematics department was almost too
aware of the importance of basic computational skills and of the necessity

49
Developing Mathematical Thinking

to provide adequate opportunities for practice. Almost every group seen —

was doing computation of some kind. There was thus little apparent —
variety so far as the pupils were concerned and a resultant inability to
apply computational skills in a wider context. This was illustrated in an
extreme way by the case of one fifth-year boy in the bottom group who
was faced with the problem of finding the cost of five shirts at £2.40 each.
When offered the use of a calculator, which he rapidly understood how to
use, he performed the operation as an addition sum and obtained the
wrong answer because he entered the cost six times instead of five. When it
was suggested that there was a simpler method he was unable to see that
he could obtain the answer he required by using multiplication, even
though it transpired that he was not without some knowledge of his tables.’

Where there were weaknesses in simple calculations the situation was sometimes ;
aggravated by excessive insistence on standard routines. Cases were seen of —
calculations which should have been done mentally being referred to standard
algorithms and rituals; 24 per cent of 100 was calculated at length in several
[Link] another case 10 X 2 X 0.5 was calculated by two fully set out multi- —
plications, in the course of which multiplication by 0.5 required two lines of
multiplication which had subsequently to be added. Time was wasted on quite
inappropriate methods — for example on converting simple fractions to per-
centages using logarithms. There is definite value in illustrating the reliability
of the standard procedures by using them to check examples which can be done
in the head, but it encourages poor numeracy if the standard methods are
expected, and even required, when simpler and more direct methods are better.
The least able pupils were almost always taught in comparatively small groups,
often made smaller still by absence. In these groups, while appropriate time was
nearly always given to the cultivation of computational skills, teachers who were
anxious to bring about improvements did not always have the insight to under-
stand the nature of the pupils’ difficulties; or they had insufficient knowledge of
current remedial practices to know what to do if repeated practice failed to —
establish the skills they were trying to cultivate. This area demands a sizeable _
provision of in-service training. This training could often be provided by the
head of department if the overall work load and the pattern of the timetable
permitted it.
The groups of pupils next above the lowest in achievement also presented
problems. Many of these groups received well intentioned teaching, concentrat-
ing on a narrow range of arithmetical skills, but the results were disappointing
to all concerned. The greatest progress was made where the teacher had the per-
sonal qualities to capture the interest of the pupils, to convince them that success
was possible, and to produce an agreeable variety of work which provided
regular opportunities to use the constantly needed skills. Teaching of this quality
was not always available, but in many classrooms more could have been done to
explain the methods of calculation which continued to present difficulty. In a
few cases children at this level were no longer being given even the obvious
straightforward explanations of how a calculation is done, in the belief that they
must have been taught this already, and that further repetition would be fruitless.

50

a
 Ob th, Pan? ee Ee a, Be Oe eePy ek ge a ye
he wT ay eee | Aik a le Ny tiie>, fee Salted
Le ea ticka esSe ings es > * ye ye ‘ 2
‘

Mathematics in secondary education in England —

_ Comparatively little work was seen in which a standard method of calculation
was explained at greater length, perhaps with physical apparatus, with careful
_ attention to the details of the process, and with the intention that the underlying
reasons should be clearly understood. In some cases much time was spent on
extensive, but still superficial, practice on calculations such as 24 — 13, when
the time could have been better spent on calculations more closely rélated to
everyday problems, treated in a way that developed understanding and en-
couraged commonsense short cuts. For example to subtract 99p from £1.42 by
the usual written procedure is unnecessarily long, but some pupils need con-
tinued help if they are to see that, in this case, to add 1p to 42p is very much
easier.
The concern teachers feel if their pupils achieve poorly in computational
arithmetic is understandable; but if the cure involved no more than stepping up
practice on a narrow range of written calculating procedures the numeracy
problem would already have been solved. Practice needs to be carefully con-
trolled, and supplemented by:

_1 improved diagnosis of pupils’ individual difficulties,

2 a better appreciation of the role of language and oral work,
3 more effective use of the applications of the ideas, both in the world around
and in other subjects in the school.
During the period of the survey, public attention turned increasingly to the
relation between the mathematics taughtinschools and the mathematics required
in industry, and more generally to the mathematics required in adult life. Recent
discussions have had an effect on schools which cannot be assessed quantitatively
from survey data, because the question did not have the same urgency when the
survey was planned and comparable data were not collected from all the schools.
However, sufficient individual cases were seen towards the end of the visits to
suggest that there may now be a substantial problem requiring further investiga-
tion. The indications were that unsympathetic (and sometimes inadequately
informed) general criticism had reinforced a number of schools in an already
_ narrow approach to mathematics.
It is known from information collected during the survey, and from inform-
ation collected elsewhere, that working parties have been set up in many areas to
establish better liaison between schools, further education and industry, and that
substantial benefits have resulted from the discussions that have taken place in
some of these groups. But even where the teachers had participated in local
groups and been involved in the construction of local test papers in arithmetic
which were reasonable and well balanced, the courses which were eventually
taught in preparation for the papers could still be exclusively preoccupied with
the repetitive practice of low-level skills. Problems demanding the everyday use
of language were receiving insufficient attention; and computation was practised
with inappropriate or excessively difficult numbers, unrelated to practical ques-
tions in which it is necessary to subject the calculation to commonsense checks.
[-..]

51
Developing Mathematical Thinking

Summing up
Many schools are not finding it easy to strike an appropriate balance between
the varied demands which are being made on them at the moment, and it is
understandable if they sometimes find the demands contradictory. In particular,
a number of schools experience difficulty in reconciling the broader range of
mathematics which is contained in the newer schemes of work and examination
syllabuses with the need to maintain proficiency in traditional arithmetical skills. ee
—

The dilemma of these schools is accentuated by current demands for ‘greater

numeracy’, because the notion of numeracy is so often ill-defined. In a great
many cases the schools are responding by concentrating narrowly on computa-
tional skills, devoid of context or application, in ways which easily becomes 5-

counterproductive. The notion of numeracy should certainly include more than

accurate computation — it should include the ability to make rough estimates,
and the ability to apply knowledge in fresh circumstances, working to the
appropriate degree of accuracy. The practice of the most successful schools in
the survey showed that broad syllabuses are completely compatible with com-
petence in traditional skills.
The tendency of schools to concentrate on a narrow range of skills, because
they believe it to be an appropriate response to the demands which are being
made on them, or because they believe it to be the most effective way to ensure
success in the examination syllabus to which they are committed, increased
towards the end of the survey. This was to some extent a reaction to the trend
over the previous fifteen years to broaden both approaches to the subject and
the range of topics examined. This trend has produced an unsatisfactory balance
in the pattern of work in a number of schools where the new ideas have been
adopted uncritically. Some schools seen in the survey with modern or compro-
mise syllabuses were presenting a great variety of topics which overloaded their
pupils, particularly those who were not among the more able. The possible harm
in such schemes of work is not in the breadth and variety themselves, but in the
failure to identify the ideas which are essential for later progress (and which have
to be mastered) amongst the wider range of ideas which offer opportunities for
exploratory thinking and which make the subject more interesting. The remedy
for such an omission is not to swing to the opposite extreme, but to consider the
various needs which the scheme of work has to meet, and keep the content of
the course and the teaching methods under continuous review.
Whatever the mathematics syllabus, the ideas were, far more often than not,
presented in a very narrow way. This was so even when the range of topics, as
with some modern syllabuses, was large. Topics which had been introduced by
textbook writers because of the opportunities they offered for discussion and
exciting development were reduced to routine exercises, and the teaching aspired
to do little more than cover the skills required. Illustrations or applications of
the syllabus which were not examined were rarely taught. Mathematics was too
little related to the world outside and to other subjects in the school, even when
these subjects either needed to apply mathematical techniques directly (as in

a2
 re
Miuehemories in Tae ik iter in England
sclerine), or when they. gave broader illustrations of ideas which were explicitly
on the syllabus. The lack of success in bringing out the purpose of the skills and D '~¥+S
Jim@cs

techniques studied in mathematics is not due intrinsically to the syllabuses in use

De
We3Peg
oes
5
ee
o>i
Aete
(traditional or modern); it is far more a matter of the way in which syllabuses
are interpreted. It was in non-examination courses, and in some cases CSE
courses, that the clearest attempts were made to base teaching on topics from
the world outside; but much remains to be done to provide suitable source
material and to develop the ideas in ways which capture the interest of the pupils
and convince them that the ideas matter.
Some mathematical ideas might best be encountered for the first time in
other classrooms of the school, with subsequent coordinated follow-up in math-
ematics lessons. High priority should be given to the establishment of better Se
6

interdepartmental links, especially with the science and craft departments, where .3 a
.¥ 7 4 .7>

the effect of inadequate liaison can frequently be seen. Teachers in these other OEE
NY
tt
ee
w
ee
Sa
ee
R

departments likewise have a responsibility to recognise their influence on pupils’ phi

62
LX
mathematical development. It is important to use mathematical language which
the pupils understand, and to listen sympathetically to the language which the
pupils offer. The thoughtful and precise use of language, with the minimum
technicality, plays a bigger part in pupils’ mathematical development than is
sometimes recognised.
ow
hBBOE
Mathematics lessons in their turn could make a more substantial contribution
to pupils’ general language development. The subject offers opportunities for
discussion, pupil with pupil, and pupil with teacher, which are insufficiently
taken up. This does not necessarily demand any infusion of fresh mathematical
topics into the classroom, as questions which are common in any course can be
handled from this point of view. In a similar way, more encouragement could
often be given to the orderly presentation of written solutions to problems.
Some pupils may find difficulty enough in performing the calculations, but all
should be urged, within their capacity, towards clear and concise expression.
Mathematical signs make sense only if they occur in properly constructed sen-
tences. The need for clear presentation is especially plain when mathematical
ideas are used in other subjects. Where the need for development on these lines
is accepted, schools might initiate staff discussion.
While it was not a matter for systematic study in the survey, it was evident
that the development of the teaching of mathematics in a school can be handi-
capped if enterprising work is misunderstood by parents, local employers or
further education institutions. As the scheme of work in a school is developed,
it is advisable to find ways of discussing the school’s aims and methods with
these groups of people. Such discussions are important for other reasons as well.
As the survey proceeded it became clear that locally instituted tests of numeracy
were playing an increasing, although still small part in determining the curriculum
of the pupils, especially the less able. The purpose of such tests, and the extent
to which the purpose is being achieved, require continuing review.

53
 5 The mathematical performance of 11 —
year oldsin England and Walesin 1978:
the first report from the Assessment
ae
e
of Performance Unit
D. D. Foxman, M. J. Cresswell, M. Ward,
M. E. Badger, J. A. Tuson and B. A. Bloomfield
Source: Foxman, D. D. et al., Mathematical Development:
Primary Survey Report No. 1, HMSO, London, 1980. Section 1.2;
sections 1.4—1.6; figures 3.8, 3.12, 3.18 and 3.22;
sections 4.35—4.43, sections 6.6—6. 14.

[This chapter consists of extracts from the report of the first survey of the
mathematical performance of 11 year old children in England and Wales. The
survey was conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research on
behalf of the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU) of the Department of
Education and Science. The extracts have been divided as follows:

a description of the general approach to monitoring mathematical performance;

examples of the written test items, and the associated results;
examples of the practical test items, and the associated results;
a summary of the overall results.]
hWN

A description of the general approach to monitoring

mathematical performance
In the survey, printed tests requiring short written responses were administered
to a representative national sample of about 13000 pupils attending schools in
England and Wales whose eleventh birthdays occurred in the school year of
testing. A sub-sample of the main sample, consisting of over 1000 pupils, also
took practical tests administered by itinerant testers in one-to-one interviews.
A separate sub-sample of over 1500 pupils completed questionnaires administered
by their own teachers on their attitudes to mathematics as a whole and to various
topics within it. Altogether pupils from about 1000 schools participated. [. . .]
APU policy is that monitoring should reflect the diversity of the mathematical
_ curriculum. This applies both to the range of content taught and to the variety
of mathematical activity which takes place in the schools. The framework [for

54
 ba ae Pee »
e
. <A Sion
tea
"ag
The mathematical performance of 11 year olds in England and Wales in 1978
monitoring mathematical performance] needed to be compatible with the APU
curriculum model in which mathematics is construed as a line of development
and not simply as a subject.
The Steering Group on mathematics identified three requirements: the
classification should reflect the structure of mathematics, take into account
what is known about the learning of mathematics, and provide evidence to in-
form current discussions on the mathematics curriculum.
It was decided to use a two-way categorisation: by content and by learning
outcome. In order to select the categories the mathematics monitoring team
studied a variety of classification schemes. These generally agreed on three main
categories of content, namely, geometry, measures and number, while others
often mentioned included algebra, sets, functions and graphical representation.
The same main categories of content and outcome were used for both 11 year
olds and 15 year olds. At the secondary level, work on sets is most evident in
relation to algebraic structure. The work done in primary schools on representing
data in graphs and charts is part of another major category of mathematics —
statistics — which uses the concept of probability as its theoretical basis. From
this it appeared that five main content categories: geometry, measures, number,
algebra, and probability and statistics, would be a sufficiently extensive umbrella
to cover the mathematics content known to be taught to both the 11 and 15
year old age groups.
The main content categories subdivide differently at the two age groups but
the difference is mainly one of balance; sub-categories of number must constitute
a greater part of the primary curriculum than of the secondary curriculum while
the reverse is the case for sub-categories of algebra. Here only the primary sub-
categories are considered.
There are variations between schools in the emphasis placed on new or modern
mathematics and traditional mathematics; this is particularly evident in geometry
and algebra. For example, in geometry the notion of transformations is a modern
topic while traditional geometry includes basic Euclidean ideas. Within algebra
sets represent modern work and generalised arithmetic traditional. In measures
there is a convenient subdivision between unit measures (money, time, temper-
ature, weight/mass etc.) and mensuration (length, area, volume, capacity). The
number category at primary level includes work on whole numbers, fractions,
decimals and percentages. The four rules have a prominent place in all schools
and in most at least some 11 year olds will have been introduced to basic ideas
about rate and ratio and concepts such as factors, multiples and prime numbers.
The number category conveniently subdivides by the type of outcome of pupils’
learning as well as by content; there is a need for information on pupils’ under-
standing of concepts, on their skills in computation and on their performance
in applying number concepts and skills in various contexts.
The main content categories were divided into 13 sub-categories as shown in
table 1. The purpose of the framework is to ease the task of interpreting the
data and it is not supposed that the various areas of mathematics can be confined
within such clear-cut boundaries. The same structure applies with perhaps more

35
 er ele Male getama Simba
ene ee te
mneyRR reoes
SmISah ge DA“
z

- Developing (athematical Thinking = =

Table 7 The curriculum framework: main categories of content and outcome

Main Type of Concepts, skills, applications Generalisa- Investiga- Attitudes —

content perfor- tion and tions and
category mance or proof creativity
outcome

Money, time, mass, temperature Ee

Measures z. 2 z.
Length, area, volume, capacity e& ce
283
Shapes, lines, angles = ga
Geometry eg EY
Symmetry, transformations, co- Zz 3 3
ordinates * ey =
ieee SS
Concepts: whole number ccouee
= 3
Computation: whole numbers and 2 a
decimals Py a
Applications of numbers 3 =
Number > 2.
s
Concepts: decimals and fractions 3 =
Computation: fractions 8 3
8 8 ;
Ratio and rate 3 ;
a
Generalised arithmetic
Algebra
Sets and relations

Probability and Probability and data representation

statistics
ee
5

force to the different outcomes of learning, six of which have been defined. _
These are:
:
1 concepts,
2. skills, 4
3 applications,
4 generalisation and proof,
5 investigations,
6 attitudes to mathematics.

Mathematical concepts are tested by items involving the recognition of a

relationship. For example, an item testing the concept of multiplication might
y
evoke recognition of the relationship between multiplication and addition.
Some mathematical concepts (e.g. number) form a complex network of relation-
ships; a single item could only test perhaps one aspect of one of the relationships.
Skills are learned routines which are tested in the form in which they have been _
practised. Apart from computation, mathematical skills include measurement of
length with a ruler, drawing a circle with compasses and solving a simple algebraic
equation.
The type of performance classified as applications is a particularly important

56 .
one for the cross curriculum model. It is under this heading that test items using
contexts from different subject areas would be placed, but for the first primary
survey it was decided that the category should consist of items testing the ability
to select and carry out the appropriate mathematical procedure in a range of
everyday contexts.
Items testing pupils’ performance in generalisation and proof and investiga-
tions of open situations have not been included in this first round of monitoring
but are being developed for possible inclusion in subsequent surveys.
Versions of the scheme adopted for the classification of outcomes had been
developed prior to the appointment of the monitoring team. However the
characterisation of learning outcomes is more problematic than the classification
of content, partly owing to differences in views on the nature of learning, but
also because the categories are not clearly differentiated. For example, many
skills or practised routines are dependent for their success on an understanding
of underlying concepts. Further, a pupil’s performance may not match the
outcome being tested. This is illustrated by the following item which is intended
to test an aspect of the concept of multiplication, the recognition of the relation-
ship between multiplication and addition:

12 X 18=216
13 X 18=216+0
What should be the number in the box?

A pupil who understands the concept and recognises the purpose of the
question is most likely to place 18 in the box provided. But the correct answer
can also be obtained by finding the product of 13 and 18 and subtracting 216.
This way of arriving at the answer demonstrates computational skill rather than
an understanding of the relationship between multiplication and repeated
addition. It is obvious that unless the way in which a pupil tackles an item is
known it cannot be unequivocally classified on the outcomes dimension.
In spite of these difficulties of classifying outcomes, the dimension is in-
valuable as a check that sub-categories contain items testing as wide a range of
mathematical activity as possible. This intention is exemplified in table 1, by
showing the content dimension intersecting the outcomes categories. In practice,
because of the balance of the mathematics curriculum, some sub-categories have
items testing mostly one outcome (e.g. concepts in symmetry, transformations,
coordinates or applications in probability and data representation), while in
number the extensive coverage of all three types of outcome warranted separate
sub-categories for each of them.
The difficulties of classifying performance which arise from not knowing
how a question is tackled mainly occur in written tests when pupils’ methods
cannot be probed as they can be in the practical mode of assessment.
Three types of assessment instruments were used in the 1978 survey. Con-
cepts, skills and applications in the sub-categories of content were assessed in
written and practical modes, and attitudes were assessed partly in the practical
mode but mainly by the administration of attitude questionnaires. [. . .]

a7)
¥

Developing Mathematical Thinking

A total of 647 written items were assembled into 26 tests, each ste oF
a different selection of items from three of the 13 sub-categories. The combina-—
tions of three sub-categories within each test were arranged so that all tests con-
tained items from at least one number or measures sub-category. Each test
consisted of about 50 items. Pilot tests had shown that few children needed
more than 50 minutes to attempt these but schools were asked to allow pupils
to continue working for as long as they wished, where possible.
The practical tests were administered by 21 experienced teachers of 11 year
olds who were nominated by their local authorities and trained to administer
the tests by the NFER monitoring team. Each tester visited up to ten schools
and tested six pupils per day from those selected by the sampling procedure.
Pupils from about 150 schools took part in the practical tests.
Each practical test given to a pupil comprised three of the twelve topics
i
which had been developed from the survey. The topics consisted of a series of
‘
questions on the same theme, chosen to give a reasonable variety of material
from the range of sub-categories of the curriculum framework. Emphasis was |
placed on assessing pupils’ understanding of mathematical ideas in practical :
4
situations. 3

Examples of written items, and the associated results

[This section consists of four figures (see Figures 1—4 on pages 59—62) taken
from chapter 3 of the report. Each figure has the same format, and includes
five items, with the percentage of children who performed each successfully
(referred to as the item facility) as well as the percentage who did not, or who
omitted the item altogether.]
S-t
@

An example from the practical tests (fractions) and the associated results

This topic was designed to look at fractions in two ways. The child was first Se
——
=
asked to cut up a piece of string into fractional parts. Some coloured plastic
Squares were then shown and questions asked about fractions of the total
number of squares.
The first question asked pupils to ‘cut this string in half’. The response was
taken as correct where pupils used a method such as folding to find the centre.
The pupils were then presented with one of the halves and asked to ‘cut off
4 of this piece’. Among the 64 per cent who were successful were those who ——
eS
e
~

ended up with 4, 4, 4 as well as those with 4, 3. The drop of 22 per cent in

the success rate here, from 86 per cent to 64 per cent was not simply because
there were two cuts to make. Whereas for one fold the two ends came together, -
——

Ce D8 ee :

58
 cr atesA
;age The mathematical performance of 11 year olds in England and Wales in 1978
Figure 7 Items from length, area, volume, capacity
Item cluster: area
Mean sub-category score — 54 per cent

Item
Response analysis (%) facility
(%)

D1 = Sem
74 |icm
Incorrect 27 re

Omitted & <——3cem

=>
How many of the triangles fit into the rectangle?

D2 Put a ring round each of the two shapes which have

Incorrect 38
Ly
© cam
Omitted 5

pa The area of this rectangle

is 20 square centimetres.
Incorrect “5 47
What is the area of the
Omitted 8 shaded part?

; —_____ square centimetres

D4
Incorrect 12 cm? 23

Other incorrect 30 3cm

—=

Omitted 10 What is the area of this square?

D5

What is the area

Incorrect 54 of this shape?

Omitted 20

59
 t

Response analysis (%)

Incorrect F1 Put these decimals in order of size, smallest first.

* 7
Omitted 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.6

(0.56 is:
F2 Tick the line that is correct.
O greater than 1.3 29
_ Oequal to 1.3 11 0.56 is less than 1.3
_ Other incorrect 1 0.56 is greater than 1.3
0.56 is equal to 1.3
Omitted 5

F3
Incorrect How many times is 0.1 greater than 0.01?
Omitted

F4
Incorrect What number is 10 times 0.5?

Omitted

F5 Put these decimals in order of size, smallest first.

Incorrect
0.07 0.23 0.1
Omitted
 7 Ta i oa : i i a
ay =

The mathematical performance of 11 year olds in England and Wales in 1978

Figure 3 _\tems from applications of number

Item cluster: division 4
Mean sub-category score: 54 per cent

Item
Response analysis (%) facility
(%)

J1
A bar of chocolate can be broken into 18 squares.
Incorrect 11 There are 6 squares ;in each row.

Omitted 6 How many rows are there?

rows

J2

Incorrect 17 : re
Spoons are sold in boxes containing half a dozen.
Omitted 7 If |!want 30 spoons, how many boxes shall | buy?

J3
150 people are coming to see the school play.
Incorrect 25 The chairs are arranged in rows of 15.

Omitted 9 How many rows of chairs will be needed?

J4
256 children are going to have tea at the Christmas
Incorrect 34 Party. 8 children can sit at a table.

Omitted 13 How many tables will be needed?

J5
A batting average in cricket is found by dividing
Incorrect 37 the number of runs scored by number of times out.
Fill in the following table.
Omitted 38
Name No. times out No. runs scored Average
Boycott 5 500

61
 ~ Item cluster: enuatone
Mean sub-category score: 38 per cent

Response analysis (%)

Incorrect ~M1. Find which number O stands for.

Omitted 12-O=8 O=

Incorrect i M2 Find which number A stands for.

Omitted : ; 51+A=90 Ae

M3 nr stands for a number.

Incorrect
n+4=21
Omitted
so n+5=

M4 8B stands for a number.

Incorrect
-B- 9=21
Omitted
so B—10=

M5 Fill in the values of / in this table according

7 to the equation M +N =4
Incorrect

oO % . [w[o[1[ 23/4]
me Talal LE
 i ie ae jeunea aBais aN hae castsavs TELE ae aby a

ere he mathematical Le Na Beo fl

MH1pearolds inevlenid and Wales in 1978

when pupils used a trial and error method, guessing the quarter oer the final
fold was too long or too short.

SS
Some pupils changed their strategy at this point but others could not.
Question 3 asked ‘what fraction of the whole string that you started with is
that little piece?’, emphasising the original piece not cut into these bits:

aid 41 on wv
2 4 8 8
The question was about a fraction of a fraction: recognising the required piece
as a quarter of a half. The correct answer of 7 was given by 42 per cent of
pupils, showing that the notion of multiplying fractions, even with real materials,
is not easy. Many pupils said ‘a quarter’, and a third, a sixth and a tenth were
amongst other answers.
The questions about the coloured plastic tiles proved to be difficult:

First three red and three yellow square tiles were set out loosely. Question 5
asked ‘what fraction of these squares is red?’.
This question was about the basic recognition of fractions, and 61 per cent
of pupils gave a correct response. The answer 2 was allowed, and some 12 per
cent gave this, but when the testers probed it appeared that some pupils did not i

appreciate that 2 and 4 were equivalent.

For question 6 the children were shown one red and three yellow squares
and asked ‘What fraction of these squares is a This time 64 per cent gave a
correct response. A frequent wrong answer was 4 4 where pupils gave the ratio
of red to yellow. This demonstrates lack of understanding of set inclusion, that
the red square is included in the set of all squares.

63
 gases Ido,
UO :suol}oe1y
s]jnsai

\o+
EB
dG
Vv
a0)
suoljsano papleup papleuf)
+ -ssazansuf) dapuleway
/ <
oe
[nf
papie
ssazans
ssazons
(%) (%) (%) (%) bo
|* siy34N9,
Bulys
ul Hey IV 98 48 cl L S
sAog €8 8 vl | =
OSHIS) cB c6 8 L RS
Ss
Z HdIqdN aUO “adald MON,JND $40% JO S14} ,adald IV v9 89 ce 0 3
shog 09 v9 GE 0 is
sp LL vl 92 0 =
E€ JeUM, ONDE$O ay} ajoyM Huliysjey} NOA pazieysYIM
S! EY} IW cv 8 os € Ss
2j33!| .2a9ald sAog €v 8v 60 € bo
sd Ov 9 LS Z
Juasalg
€ MOjjaA
pue€ pas “sasenbsMOH, Aue
Jo asay} Sasenbs
ase ,€Pad = = — —
G eYUM, uolse1
yO asay} Sasenbs
S! ,€PaJ liv L9 G9 ve L
sAog 8G €9 LE L
SID 99 89 LE L ;
Q JUAaSaIg
€ MOjJaA
pue
| pas "BIeNbs LeU, u0l0e4}
yO asay} sasenbs IV v9 99 Ze Z
S| .€Pad sAog GQ 89 - O€ Cc
SHI L9 v9 Ge L
/ juasaig pajdejs
“Beq ajewIsy,
JeEYM UO!OeIy
JO asay} Shad
Si 34M
, Iv L9 €9 9¢ Z <
sAog 19 €9 Se c Tow
sl! 09 co LE L
ef MOH,PIP NOA aye INOA ,CUOITEWIISa IV 8b 8v Ov LL
shog Ly Lv cv OL *
SILI) 6b 6v Le

LgE sjidnd400} siy} d1do}

 Reg
a Pog

mathematical performance of 11 year olds in England and Wales in 1978

These tests indicated that a third of all 11 year old pupils (61 and 64 per cent
correct) do not fully understand the nature of fractions with discrete objects.

Further evidence that pupils find the idea of fractions hard came in question 7.
The pupil was presented with a stapled plastic bag containing 15 white and
45 coloured pegs and asked to estimate the fraction of white ones. To be accept-
able the pupils’ answer had to be greater than or equal to ty and less than 3 . Ques-
tion 7a: ‘How did you make your estimation?’, was added at the suggestion of
one of the teachers at the briefing conference.
Some answers were succinct and correct:
‘Y%,. It looks like there’s 3 reds for every white one’. Other responses illustrate
how an answer can be coded ‘successful’ without being ‘correct’, e.g. ‘4: if you
split the red pegs into three parts they’d make about the same as the white ones’,
or ‘L: for every white peg there looked like 3 red ones’.
One boy, while trying hard to give the tester the answer he wanted, showed that
he did not appreciate what a fraction was: ‘S: 14 white pegs. If you just say 14
it isn’t a fraction. You have to say ip otherwise you break the rule’.
While many pupils answered this test as a whole with confidence and accuracy,
a number gave evidence of not understanding some aspects of the notion of a
fraction.

The results of the survey

It would be reasonable to conclude from the results of the written and practical
tests [. . . those included in previous parts of this chapter, and many others] that
most 11 year olds can do mathematics involving the more fundamental concepts
and skills to which they have been introduced and also simple applications of
them. There is, however, a fairly sharp decline in performance as pupils’ under-
standing of the concepts is probed more deeply and as their basic knowledge has
to be applied in more complex settings or unfamiliar contexts. Typical examples
of the effect of a deeper probe into concepts are that the reflection of a simple
shape in a vertical mirror was drawn successfully by 80 per cent, but by about
20 per cent if the mirror was diagonal. Pupils’ grasp of the concept of decimal
place value was shown by several items to be tenuous; placing decimals written
to one place in order of size was achieved by 80 per cent of pupils but the
introduction in some of the numbers of a second place of decimals reduced the
65
Developing Mathematical Thinking a

facility for the same process to 20 per cent. Fractions could be added by 60 per
cent to 70 per cent if their denominators were the same, but by less than 30 per
cent if they were not. ‘
Different contexts influence performance on items involving the same pro-
cesses or operations in various ways and there were a number of examples of this .
in the survey. An unfamiliar context can induce a tentative approach and this is
probably why many pupils appeared to be put off their stroke when asked to
calculate Geoffrey Boycott’s batting average, although the method of getting the
result was explained and the computation involved was not difficult. In another
example a division of two numbers 84 + 4 was answered correctly by 70 per cent
of pupils while the same calculation, written more unusually in ratio or fraction
form, ss obtained a facility value of only 40 per cent. Some pupils may not
have appreciated that 84 was an instruction td do anything, and, of those who
did, some tried to introduce a fraction into their answer.
All mathematics problems and questions have to be analysed to establish
what mathematical knowledge is required to get an aiiswer. At the age of 11 it is
difficult for pupils to extract the essential details from more complex contexts.
Thus, items on angle properties of figures such as the sum of adjacent angles on
a straight line and the sum of interior angles of a triangle became more difficult
as the basic figures were more deeply embedded in other diagrams.
Different contexts can also elicit alternative approaches to the same process
and this effect may have been responsible for a number of items on proportion-
ality with similar operations receiving widely different facilities. In the practical
interviews it was possible to demonstrate this context effect in the topic ‘methods
of computation’ in which pupils were presented with verbal problems and their
equivalent computations. A high proportion of pupils used [Link]
in the two contexts and in addition some testers reported interviewing pupils
who did not see the connection between these same computations carried out
by the different methods.
An important feature of mathematics is its power to communicate in symbols,
graphs and diagrams. The results show that while pupils have had experience of,
and understand, the basic ideas and skills, many find translating and manipulating
symbols too abstract to deal with and that graphs and diagrams generally com-
municate only what is immediately evident. Most pupils could read scale and
graph points correctly if they were labelled but the interpolation of intermediate
unmarked points and extrapolation to points off the graph could be done by
just a few pupils. Information which had to be worked out from data extracted
from tables, graphs or diagrams generally gained lower facilities than the com-
parable computations presented in a basic straightforward manner. Inferring
information from graphs and diagrams proved difficult, For example, questions
on the calculation of perimeters of rectangles showed that some children
do
not infer the remaining lengths if only one length and breadth are given
on the
accompanying diagram. Another example occurred in the practical topic ‘visual-
isation’, where a high proportion of pupils were able to interpret two-dimensi
onal
diagrams of three-dimensional shapes so that they could build the
latter with

66
 is A
at,

The mathematical per. formance of 11 year olds in England and Wales in 1978

small cubes, but any information which had to be inferred from the diagram
(e.g. ‘where could you place a cube which cannot be seen in the diagram?’)
produced lower facilities.
Communicating with symbols is related to communication with ordinary
language; while only very few pupils could translate or manipulate mathematical
symbols, more were able to describe in words relationships such as those between
two sets of numbers. In some instances the use of verbal forms to stand for aa

mathematical symbols substantially improved performance. This happened in

the multiplication of fractions (using ‘of’ for the multiplication sign) and division
of fractions (using ‘how many halves in 24’ for ‘24 +4’) where the words make
the situation more concrete. However, in some items in computation with whole
numbers a slight worsening of performance was the result of using verbal forms
like ‘what is the sum of for the addition sign and ‘what is 5 times as big as 2’ in
place of S X 2. This was probably because familiar and well understood symbols
were replaced by less well-known words and phrases.
Words have other functions in addition to standing for symbols: they can
define; they have a classifying function; and they can draw attention to a par-
ticular feature of a situation. Pupils may know definitions of mathematical terms
like ‘prime number’ for example, but do not always follow their implications.
Thus a non-prime odd number was often selected as a prime possibly because,
as prime numbers are also odd (with the exception of 2), odd numbers ‘look like’
primes. The classifying function of words is employed in the naming of two- or
three-dimensional shapes which a high proportion of pupils could do when
different ones such as circle, triangle, rectangle or cube, cone and cylinder were
contrasted in the same item.
In the practical interview words could be used to probe and draw attention to
particular features of the situation under discussion and the pupils’ understanding
of the terms and expressions used to describe it. In cases where the meaning of a
term (e.g. ‘estimate’) was not understood, or needed to be negotiated, (e.g.
‘different’ in ‘different number pattern’) then prompts improved performance.
There was a more limited effect where difficult underlying concepts were in-
volved, for example, in relation to fractions of a number of discrete objects.
Finally, as to pupils’ attitudes towards mathematics, the main finding of
interest was that the four rules are regarded by pupils as the topics which are
most representative of the subject. It was also found that pupils’ attitude to
dividing, in contrast to adding, subtracting and multiplying, is probably a good
indicator of their interest in mathematics as a whole.

67
 SECTION 3 Developing mathematical
thinking
oe
ff;
m

Introduction #|
4

4
|
The picture of mathematical thinking and a strategy [Link] it, painted at
the beginning of this book, can be supported and amplified in many ways. This
section of the book is primarily concerned with such background. Some of the
chapters are to do with the psychology of learning, both in general terms and
specifically in mathematics. Others focus upon the nature of problem-solving.
A third theme is language, for it is argued that an essential part of the strategy
for developing mathematical thinking is communicating one’s thoughts, both
orally and in written records. Most of the chapters deal with more than one of
these three themes, for they are all interconnected. Nevertheless each chapter
has one of the themes as its principal focus, and the chapters have been grouped
accordingly.
The first three chapters are all mainly concerned with the psychology of
learning. In chapter 6, The Desire to Learn, Margaret Donaldson discusses
_ motivation. She maintains that the key role of the teacher is to provide children
with appropriate challenges — to give them problems that they can solve, but
which nevertheless require some effort. She quotes research evidence to the
effect that such activity is intrinsically satisfying so there is no need for external
incentives. Provided that their confidence has not been destroyed, children and
adults enjoy meaningful and manageable challenges.
Chapters 7 and 8 are specifically concerned with the psychology of learning
mathematics. In chapter 7 Richard Skemp discusses how mathematical concepts
are formed. In essence his argument is that they are formed not by definitions
but by examples. That is, children learn about measurement by trying to measure
all manner of different things and about general rules for adding by trying to
add particular pairs of numbers. They do not learn about measurement so well
if they are only given such definitions as the ‘area of a rectangle is length times
breadth’, nor do they understand about adding numbers of two or more digits
by merely being given rules about ‘carrying’. The common sense of both definition
and rule need first of all to be made apparent from the children’s own experience.
Chapter 8 lends support to this argument from a rather different perspective.
It stems from a large-scale inquiry into children’s cognitive development and is
very much in the Piagetian tradition. Many years ago Piaget investigated the
growth of children’s understanding of such fundamental mathematical concepts
as number, length, and weight. His conclusion was that children passed through
a stage when they believed that the number of objects in a collection might alter

68
 Uy es te rs, ee ee Le ms TR ie Ee RS Nene oO

a te

Section 3: Introduction
_ if the objects were moved around, and that the weight of a ball of plasticine
might change if it were rolled into a different shape. In Piagetian terminology,
children at such a stage do not ‘conserve’ number or weight, nor yet many other
basic concepts such as length or area. Piaget also maintained that children’s logic
was somewhat deficient. They could not use arguments of the form ‘4 = B and
B=C, therefore A = C’ or ‘If A is greater than B and B is greater than C, A must
be greater than C’. Many criticisms have been made of Piagetian methodology
and his conclusions have been questioned in a number of ways: nevertheless
conservation, and what chapter 8 refers to as ‘concreto-logic’, continue to be
major concepts in research into cognitive development. In that chapter Eryl
Rothwell Hughes describes and interprets the results of a large-scale study of
the development of children’s understanding of the three concepts of area,
weight and volume. She argues that the common view that these concepts are
only understood in that order has little foundation. The crucial factor deter-
mining children’s grasp of these concepts is the practical experience that they
have had and she considers this to be a powerful argument for involving child-
ren in practical activities in which these concepts are implicit. Understanding
will stem from a wide range of particular examples in the same way as Skemp
describes.
The second three chapters, 9, 10 and 11 focus upon what problem-solving
actually involves. Chapter 9 is taken from the writings of that most well-known
of mathematical problem-solvers, George Polya. His advice to would-be problem-
solvers is couched in the form of a dialogue in which he identifies several phases
in the process: getting acquainted with the problem, trying to understand it
more fully, looking for helpful ideas, carrying out some kind of solution, and
then finally looking back over the experience for any lessons that can be formed.
In keeping with the argument that one needs particular examples of an idea in
order to fully understand it, Polya’s general advice probably makes most sense
when seen in the light of personal experiences of problem-solving; in this book
that is left as an exercise for the reader, though students of the Developing
Mathematical Thinking course will certainly be trying to do this.
Chapter 10, by Bob Samples, describes the nature of the problem-solving that
he and two other observers saw happening in a particular classroom. Using the
metaphor of left-handed and right-handed knowing — the former being intuitive
and the latter rational — he describes how the children oscillated between the
two. Given a piece of equipment to explore they spent some of the time playing
with it in what seemed to be a fairly disorganised manner, and Samples describes
this as getting to know the equipment (here a set of pendula) in a left-handed,
intuitive way. However, some of their time was spent in thinking rationally about
the way in which the pendula behaved, that is, working in the right-handed mode.
To begin with, the left hand predominated, while later on the right hand largely
took over, but all the way through the children oscillated between the two.
Chapter 11, by Sandy Dawson and John Trivett, is also centred upon children
investigating problems in the classroom. They are firm believers in the value of
such activity and advocate it strongly. The picture they paint is very akin to that

69
Developing Mathematical 3 Thinking

described at the beginning of the book, in which children are engaged in a variety 3
of investigations and spend much of their time discussing them with each other.
The final two chapters in this section, chapters 12 and 13, pay particular
attention to language. Chapter 12 is a very brief account by Dan Slobin of
the interactions between language and cognitive development in general. In
other words it looks at the way in which the developments of language and
thinking influence each other. In Chapter 13, David Pimm focuses entirely upon
language and mathematics, and is concerned with what is involved in communi-
cating mathematical ideas. He argues that a prime source of confusion for would-
be learners of mathematics is that the way in which symbols are written down
and then manipulated can easily become dissociated from anything that happens
in the real world. Any talking that then happens about the mathematics then
degenerates into rules for moving symbols around, rules like ‘take it to the other
side and change the sign’. But such rules are not arbitrary; they derive from
activities that make sense and which can be talked about. In this way the rules
become intuitively obvious. Even so there are pitfalls in seeing mathematics as a
language into which activities described in English can be translated. For example,
many different activities share a single mathematical formulation: the sign ‘—’
relates to, among other things, taking away and to finding the difference between,
which arise in situations that are far from being the same. Many other aspects of
considering mathematics to be a language are also explored in this chapter.

70
6 The desire to learn
Margaret Donaldson

Source: Donaldson, M., Children’s Minds, chapter 10, pp 110-

120, Fontana, 1978.

At a very early age, human babies show signs of a strong urge to master the en-
vironment. They are limited in what they can do by the slow development of
their skill in controlling their own movements. Thus it is fair to call them ‘help-
less? in the sense that they cannot manage the environment well enough to sur-
vive unaided. This makes it all the more interesting to discover that the urge to
manage the environment is already there at this time of helplessness and that it
does not appear to derive from anything else or to depend on any reward apart
from the achieving of competence and control.
For some time past it has been widely accepted that babies, and some other
creatures, learn to do things because certain acts lead to ‘rewards’; and there is
no reason to doubt that this is true. But it used also to be widely believed that
effective rewards, at least in the early stages, had to be directly related to such
basic physiological ‘drives’ as thirst or hunger. In other words, a baby would
learn if he got food or drink or some sort of physical comfort, not otherwise.
It is now clear that this is not so. Babies will learn to behave in ways that
produce results in the world with no reward except the successful outcome.
For an example of work which shows this clearly we may turn to some studies
carried out by Hanus Papousek.
Papousek began by using milk in the normal way to ‘reward’ the babies he
studied and so teach them to carry out some simple movements, such as turning
the head to one side or the other. Then he noticed that an infant who had had
enough to drink would refuse the milk but would still go on making the learned
response with clear signs of pleasure. So he began to study the children’s responses
in situations where no milk was provided. He quickly found that children as
young as four months would learn to turn their heads to right or left if the
movement ‘switched on’ a display of lights — and indeed that they were capable
of learning quite complex sequences of head turns to bring about this result. For
instance, they could learn to make alternating turns to left and right; or to make
double alternating turns (two left, two right); or to make as many as three con-
secutive turns to one side.
Papousek’s light display was placed directly in front of the infants and he

71
 »,

Developing Mathemenial Thinking

made the interesting observation that sometimes they would not tum ak to x
watch the lights closely although they would ‘smile and bubble’ when the dis-
play came on. Papousek concluded that it was not primarily the sight of the
lights which pleased them, it was the success they were achieving in solving the
problem, in mastering the skill. If he is right in this — and there is a considerable
amount of other confirming evidence — then we may conclude that there exists
a fundamental human urge to make sense of the world and bring it under deli-
berate control.
Papousek argues further that what his babies are doing as they try to achieve
this control is matching incoming information about the world against some sort
of inner ‘standard’. And this amounts to saying that they are already engaged in
building some kind of ‘model’ of bits of the world — some mental representation
of what it is like. They then experience satisfaction when the fit between the
model and the world is good, dissatisfaction when it is bad, that is, when the
expected result fails to occur, when the lights do not go on. Papousek reports
“increased tension and finally upsetness and signs of displeasure’ in the latter case.
Now on even the simplest notion of what is involved in adaptation, it can
come as no surprise that dissatisfaction arises when prediction fails. As soon as a
species abandons reliance on instinctual patterns of behaviour and begins to rely
re
ee
ro
eSe
instead on building inner representations and making predictions then it becomes
critical for survival to get the predictions right. Thus the realisation of incongruity
between our notion of the world and what it turns out to be like should naturally
lead us to want to understand it better. And many different theories about the
growth of intelligent thought stress that this kind of cognitive conflict is un-
acceptable to us, that it is something we try to get rid of. After the early stages,
the conflict may be between different parts of our world model. If we come to
face the fact that we hold two inconsistent beliefs we find this uncomfortable. o

And so we should. For it is axiomatic that the different parts of a model must
fit together.
This argument [. . . indicates] the educational value of becoming aware of.
error. But there are two further considerations which now need to be added. Sel
yes
S

Firstly it is not only when incongruities are forced on us by events that we try to
resolve them. Sometimes we positively seek them out, as if we liked having to
deal with things that we do not understand, things that challenge us intellectually.
But secondly we may, on the contrary, become afraid of meeting incongruity,
afraid of realising that we are wrong, and we may then take steps to defend our-
selves against this recognition by avoiding situations that are likely to give rise to
it. We may withdraw.
These are sharply contrasted responses and the differende between them is
of crucial educational importance. Education should aim to encourage the readi-
ness to come to grips with incongruity and even to seek it out in a positive oe
ee
oe
e
ere
aae
fashion, enjoying challenge. Equally, it should aim to discourage defence and
withdrawal. But often it seems in effect to do exactly the opposite. The reasons
for this cannot become clear without consideration of another topic: the develop-
ment of the self-image.

v2 ins
di
iat
 The desire to learn

We are beings who ask questions; we are beings who make value judgements,
holding some things good and important, others bad or worthless; and we are
beings who build models of the world. In the course of time, these models come
to include some representation of ourselves as part of the world. It is thus
inevitable that we should arrive at the question: of what value am I? And it is
also inevitable that the answer should matter to us a great deal.
When a child first asks this question, how is he to get the answer? One obvious
way will be to try to discover what value other people place upon him. With in-
creasing maturity, when he has perhaps managed to develop a more independent
value system of his own, the judgements of others may come to matter less. But
while he is still*a young child they are bound to exert powerful influence on his
self-esteem.
I have been arguing that there is a fundamental human urge to be effective,
competent and independent, to understand the world and to act with skill. I am
reminded of a little girl of eighteen months, verbally somewhat precocious, who,
when she was offered help with anything, was given to saying firmly: ‘Can
man’ge’. To this basic urge to ‘manage’ there is added in our kind of culture very
strong social approval of certain kinds of competence. It is arguable that in some
ways we do not encourage competence — that we keep our children too depend-
ent for too long, denying them the opportunity to exercise their very consider-
able capacity for initiative and responsible action. This is perhaps hard to avoid
in a complex urban society with a highly developed technology. Yet within the
educational system at least there is certainly strong social approval of competence
in the more disembodied skills of the mind. So the child who succeeds in coping
with these new challenges when he enters school will be highly valued by his
teachers — and all too often the one who initially fails will not. In either case the
child will quickly discover how he is judged to be doing. That he has often made
up his mind about his cognitive competence even before he comes to school is
emphasised by Marion Blank, who reports the occurrence of remarks like ‘I’m
dumb’, ‘I can’t, ‘I’m stupid’ and ‘I don’t know how to do things’ from certain
kindergarten children faced by some cognitive demand.
There can be no doubt that if we decide we cannot cope with a particular
kind of challenge we tend to give up and avoid it. Bruner draws a sharp distinction
between ‘coping’ and ‘defending’ which he likens to the distinction between
‘playing tennis on the one hand and fighting like fury to stay off the tennis
court altogether on the other’. People do of course differ in the extent to which
they persevere in the teeth of persistent failure. Robert the Bruce is said to have
observed the tenacity of a spider and resolved to try again. But a spider has
presumably no self-image to disturb it, and Robert the Bruce was a mature man
who doubtless had a strong and resilient one.
Szasz has this to say on the subject:
‘Definers (that is, persons who insist on defining others) are like pathogenic
micro-organisms; each invades, parasitises, and often destroys his victim;
and, in each case, those whose resistance is low are the most susceptible to
attack. Hence, those whose immunological defences are weak are most

B
 Developing Mathematical Thinking
ee
likely to contract infectious diseases; and those whose social defences are
weak— that is, the young and the old, the sick and the poor, and so forth
— are most likely to contract invidious definitions of themselves.’
If the child is defined as a failure he will almost certainly fail, at any rate in the |
_ things which the definers value; and perhaps later he will hit out very hard against
those who so defined him.
So we know at least something to avoid. But we must contrive to avoid it not
merely at the surface of our behaviour. If we do not genuinely respect and value
the children, I am afraid they will come to know.
Yet important asit is to avoid infecting the children with ‘invidious definitions’,
it is not enough. More than this is called for. When it‘comes to self-esteem, not
even a young child depends entirely for his judgements on the views of others.
For he can often see quite well for himself how he is doing. Paquita McMichael,

.
in an interesting study of the relation between early reading skills and the self- 4
image, concluded that there was a good deal of objective truth in the children’s
assessments of their competence. ‘When they agreed that they were not able to
do things as well as some other children they were admitting to a reality.’

|
Thus a very important part of the job of a teacher — or of a parent in a teach-
ing role — is to guide the child towards tasks where he will be able objectively to
do well, but not too easily, not without putting forth some effort, not without
te
aé om
difficulties to be mastered, errors to be overcome, creative solutions to be found.
This means assessing his skills with sensitivity and accuracy, understanding the La

levels of his confidence and energy, and responding to his errors in helpful ways.
Most teachers would accept this, I daresay, but it is not at all easy to achieve
in practice and there is no general formula for success. However, a valuable
discussion of teaching episodes where just this kind of thing is being attempted
is given in Marion Blank’s book, Teaching Learning in the Pre-school. She argues
that it is essential to permit errors to occur but that the effectiveness of any
teaching critically depends on how the wrong responses are then handled by the
| teacher. She makes many specific practical suggestions about this but she acknow-
| ledges that it is not possible at the moment to give rules for the exact application
of her technique — it remains an art. Obviously much depends on the child’s
personality. Ways that work with a passive withdrawn child will not work with a
| hyperactive impulsive one. And if the child is functioning very poorly it is
necessary to concentrate on helping him over his difficulties without too much
delay.
It should be noted that Blank developed her techniques for use in a one-to-
one teaching situation. She fully recognises the difficulties of applying them
with a group. It remains true that the kinds of teaching decision with which she
is concerned are of pervasive importance and that there must surely be gain e
e
e

from any enhanced awareness of them.

The traditional way of encouraging children to want to learn the things that
eee
—
we want to teach is by giving rewards for success: prizes, privileges, gold stars.
Two grave risks attend this practice. The first is obvious to common sense, the
second much less so. —-
=

74
 The desire to learn

The obvious risk is to the children who do not get the stars, for this is just
one way of defining them as failures. The other risk is to all of the children —
‘winners’ and ‘losers’ alike. There is now a substantial amount of evidence point-
ing to the conclusion that if an activity is rewarded by some extrinsic prize or
token — something quite external to the activity itself — then that activity is less
likely to be engaged in later in a free and voluntary manner when the rewards are
absent, and it is less likely to be enjoyed.
This has now been demonstrated in numerous experiments with people cf
ages ranging from three or four years to adulthood.
One study, by M. R. Lepper and his colleagues, was carried out in a nursery
school. Some of the children were given materials to draw with and were told
that they would get a prize for drawing, which they duly did. Other children
were given the same materials but with no prizes or talk of prizes. Some days
afterwards all of the children were given the opportunity to use these same
materials again in a situation where lots of other toys were available to them.
The question was: would the groups differ in the amount of time which they
spent in drawing? One might have expected that those who had been rewarded
would return more eagerly to the situation which had been ‘reinforced’. But the
opposite happened. The children who had been rewarded spent a smaller pro-
portion of their time drawing.
If one takes as criterion not the time freely spent on an activity but the
person’s own statement of how much it has been enjoyed, the same sort of
thing is found: extrinsic material reward tends to decrease enjoyment. Children
(and adults) who have been given prizes for doing something tend to say that
they like it less well than children who have been given none. And there is even
some evidence to suggest that the quality of what is produced may decline.
These findings obviously lead on at once to a further question: if you tell a
child he is doing well, are you also rewarding him and hence perhaps running
the same sort of risk as if you give him a prize? For, after all, verbal approval
is a kind of prize. And certainly, like a material object, it is extrinsic to the
activity itself — something added on at the end.
The available evidence suggests that the effects of telling someone he has done
well are not the same as those of giving him a prize. For instance, R. Anderson,
S. T. Manoogian and J. S. Reznick carried out a study very similar to the one by
Lepper and his colleagues (see above) except that there were two extra con-
ditions, in one of which the children were praised for their drawings. The results
from Lepper’s study were confirmed: the giving of material rewards was related
to a decrease in time spent on the activity later. But the giving of verbal en-
couragement had the opposite effect. And this is just as well. If it were not so,
teachers would have to face a disconcerting dilemma. For children must know
how they are doing. As we have seen, they often have a shrewd idea of this
themselves — and some tasks make it very evident [. . .] Young children [.. .]
given the task of balancing blocks on a narrow bar [. . . can] see for themselves
whether the blocks stay in place or [fall] off. So they [can] develop theories,
discover the inadequacies of these theories and develop better theories, all

73
, os > ¥ a Ce ed eS SERN
er. oe oe st a BS LAE
SRE Oe
OR eaeee ee
Pe a 4
SS ee yor
1 Se ; 4 ae tay Pee Oba, oes ares Megat a —¥
eee te be CEE7 Come)
a %

Developing Mathematical Thinking

without external reward of any kind. This is part of the justification for ‘discovery 7
learning’. But it is not equally possible in all kinds of learning to contrive situations
where the child will see for himself the outcome of his efforts. Frequently he
must be told. He must be told: ‘Good, you’ve got that right!’ or: ‘No, that’s
wrong. Try again.’ Notice that, ifthe child is told ‘That’s good’ whether he has
really done well or not, the informational value of the comment is destroyed.
It is a subtle art to give genuine information and to encourage at the same time.
Such comments do more, of course, than merely give objective knowledge of
results. They are unquestionably not neutral. But perhaps it is relevant to an
understanding of the difference between words of praise and gold stars to draw
a distinction between reward and recognition and to acknowledge how strong a
need we have to communicate achievement to our fellow men and see it con-
firmed in their eyes. Thus Gerard Manley Hopkins, who considered that his
vocation as a Jesuit was incompatible with the publication of his poetry in his
lifetime, reveals in his letters — especially his letters to Robert Bridges — how
hard this was for him: ‘There is a point with me in matters of any size when I
must absolutely have encouragement as much as crops rain . . .’ He goes on $
bravely, ‘. . . afterwards I am independent.’ But many of us do not reach this >
..
kind of independence ever. And young children are certainly unlikely to have p
a
done so.
The final condition which Anderson and her colleagues included in their
study [.. .] is relevant here. In this condition the experimenter began by declar-
ing an interest in ‘how boys and girls draw pictures’ — and thereafter firmly
refused to manifest this interest in any way. A child might show a picture,
trying, as the report of the study puts it, ‘to elicit some recognition or validation’.
But he got none. The experimenter ignored all such overtures, turning his face
away and saying: ‘I’ve got work to do.’ It is not surprising to learn that the
children who received this treatment showed the greatest drop of all in the time
which they later spent in drawing.
This still leaves us with the question of why extrinsic material rewards tend to
produce effects of damaging kinds. The explanation which fits the known facts
most nearly would seem to be that we enjoy best and engage most readily in
activities which we experience as freely chosen. We do not like being controlled,
we like controlling ourselves. In so far as reward is seen as a means of controlling
our behaviour, it tends to diminish our interest and our pleasure. Of course we.
may work hard to get the reward at the time and for so long as we expect more
reward to be forthcoming but we will be less likely to go on with the activity
when the reward is withdrawn.
This is strikingly illustrated by the following story (quoted by E. L. Deci in
his book Intrinsic Motivation).
‘In a little Southern town where the Klan was riding again, a Jewish tailor
ee
ae
e
a
eee
had the temerity to open his little shop on the main street. To drive him
out of the town the Kleagle of the Klan set a gang of little ragamuffins to
annoy him. Day after day they stood at the entrance of his shop. “Jew!
Jew!” they hooted after him. The situation looked serious for the tailor.

76

.
 The desire to learn

He took the matter so much to heart that he began to brood and spent
sleepless nights over it. Finally out of desperation he evolved a plan.
The following day, when the little hoodlums came to jeer at him, he
came to the door and said to them, “From today on any boy who calls me
‘Jew’ will get a dime from me.” Then he put his hand in his pocket and
gave each boy a dime.
Delighted with their booty, the boys came back the following day and
began to shrill, “Jew! Jew!” The tailor came out smiling. He put his hand in
his pocket and gave each of the boys a nickel, saying, “A dime is too much
— I can only afford a nickel today.” The boys went away satisfied because,
after all, a nickel was money, too.
However, when they returned the next day to hoot at him, the tailor
gave them only a penny each.
“Why do we only get a penny today?” they yelled.
“That’s all I can afford.”
“But two days ago you gave a dime, and yesterday we got a nickel.
It’s not fair, mister.”
“Take it or leave it. That’s all you’re going to get!”
“Do you think we’re going to call you ‘Jew’ for one lousy penny?”
“So don’t!”
And they didn’t.’
All of this leads to a central dilemma for those who want to teach the young.
There is a compelling case for control. The young child is not capable of deciding
for himself what he should learn: he is quite simply too ignorant. And he needs
our help to sustain him through the actual process of learning. Whitehead puts it
vividly: “After all the child is the heir to long ages of civilization and it is absurd
to let him wander in the intellectual maze of men in the Glacial Epoch.’
On the other hand, we should never forget the children who, having learned
to shout ‘Jew’ for a dime, would not then shout it when the payment came to an
end. And there is clear evidence that if we try to exercise the control not by
reward but by punishment the negative effects are even greater. If, when they
leave us, our pupils turn away from what we have taught them, the teaching has
surely been in vain.
Those who are most keenly aware of this latter danger tend to call themselves
‘progressive’ and to advocate ‘freedom’. Those who are most keenly aware of the
former danger — the danger of leaving children to wander in the intellectual
mazes of pre-history — are the advocates of ‘formal education’ and of ‘discipline’.
I can see only one way out of this dilemma: it is to exercise such control as is
needful with a light touch and never to relish the need. It is possible after all for
control to be more or less obtrusive, more or less paraded. Also a great deal will
depend on what the teacher sees the aim of the control to be. If the ultimate aim
of the control is to render itself unnecessary, if the teacher obviously wants the
children to become competent, self-determining, responsible beings and believes
them capable of it, then I am convinced that the risk of rejection of learning will
be much diminished. We come back thus to the question of whether the teacher
truly respects the children and lets them see it. If this condition is met, then the
guidance of learning within a structured environment will not be seen as the
action of a warder behind prison bars.

ot
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

References
Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T. and Reznick, J. S., ‘The Undermining and En-
hancing of Intrinsic Motivation in Pre-school Children’, Journal of Personality —
and Social Psychology, vol. 34, pp. 915—22, 1976. ;
Blank, M., Teaching Learning in the Pre-school, Merrill, Columbus, Ohio, 1973.
Deci, E. L., Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum Press, New York, 1975.
Hopkins, G. M., ‘Letter to Robert Bridges dated 17 May 1885’, in Abbott, C. C.
(ed.), The Letters of Gerard Manley Hopkins to Robert Bridges, Oxford
University Press, London, 1935.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R. E. ‘Undermining Children’s Intrinsic _
Interest with Extrinsic Rewards: A Test of the “Over-Justification” Hypo-
thesis’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 28, pp. 129—37, 1973.
McMichael, P., ‘Self-Esteem, Behaviour and Early Reading Skills in Infant School _
Children’, in Reid, J. F. and Donaldson, H. (eds.), Reading: Problems and —
Practices, 2nd edn, Ward Lock Educational, London, 1977.
Papousek, H., ‘Individual Variability in Learned Responses in Human Infants’,
in Robinson, R. J. (ed.), Brain and Early Behaviour, Academic Press, London,
1969.
Szasz, T. S. The Second Sin, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974.
Whitehead, A. N., ‘Technical Education and its Relation to Science and Litera-
ture’, inWhitehead, A. N. (ed.), The Aims of Education, Williams and Norgate,
London, 1932.

}
7
a

p
aw,
Ans
“J

mte

a
ee
Fe

78
 x a e % ie ? t bE nd * .
; * > 5

_7 The formation of mathematical

concepts
Richard Skemp wee

Source: Skemp, R., The Psychology of Learning Mathematics,

chapter2 (abridged) pp 19—35, Penguin, 1971.
SAKKKCXKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKXKXKXKXKXKXKKXKXKXKXKXKXKKKX

Abstracting and classifying

Though the term ‘concept’ is widely used, it is not easy to define. Nor, for
reasons which will appear later, is a direct definition the best way to convey its
meaning. So I shall approach it from several directions, and with a variety of
examples. Since mathematical concepts are among the most abstract, we shall
reach these last.
First, two pre-verbal examples. An infant aged twelve months, having finished
sucking his bottle, crawled across the floor of the living room to where two empty
wine bottles were standing, and stood his own empty feeding bottle neatly along-
side them. A two-year-old, seeing a baby on the floor, reacted to it as he usually
did to dogs, patting it on the head and stroking its back (He had seen plenty of
dogs, but had never before seen another baby crawling.)
In both these cases the behaviour of the children concerned implies: one,
some kind of classification of their previous experience; two, the fitting of their
present experience into one of these classes.
We all do these all the time; it is thus that we bring to bear our past experience
on the present situation. The activity is so continuous and automatic that it
requires some slightly unexpected outcome thereof, such as the above, to call
it to our attention.
At a lower level, we classify every time we recognise an object as one which
we have seen before. On no two occasions are the incoming sense data likely to
be exactly the same, since we see objects at different distances and angles, and
also in varying lights. From these varying inputs we abstract certain invariant
properties, and these properties persist in memory longer than the memory of
any particular presentation of the object. In the diagram at the top of page 80,
C,, Cy, . . . represent successive past experiences of the same object; say, a par-
ticular chair. From these we abstract certain common properties, represented in
the diagram by C. Once this abstraction is formed, any further experience C,,
evokes C, and the chair is recognised: that is, the new experience is classified
with C,, C, etc. C, and C are now experienced together; and from their com-

79
Developing Mathematical Thinking

Cc

5
&
a

&
q ,
=

gM OF ae Aone 7
a
z

bination, we experience both the similarity (C) of C, to our previous experi-

enes of seeing this chair, and also the particular distance, angle, etc., on this
occasion (C,,). Awareness of the differences between C, and C,, C2, C3 is
(according to this diagram) a more indirect process; and this accords with
experimental data — children find it easier to give similarities between, say, an
orange and an apple, than differences.
We progress rapidly to further abstractions. From particular chairs C, C’, C’, we
abstract further invariant properties, by which we recognise Ch (a new object seen
for the first time, say in a shop window) as a member of this class. It is the second-
order abstraction (from the set of abstractions C,C’, . . .)to which we give the name
‘chair’. The invariant properties which characterise it are already becoming more
functional and less perceptual — that is, less attached to the physical properties of
achair. One I saw recently was of basket-work, egg-shaped, and hung from a single

Ch

G Cc c

rope. It bore little or no physical resemblance to any chair which I had ever seen
— but I recognised it at once as a chair, and a most desirable one too! [. . .]
A concept therefore requires for its formation a number of experiences which
have something in common. Once the concept is formed, we may (retrospectively)
talk about examples of the concept. Everyday concepts come from everyday
experience, and the examples which lead to their formation occur randomly,
spaced in time. The more frequently encountered objects are, in general, con- —
ceptualised more rapidly: but many other factors are at work, which makes this
statement an over-simplification. One of these is
contrast. In the diagram on the right,
the single X stands out perceptually ee) ()O »< Gs O
from the five variously shaped Os.

80

a
 ee ee rn, eae
wt
eee 1
-
pe
fe
:
The formeton of mathematical concepts
Objects which thus stand out from their surroundings are more likely to be
remembered, and their similarities more likely to be abstracted across intervals
as
of space and time. sine
nics
eERO
aiejee
The diagram also illustrates the function of non-examples in determining
a class. The X, by its difference from all the other shapes, makes the similarity
between them more noticeable. The essential characteristics of a chair are clari-
fied by pointing to (say) a stool, a settee, a bed, and a garden seat, and saying
‘These are not chairs.’ This is specially useful in fixing the border-line of a class
— we use objects which might be examples, but aren’t.
fe]

The communication of concepts

We can see that language can be used to speed up the formation of a concept by
helping to collect and separate contributory examples and non-examples. Can it
be used to short-circuit the process altogether, by simply defining a concept
verbally? Particularly in mathematics, this is often attempted; so let us examine
the idea of a definition, as usual with the help of examples. To begin with, let us
choose a simple and well-known concept, say red, and imagine that we are asked
the meaning of this word by someone blind from birth, who has been given sight
by a corneal graft. The meaning of the word is the concept associated with that
word; so our task is now to enable the person to form the concept red (which he
does not have when we begin) and associate it with the word ‘red’.
There are two ways in which we might do this. Being scientifically inclined,
and perhaps interested in colour photography, we could give a definition. ‘Red is
the colour we experience from light of wavelength in the region of 0.6 microns.’
Would he now have the concept red? Of course not. Such a definition would be
useless to him, though not necessarily for other purposes. Intuitively, in such a
case, we would point to various objects and say ‘This is a red diary; this is a red
tie; this is a red jumper . . .’ In this way we would arrange for him to have, close
together in time, a collection of experiences from which we hope that he will
abstract the common property, red. Naming is here used as an auxiliary, in the
way already described. The same process of abstraction could take place in
silence, but probably more slowly: and the name ‘red’ would not become
attached.
If he now asks a different question, ‘What does “colour” mean?’, we can no
longer collect together examples for him by pointing; for the examples we want
are red, blue, green, yellow, . . . and these are themselves concepts. If (and only
if) he already has these concepts in his own mind — their presence in our mind is
not enough — then by collecting together the words for them, we can arrange
for him to collect together the concepts themselves; and thus make possible,
though not guarantee, the process of abstraction. Naming (or some other symbol-
ization) now becomes an essential factor of the process of abstraction, and not
just a useful help.
We now need to distinguish between two kinds of concept. Those which are

81
 ae Po bya’ fe,

Developing Mathematical Thinking

derived from our sensory and motor experiences of the outside world, such as.
red, motor car, heavy, hot, sweet, will be called primary concepts; and those
which are abstracted from other concepts we shall call secondary concepts. If
concept A is an example of concept B, then we shall say that B is of a higher
order than A. Clearly, if A is an-example of B and B of C, then C is also of
higher order than both B and A. ‘Of higher order than’ means ‘abstracted from’
(directly orindirectly). So ‘more abstract’ means ‘more removed from experience
of the outside world’, which fits in with the everyday meaning of the word
‘abstract’. This comparison can only be made between concepts in the same
hierarchy. Although we might consider that sonata form is a more abstract
(higher order) concept than colour, we cannot [Link] the two.
These related ideas, of order between concepts and a conceptual hierarchy,
enable us to see more clearly why, for the person we are thinking of, the defini-
tion of red was an inadequate mode of communication; for it pre-supposed
concepts such as colour, light, which could only be formed if concepts such as
red, blue, green, . . . had already been formed. In general, concepts of a higher
order than those which a person already has cannot be communicated to him by
a definition, but only by collecting together, for him to experience, suitable
examples.
Of what use, if any, then, is a definition?
Two uses can be seen at once. If it were necessary (e.g. for a photographic
colour filter) to specify exactly within what limits we would still call a colour
red, then the above definition would enable us to say where red starts and
finishes. And having gone further in the process of abstraction, i.e. in the form-
ation of larger classes based on similarities, a definition enables us to retrace our
steps. By stating all those (and only those) classes to which our particular con-
cept belongs, we are left with just one possible concept — the one we are defin-
ing. In the process we have shown how it relates to other concepts in its hierarchy.
Definitions can thus be seen as a way of adding precision to the boundaries of
a concept, once formed; and of stating explicitly its relation to other concepts.
New concepts, of a lower order, can also be communicated for the first time
by this means. For example, if our formerly blind subject asked ‘What colour is
4
magenta?’ and we could not find a sufficiency of magenta objects to show him, 4)
we could say ‘It is a colour, between red and blue, rather more blue than red.’
Provided that he already had the concepts of blue and red, he could then form
at least a beginning of the concept of magenta without ever having seen this i
oe
colour.
Since most of the new concepts we need in everyday life are of fairly low
a

order, we usually have available suitable higher-order concepts for the new
concepts to be easily communicable by definition; often followed by an example
—
a
or two, which then serve a different purpose — that of illustration. ‘What is a
stool?’ ‘It’s a seat for one person, without a back,’ is quite a good definition, but
even so a few examples will define the concept in such a way as to exclude
hassocks, pouffes, and garden swings far more successfully than further elabor-
ation of the definition.

82
 The formation of mathematical concepts
In mathematics, however, not only are the concepts far more abstract than
those of everyday life, but the direction of learning is for the most part in the
direction of still greater abstraction. The communication of mathematical con-
cepts is therefore much more difficult, on the part of both communicator and
receiver. This problem will be taken up again shortly, after certain other general
topics have been explored.
One other consequence of this principle, that concepts of a higher order in a
hierarchy than those which a person already has cannot be communicated by -
definition, can now be deduced. This is, that concept itself cannot be defined:
for any particular concept must be an example of this concept, which is there-
fore of higher order than any other concept. We can however describe some of
the characteristics of concepts, discuss how they function, and build up a general
understanding of the idea by relating it to other ideas. This is adequate for our
purpose, as indeed it has to be. Similarly, I believe that mathematics cannot be
precisely defined, but only exemplified. [. . .]

The learning of mathematical concepts

Much of our everyday knowledge is learnt directly from our environment, and
the concepts involved are not very abstract. The particular problem (but also the
power) of mathematics lies in its great abstractness and generality, achieved by
uccessive generations of particularly intelligent individuals each of whom has
iy abstracting from, or generalising, concepts of earlier generations. The
present-day learner has to process, not raw data, but the data-processing systems
of existing mathematics. This is not only an immeasurable advantage, in that an
able student can acquire in years ideas which took centuries of past effort to
develop: it also exposes the learner to a particular hazard. Mathematics cannot
be learnt directly from the everyday environment, but only indirectly from
other mathematicians. At best, this makes him largely dependent on his teachers
(including all who write mathematics text books); and, at worst, it exposes him
to the possibility of acquiring a lifelong fear and dislike of mathematics.
Though the first principles of the learning of mathematics are straightforward,
it is the communicator of mathematical ideas, and not the recipient, who most
needs to know them. And though they are simple enough in themselves, their
mathematical applications involve much hard thinking. The first of these prin-
ciples was stated earlier in the chapter:
1 Concepts of a higher order than those which a person already has cannot be
| communicated to him by a definition, but only by arranging for him to encounter
\a suitable collection of examples.
The second follows directly from it:
2 Since in mathematics these examples are almost invariably other concepts,
it must first be ensured that these are already formed in the mind of the learner.

The first of these principles is broken by the vast majority of textbooks, past

83
Developing Mathematical Thinking

and present. Nearly everywhere we see new topics introduced, not by examples,
but by definitions: of the most admirable brevity and exactitude for the teacher
(who already has the concepts to which they refer), but unintelligible to the
student. For reasons which will be apparent, examples cannot be quoted here:
but the reader is invited to verify this statement for himself. It is also a useful
exercise to look at some definitions of ideas new to oneself, in books about
mathematics beyond the stage which one has reached. This enables one to ex-
perience at first hand the bafflement of the younger learner.
Good teachers intuitively help out a definition with examples. To choose a
suitable collection is, however, harder than it sounds. The examples must have
in common the properties which form the concept, but no others. To put it ae
ee
eee

differently, they must be alike in the ways which are to be abstracted, and other-
wise different enough for the properties irrelevant to this particular concept to e

cancel out; or, more accurately, fail to summate. Remembering that these
irrelevant properties may be regarded as noise, we may say that some noise is
necessary to concept formation. In the earlier stages, low noise — clear embodi-
ment of the concept, with little distracting detail — is desirable; but as the con-
cept becomes more strongly established, increasing noise teaches the recipient
to abstract the conceptual properties from more difficult examples, and so
reduces his dependence on the teacher.
Composing a suitable collection thus requires both inventiveness and a very
clear awareness of the concept to be communicated. Now it is possible to have,
and use, a concept at an intuitive level without being consciously aware of it.
This applies particularly to some of the most basic and frequently used ideas;
partly because the more automatic any activity, the less we think about it;
partly because the most fundamental ideas of mathematics are acquired at an
early age when we have not the ability to analyse them; and partly because some
of these fundamental ideas are also among the most subtle. But it is easy to slip
up even when these factors do not apply.
Some African children were learning the theorem of Pythagoras. They had
copied a right-angled triangle from the blackboard, and were told to make a
Square on each side. This they did easily enough for the two shorter sides;
SL

Cc

O
se
A

ide
e

84
 ry ae et Ske 4 .
ip aes ey Pte Ih pts Gio. ‘ ae vO

The formation of mathematical concepts

but they were nearly all in difficulty when they tried to draw the square on the
hypotenuse. Many of them drew something like figure C. From this, I inferred
that the squares from which they had formed their concepts had all been ‘square’
to the paper, and had included no obliquely placed examples. All too easily done!
The second of the two principles, that the necessary lower-order concept
must be present before the next stage of abstraction is possible, seems even more
straightforward. To put this into effect, however, means that before we try to
communicate a new concept, we have to find out what are its contributory con-
cepts; and for each of these, we have to find out its contributory concepts;
and so on, until we reach either primary concepts, or experience which we
may assume as ‘given’. When this has been done, a suitable plan can then be
made which will present to the learner a possible, and not an impossible, task.
This conceptual analysis involves much more work than just giving a definition.
If done, it leads to some surprising results. Ideas which until recently were first
taught in university courses are now seen to be so fundamental that they are
being introduced in the primary school; for example, sets, one-to-one corres-
pondence. Other topics still regarded as elementary are found, on analysis, to
involve ideas which even those teaching the topic have for the most part never
heard of. In this category I include the manipulation of fractional numbers.
There are two other consequences of the second principle. The first is that

' stand the geography of Africa even if one has missed that of Europe; one can
' understand the history of the nineteenth century even if one has missed that of
4 the eighteenth; in physics one can understand ‘heat and light’ even if one has
“ _ missed ‘sound’. But to understand algebra without ever having really understood
'- arithmetic is an impossibility, for much of the algebra we learn at school is
higeneralised arithmetic. Since many pupils learn to do the manipulations of
* arithmetic with a very imperfect understanding of the underlying principles, it is
er small wonder that mathematics remains a closed book to them. Even those who
© get off to a good start may through absence, inattention, failure to keep up with
the pace of the class, or other reason, fail to form the concepts of some particular
stage. In that case, all subsequent concepts dependent on these may never be
understood, and the pupil becomes steadily more out of his depth. In the latter
case, however, the situation may not be so irremediable, if the learning situation
is one which makes back-tracking possible; e.g. if the text in use provides a genuine
explanation, and is not just a collection of exercises. Success will then depend
partly on the confidence of the learner in his own powers of comprehension.
The other consequence (of the second principle) is that the contributory
‘concepts needed for each new stage of abstraction must be available. It is not
sufficient for them to have been learnt at some time in the past: they must be
accessible when needed. This is partly a matter, again, of having facilities avail-
able for back-tracking. Appropriate revision, planned by a teacher, will be
specially useful for beginners; but more advanced students should be taking a

85
 he ay é

Developing Mathematical T hinking .

more active part in the direction of their own studies, and, for these, returning 4
to take another look at earlier work will be more effective if it is directed by a
felt need rather than by an outside instruction. To put it differently, an answer
has more meaning to someone who has first asked a question.

Learning and teaching

In learning mathematics, although we have to create all the concepts anew in our
own minds, we are only able to do this by using the concepts arrived at by past
mathematicians. There is too much for even a genius to do in a lifetime.
This makes the learning of mathematics, especially in its early stages, and for
the average student, very dependent on good teaching. Now, to know math-
ematics is one thing, and to be able to teach it — to communicate it to those at a
lower conceptual level — is quite another; and I believe that it is the latter which ee
e
e
eee
ae
e

is most lacking at the moment. As a result, many people acquire at school a

lifelong dislike, even fear, of mathematics.
It is good to report that widespread efforts are being made to remedy this,
for example by the introduction of new syllabuses, more attractive presentation,
television series, and other means. These efforts will all however be of greater
value if they are combined with greater awareness of the mental processes
involved in the learning of mathematics. This will reduce the danger of new
topics being chosen largely according to the current fashion, and taught almost
as badly as those they replace. |. . .]

Sr

ot
ae
a

86 ee
ee
e
ee

Bia
a
 8 A comparative study of the order of
acquisition of the concepts of weight,
area and volume
Eryl Rothwell Hughes
Source: Hughes, E. R. with Rogers J., Conceptual Powers of
Children: An Approach through Mathematics and Science,
Schools Council, Research Studies, Macmillan Education, chs 8
and 10, 1979.

One of the main objectives of [. . . this] research was to examine the same
children’s responses to similar tests in all three concepts.
The order of acquisition of different concepts has been a topic of consider-
able interest to Piagetian research workers, and the interpretation of their findings
has had some influence on the teaching of these subjects in schools. One of the
most common interpretations concerns the order of acquisition of the concepts
of weight and volume. It is widely held that the concept of weight is understood
before that of volume, and also that the concept of area is easier to understand
than that of volume. These conclusions have affected the teaching of these topics
in primary schools, and many teachers’ guides advocate that the teaching of the
concept of weight be carried out at seven or eight years of age, or even earlier,
and that volume be left until the final years of the primary school. The concept
of area, on the other hand, commonly features in the mathematics curriculum of
the 7 to 11 year old.
Examination of earlier research on the sequential development of concepts
shows that the conclusions were often based on a cross-reference of two different
samples, one sample or group experiencing one or two tests on one concept and
the other group tests on another concept. These samples were often made up of
few children and, in the main, the tests explored the children’s understanding of
conservation or measurement. More recent researches (e.g. by Beard, Lister, Hyde)
have attempted to overcome the obvious weaknesses in these earlier studies and
have examined the same children using tests dealing with two or three concepts.
Beard (1963) used five tests in each of the concepts of weight and volume
with the same children; Piaget’s order of achievement of conservation in the
concepts of ‘substance’ and weight was not borne out. Commenting on these
differences, Beard stressed the importance of relevant practical experience and
suggested that success or failure in any one concept seemed to be related to the

87
Developing Mathematical Thinking

child’s degree of experience in that concept rather than to a natural order of a

development from one concept to another. In another research (Beard, 1963)
concerned with a study of the acquisition of number concepts, she suggested that
general conclusions on the order of acquisition of different concepts were not
so easily deduced:

‘Two points deserve further mention. First, children differed to some

degree in the order in which they understood concepts. Some could count
fluently to a hundred or more but failed in simple conservation: by con-
trast, a child who could not count accurately to twenty succeeded in every
other item. Secondly, there was a greater variety in the kind of answers
given than Piaget describes.’

[This research therefore sought to find out] to what extent the children would
conform to Piaget’s pattern of acquisition of concepts, according to which they
would tend to understand the concept of weight before area and volume, and
their understanding of the concept of volume would prove to be the more
difficult.
In order to do this it was necessary to design tests in all three concepts which
could be termed ‘parallel’ items, i.e. having the same basic features and measur-
ing similar conceptual stages, but using different practical materials. The easiest
_to design of these groups of tests proved to be that concerned with the conserva-
tion of weight, area and volume, and the results of this group are considered
before those involving the use of concreto-logic and measurement. [. . .]
Table 1 presents the results (as percentages) of all the test items in the three
concepts which required only the understanding of conservation for their correct
solution. Nineteen tests — five for weight, nine for area and five for volume —
fell into this category. For each age group the percentage of correct responses as
indicated by correct answers and correct verbal explanation is given alongside
the number of incorrect responses of the type indicating that the children were
basing their conclusions on simple perception or appearances (other incorrect
responses are not analysed [here] ).
Four general points emerge from an examination of this table.

1 With the exception of one or two items, the results all follow the same general
trend. It is difficult to conclude that the understanding of conservation in any
one concept is more difficult for the children than in any of the others. The
numbers of fully correct responses range more or less between the same figures
from concept to concept. The only clearly observable trend is that fewer child-
ren appear to be dominated by visual appearances in the weight tests than in
the other two concepts.
2 There is more variation in the numbers of correct responses between similar
items in any one concept than can be generally detected between items in
different concepts. It should be remembered that, with the exception of the one
or two items referred to below, all were carefully designed to be presented in
similar fashion. In all these cases the children remained in a passive situation,
observing the tester handling the materials. In all these items, too, the children

88
 3/Ge/
4 UOIeAIasU
Ul OD
‘yYBiam
eave pue SWN|OA
AL wig AL WEL Ag wg Ag WiLL Ag wg AG “WELL
2984109 x72IALOIU] 2I9AIIOT «7I0LOIU{
4+...

4994IOD »FIGIOIUY 49841OTD »FIOLIOIU 49AIIOD FIASIOIU

x 29A4SOD ~7IAIOINU{ mee
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) :
2Y61ay x
wa}|ep zs 87 £9 ve 99 92 LZ 61 £8 ) 08
war|Qb 6E vl
Zé ZS ze 09 LE £9 GZ 08 Lk i 91
wa}|
G Lp Zz 0s 61 6S GI GZ 9 OL 9 vl S
wai|e9 6S Gz 89 Zl 08 bl 88 Z 06 Z v8 LL
wai}qg 89 a LZ al ze Zz £8 9 £6 9 16 S 3
ey
wa)eg Gz lv 6z ly ev le 6¢ 6z £9 lz Sg Gz
wer}qg £9 61 LZ gl o8 6 06 Z £8 9 Z8 8
war|e/ 6¢ gE vg ve IZ 61 92 lz 8Z gL £8 GI f
wer}qz 8¢ 6Z z9 Zz GZ Zl 18 vl 68 OL 98 6
war}
g 8 69 Lk Oz 81 89 oz 09 4 IF 99 92 99
wa)|eG 8g vE 89 ve 18 Sl £8 vl 06 Z 88 6
wer}a6 Wi GI ZZ gl 06 9 68 Z £6 Zz £6 z
Wwa|26 19 Gz 89 Zl v8 OL £8 8 06 v 06 S
wea}OL &v rf &¢ ve v9 81 19 GL 69 El £7 6
auUnjop
wey
1 1g 8E 9S 8z 89 ve IZ BL GZ 0z 62 El .
war}eg &v SE oP zé ZS Gz z9 91 bl LL ZZ OL
wer}gg GE vE St 6z vg GZ £9 91 ZZ Gl ZZ Zl
war|eG 1S 6 ZS ore 69 vz OL ve EL vz LL zz
war;g6 zs ov 8g 82 ZZ gl GL 91 18 Zz LL SL

NV =) (%00L orl OS OSL

azis
SSL GS 6rL

ajdwes
, 199sI0DUI,
S4aja4
O} 39a109U! SasuOdsai
aNp03 ‘BulJ}Ua9
19430 }9a1J09U! SasuodsSal
a4 30U “UMOYS

ee)fon)
 Developing Mathematical Thinking : j |
first saw and agreed that the property in question (weight, area Or or volume) was
equal in the two objects. One object was then deformed or rearranged to accen--
tuate a dimension and the children were asked questions of a similar nature to
determine whether they understood the concept of conservation.
Test items using discontinuous objects (weight item 6b; area items 9b and 9c)
broken up into separate pieces, rather than objects rearranged into continuous,
elongated shapes, produce more correct responses than any other. Other vari-
ations in the results are more easily explained in terms of variations between
actual items rather than of relative difficulty in understanding one concept (say,
weight) rather than another (say, volume).
3 In three or four items the results differ significantly from the general pattern.
These differences can be explained in terms of individual design.
In area item 6 the children did not first see and agree that the two shapes had
similar areas. In fact, the two shapes were clearly seen to be different at the
beginning of the test and the children were asked, if they thought that they had
equal areas. In contrast to all the other items, they were not encouraged, there-
_ fore, to use the mental operation of reversibility by any practical procedure on
the part of the tester. The children, too, had to manoeuvre the shapes in order to
arrive at an answer and this proved to be difficult, especially in item 6a.
Similarly, in area item 8, the children were given two different shapes and
once more asked if they thought the two had similar areas. They had to deter-
mine whether they should rely on perception or on arguments based on conserv-
ation. The observation that the numbers of correct responses fall dramatically in
this item and that the number of reasons based on perception increase corres-
pondingly demonstrates the unstable nature of the children’s beliefs and reason-
ing powers in this age range. Clearly single tests do not give accurate pictures of
children’s understanding of a particular concept.
4 The concept of conservation of solid and occupied (space) volume is only
marginally more difficult than that of conservation of weight. Indeed, one can
perhaps detect that conservation of area is generally better understood than con-
_ servation of either weight or volume. This slight difference is perhaps to be
expected, as ‘area’ is commonly taught at this age. Indeed, the conservation of
volume is surprisingly well understood, even at 74 years of age, considering that
it is rarely taught directly in the classroom. It would seem that there is very little
basis for the supposition that the concept of volume is harder to understand
than, say, that of area. From the present results, there is much to be said for the
introduction of the concept of conservation in all three topics at about the same
time. This question of teaching sequence is referred to again later.
As the results throw considerable doubt on the reliability of earlier research,
the analysis has been carried further. Two tests in each concept were selected for
closer comparisons. All satisfy the three conditions that (a) the children remain
in a passive situation; (b) the children first see and agree that the property in
question is the same in the pair of objects; (c) the children see a dimension
changed and are asked whether the property (weight, area or volume) of the
objects is still the same, increased or decreased.

90
 The order of acquisition of the concepts of weight, area and volume
Both area test items use shapes that are broken up and reorientated into a
continuous form. Weight item 4a is the familiar plasticine ball and sausage test
where one ball is elongated. Weight item 6a is similar to the two area items, in
that the blocks are broken up and reorientated into a continuous form. This
feature is also seen in volume item 7, whereas volume item 8a is the well-known
cylinder-conical flask liquid test (here with container and wider beaker) and has
a slightly more complicated practical procedure than the others in that two
other (similar) containers are also used. The results are now presented (table 2)
as actual numbers of children who gave correct responses (percentages are
given alongside).

Table 2 Correct responses to conservation tasks

Ty 5m Jy 11m 8y 5m 8y 11m 9y 5m 9y 11m

Weight
Item 4a 76 52 95 63 99 66 109 71 130 83 119 80
item 6a 86 59 102 68 119 80 136 88 139 90 125 84

Area
Item 7b 85 58 92 62 113 75 125 81 132 85 128 86
Item 9a 85 58 102 68 122 81 128 83 139 90 131 88

Volume
Item 7 Thee ei 85 56 101 68 110 71 116 75 117 79
item 8a

Sample size
N (= 100%)

The liquid volume item (8a) is more difficult than any of the others. Conserv-
ation of liquid volume does appear to be harder to understand than the con-
servation of other properties. Conservation of area is better understood at all
ages than even weight. Again this could be explained in terms of practical ex-
perience in the classroom rather than in terms of Piagetian sequence. Comparison
of the weight items with volume item 7 shows that the figures for correct respon-
ses are almost identical at all ages. Above all else, the results clearly demonstrate
that over half of even the youngest children, regardless of their mental ability
in intelligence test items, are able to give correct answers and verbally explain
their reasons in all six tests of conservation.
If the property of conservation is more difficult to grasp in, say, volume
or area than in weight and this understanding is expressed by children in the
concept of weight before the concept of volume, as if so often maintained, then
it follows that if children display understanding of conservation in volume, these
children should also all display understanding in weight. If the evidence is con-
trary to this thesis, then an order in the understanding of volume and weight
cannot be admitted. To test for this it is necessary to ask: ‘Of those children

91
Developing Mathematical Thinking ear Wea s

who were correct in the volume tests how many of those same children were
correct in the weight tests (and, in tum, in area)?’ The results of such an analysis f
are displayed in figures 1—5. The comparisons are made as follows. .
Figure 1 Volume 7 with weight 4a : volume 7 with weight 6a.
Figure 2 Volume 8a with weight 4a : volume 8a with weight 6a.
Figure 3. Volume 7 with area 7b : volume 7 with area 9a.
Figure 4 Volume 8a with area 7b : volume 8a with area 9a.
Figure 5 Area 7b with weight 4a : area 9a with weight 6a.
As an example, of this particular method of display, the number of 74 year-old
children who gave correct answers to volume item 7 is examined to see how
many of them also gave correct responses in weight item 4a. Reading left to
right, 75 children (23 + 52) out of 146 gave the correct answer to volume item 7;
of these, 23 (31%) gave the correct answer to this item but did not give the
correct answer to weight item 4a. The remaining 52 (69%) also gave the correct
answer to weight item 4a. Alternatively, reading right to left, 76 children (52 + 24)
gave the correct answer to weight item 4a. Of these, 24 (32%) gave the correct
answer to this item but did not give the right answer to the volume item. .Ob-
viously the remaining 52 (68% of weight item 4a correct answers) also gave the
correct response to the volume item.
31% 69%
volume 7| 23 52

68% 32%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146
It is argued that only such an analysis will show whether there is an order in the
understanding of conservation of weight, area and volume. Simple examination
of numbers of correct responses at different ages does not enable one to arrive at
firm conclusions on this question.
Examination of figure 1 (volume item 7 compared, in turn, with weight items
4a and 6a) shows that for weight item 4a there are almost equal numbers of
children at all ages who conserved only in the volume test and who conserved
only in the weight test. This result is at variance with the conclusions of most
Piagetian research on this question.
The comparison between volume item 7 and weight item 6a shows that, at
all ages, there is a definite trend for more children to respond correctly only in
the weight item than only in the volume test. However, the proportion of child-
ren answering correctly only in the supposedly harder volume item is still con-
siderable, especially at the younger ages. :
The trend displayed in figure 1 is confirmed in figure 2, where the more
difficult volume item 8a (liquid volume) is compared with weight items 4a and
6a. Although the conservation of liquid volume is more difficult to grasp than
the conservation of weight, here too we witness a considerable proportion of
children, especially at the lower ages, who gave the correct responses only to the
volume item yet gave incorrect responses to the weight items (e.g. 40% of the
children at 74 years who gave the correct responses to the volume item fall
into
ZZ
 Capa t7'<ee >

The order of acquisition of the concepts of weight, area and volume

this category). It should be remembered that these children also gave correct
reasons for their choices. Once more, the results demonstrate the complexity
of the pattern of concept development in children. ;
Whilst there is a trend for more correct responses in the weight items (sup-
porting Piaget’s thesis), the conclusion that the concept of conservation of weight
precedes the concept of conservation of volume does not follow. Some children,
at all ages, grasp one conservation concept before the other, but it is not possible
to determine for certain which they will grasp first. Unfortunately, of those
children who showed that they understood the concept of conservation in both
weight and volume, it is impossible to determine which they grasped first.
The results of two volume items are also compared with the results of two
area items (figures 3 and 4). At all ages, in all four comparisons, a higher pro-
portion of children gave the correct answers and explanations in the area items
without giving correct answers in the volume counterpart items than gave the
correct answers in the volume items without giving correct answers in the area
counterpart items. However, when one examines this difference at its greatest in
all four comparisons, it is noticed that this amounts to 16 (volume 7: area 7b);
23 (volume 7: area 9a); 29 (volume 8a: area 7b) and 36 (volume 8a: area 9a)
children out of some 150 in each group. Bearing in mind that the test for conser-
vation of liquid and volume (volume 8a) is harder than the other tests, these
differences could simply be accounted for by the differences between the
children’s practical experience in handling area shapes and volumes.
On the other hand, the fact that there were never more children answering
correctly only in the volume tests than in the area tests may be taken as evidence
for a Piagetian sequence of understanding from conservation in area to con-
servation in volume. This argument is not favoured here because it is noticed
that, at younger ages, the difference between successful answers in one test and
successful answers in the other test only are considerably less than at older ages.
On Piagetian grounds one would expect the reverse to be true. It seems more
reasonable to suppose that the differences increase with age simply because the
children gain more experience in carrying out practical exercises dealing with
area than they do in the concept of volume. Furthermore, one would not expect
any child to grasp the so-called harder concept before the easier concept but in
fact a number of children did this. Flavell’s (1972, p. 330) point that children
‘may exhibit significant asequential features in addition to the obvious sequential
ones’ is supported by these results.
Figure 5 compares the results of area item 7b with weight item 4a and area
item 9a with weight item 6a. Once more there is a tendency for more children to
answer correctly in the area. items alone than in the weight items alone but
these differences are marginal. On the whole, children are just as likely to con-
serve in one situation as in another. As these items are probably the best matched
in terms of design and method of presentation, they seem to demonstrate that it
is not so much the order of conservation across the concepts area and weight
and volume that emerges from the results but the variations in the individual’s
responses according to the exact nature of the task set.
For the research worker this section raises a number of questions relating to

ie:
 68% —

Age 7y 5m,NV = 146

Se 21%
vieiohi 4a
29%

Age ie11m, N = 150

21%
‘volume 7 wee ee
= de weight 4a
19%

Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

an eee a
a ee 78%
RES =,
Age 8y priest
a

“ na 3 4
a",

volume 7 So eka aoe

2 —108_|_25_ weight 4a4

Age 9y 5m,V = 155

aumamees aes
"Tae_volume Vi 3 4,
weight 4a

Age 9y 11m,
N = 149
ca _ Figure fa
Pa
 weight 6a

Age 7y 5m, N = 146

. weight 6a

-
Age 7y 11m,
V = 150

4 11% es
lume 7[99 5
& weight 6a oe
7 24% ae
Age 8y 5m,
N = 150

93%
< ok = 3 ® ~N
= 2 iio}= oe re2)is)
x

Po
Age 8y 11m, NV= 155

on
comme 2
96%

ie Wes
a i
Age 9y 5m, NV =155

09oS Ke}N
ae volume 7
eee
ee
ee
eee a
nt
¥| ; RR
108 en 17 weight6a
’ 86% 14 % te

; Age 9y 11m, N = 149

Figuretb a) = “

* ;
ea
 51%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146
iis: 19% 81% : |
Be volumes (13. [Shs
38% 42%
Age 7y 11m,NV = 150

. 19% ~ 8 1%
volume 8
ae ns eu TO ec Ee pa eae ap weleIegs
Pi = 7 1% 29%
Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

4 23% i 7%

Oe a 44
ee Pe Tah
8% 6
Pe 32%
So] weldteaeae
ES Age 8y 11m,
N= 155 :
Re: 10% 90%
volume 8 ; :
See Fae 2a weight4a
Se : | 80% 20%
ee Age Sy 5m, N= 155 7
‘ee 13% 87% .
ee a”a
a fs An) OAS a aeem ae eewelenene
Se 79% 21%
Age 9y 11m, V = 149
 weight 6a
. 48%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146
ee a
. volume 8
PS weight 6a

~ Age 7y 11m, N = 150 as

, ‘O_o __ et
volume 8 eam
weight6a
36% ieee 3.
Age 4 a N = 150

volume 8 ee a
; A-a
65%
Age 8y 11m,V = 155

ay | 96% | ae
volume 8 {5 110 ' cits . ; ;
| ee weight 6a
79% : 21% a
Age 9y 5m,NV= 155 Ms
10% 90% ae
volume 8 a
Papo © | a22% |ioe
: iil

78%

Age 9y 11m,WV= 149

ee
ey
ee.
ee
ee
Nee
eg
ee
CF Figure 2b
;
-
~~

Zz

an
etter, 97
 16% OT. BAe
Age 7y 5m,N = 146 —
S 19% 81%

3 PRED a Ue SiS Cre aed "area

- (75% 25%
Age 7y 11m, NV = 150

, (91%
volume 7 92

pn GOR Pe a eae ea marae ;

81% 19% —
Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

= 14% | 86% _
Bron? jis
8 la Ee :
aeoa Det 76% Chon area aq
) 24%
Age 8y 11m, NV = 155

6% 94% . j
volume 7 |7

area 7b
83%

Age 9y 5m, WV = 155.

7% 93%
volume 7 109

Cea
Ce ee ed ES Pi
85% 15%

Age 9y 11m, V = 149

Figure 3a
 68%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146

8% 92%
7 78 j
volume

er eee kek
i 76% ~ 24%

9 Age 7y 11m,NV=150
96% )
¢ ! 4%

volume 7
3 area 9a
80% 20% :
.
a N=150
Age 8y 5m, : —
89% Sayed
4 11%

ME valans IP. OB. ee | =, agen

= | area oe
“a 77% 23% c Ben

3 Age 8y 11m. NV = 155 —

: 3% 97% .
Se a
a e :
4% 81% 19%

~ Age 9y 5m,NV = 155

4% 96% ;
z ates
B) Svolume7 |
ee | 19 | area Qa
4 ; 85% 15%

Age 9y 11m,V= 149 (ee

 B | area 7b
53% . 47%

Age 7y 5m, N = 146

16% 84%
SF voumee
me
“a 11] [or
Boe |
a 35__| area 7b
oe 62% 38% eee
a. Age 7y 11m,
W=150
oy. BP
ae 8% 92%
aye: : 34
oa 79
70% 30%
Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

ee: 9% 91%
volume 8 rae 87
4 87
70%

Age 8y 5m, N = 155

6% 94%

ed coll area 7b-

82% 18%

Age 9y 11m, V = 155.

91%

77%

Age 9y 11m,N = 149

 | area 9a
54% 46%
Age 7y 5m,
N = 146

13% 87%
‘volumes [9]58 eae
Scaler i58% [as
42%
Yate
J Age 7y 11m, N = 150
Wy

6% 94%
voumes | he
.- Rare ee OUST, oc ae ie parega
| 66% 34%
Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

i.) 8% 92%
Bo velimes [af ae oe
, Sei Te aa ee ese ey
4 69% 31%
+t Age 8y 11m, NV = 155

4% 96% :
Mecoliige@ (8) 110 | fea
a 79% ¥ 21%
j Age 9y 5m,
NV= 155
kK 5% 95% ) |
, volume 8

ia : 79%
[38
21%
area oc
= A,

Age 9y 11m,
NV = 149

_ Figure
4b

TR
te AAS
0 ea ae
an eNe ae Pa Oe
Pe Da I J
 | 75% 25%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146

se 22%
a
ee geyser weight 4a
oe 76% Py eas
Age 7y 11m, NV = 150

23% 77%
FAN eS Suara
8g. cea] 12 wear 4a
Po
— BB% Ee 12%
Age 8y 5m,NV = 150

peeve agro
ed
78%

a eei 90% ~ 10%

Age 8y 11m,
VV = 155

Be 11% | ; 89%
area 7b |15
Bc eR Aiea ep rea erataen ag
iS 92% . 8% .
Age 9y 5m, V = 155

‘cy Sia 87%

1-07 a hE RO on el
PE ATT ee a ech
93% 7%
Age 9y 11m, NV = 149

oat
Figure 5a
—— areaga [17 |
«

a x
“a

Age 7y 5m, N = 146

14% pee
SS Ce eel cae
eee ABSA, (ID iPoi Rae wmiahics
86% 14%
Age 7y 11m,NV = 150

12% 88%
area 9a 115 |
eb
107 — weight 6a
90% | 10%
Age 8y 5m, N = 150
1%
%
93%
area 9a 9 |
= oe | i
119
: a

87%
ee 3
Age 8y 11m,
NV= 155
ea 8%
92% .
mi -
eee pen a hee ens ee ‘a
z Be s ere st ee weromee
92% ba Bt
Age 9y 5m,NV= 155

12% 7 88%
“De :
UE) oe 7
Se 22 syle (8 weluhtean
“98% 2%
Age 9y 11m,
NV= 149

103
Developing Mathematical Thinking ;

Piagetian research design and execution. The type of analysis illustrated iis rarely
carried out, and it seems obvious that much work still remains to be done before
the problem of the rate at which children reach the same conceptual stage in
different concepts is resolved.
For the teacher the argument that the concept of volume should be taught
after the concept of weight or area is clearly too general to have any practical
meaning in the classroom. As far as the idea of conservation is concerned,
these results seem to indicate that there is much to be said for introducing
this idea at about the same time for all three concepts. Conservation is the
common property shared by the three topics, and for the child clearly to under-
stand all three concepts it is necessary to focus his attention on the differences
between area, weight and volume as well as on the similarities. It can be argued
that to do this, comparisons must be made, and that children can only have
the opportunity to do this if they examine all three topics at the same time.

Perhaps one of the fundamental differences between area and volume is the
way each property is measured. Without a clear understanding of methods of
measuring area and volume, children can only become more confused in their
ideas about the relationship between area and volume and about the more ad-
vanced properties of the concepts themselves.
Figure 6 compares, in the same manner as before, the responses of the child-
ren to items testing for the ability to measure area and volume. Area item 12,
which uses the irregular shaped pieces and transparent grids, is compared with
volume item 16, which uses the solid blocks and unit blocks. Although a small
proportion of children did manage to find the volume of the block without
being able to measure area in the other item, the results demonstrate that
at all ages children had difficulty in measuring solid volume. At first sight
this pattern seems to confirm Piaget’s idea that the achievement of the ability
to measure area occurs before the ability to measure volume, but a closer in-
spection reveals a possible alternative reason for the results. At the two youngest
age levels the difference between the numbers of children who are able to
measure in only one or the other concept is small. In other words, if they
have to rely on their basic knowledge about measurement and the properties
of area and volume, bearing in mind that at this age their practical experience
of actual measuring must be limited in both topics, it is just as likely that they
will be able to measure area as to measure volume. It is only as they become
older that the differences in ability to measure in the two concepts emerge
strongly. An alternative explanation could be that the differences are accounted
for in terms of degree of actual practical experience of measurement in the
two concepts. The differences could be due to teaching rather than natural
conceptual development. From the present results it is impossible to decide
which is the correct interpretation.
Finally, to complete this particular form of comparative analysis, five items
are selected which test the children’s ability to use relatively simple concreto-
logic forms of reasoning (table 3 and figures 7 to 8).

104
 = -_ oe
is aa. on
e Z J
a ~
ie Ks
=NL
6b ‘WILL AG aby
OSL = NV ‘WG Ag oby
| %E9 MLE SLL %ET
ys = necsee be
ig Chee Sh Gene ee Ob
[8&| 6]91 ounjon |9t jot OL auinjor
%18 —— %6L %CQ %B8E
GGL = N ‘wg AG aby OSL =N ‘WLI AZ aby
ee: | %L9 KEE
eaa
%LL %ET

5
ear
ZL ease eee

he
9€ 9! QL auinjon 2] oe| QL awinjoa
%98 %bvl %LO %EE
GSL
‘WL Naby
=Ag SVL=N ‘wg Ay aby
. %OL %vZ %VL %9Z
pea
ZL ease |zt 9
. | OZ [ZL] QL awnjon 9} EL} QL aunjoa
ja %8E
ry %Z9 %CE %89
 pena Marnewe tical Thikbine

i Weight item 8 uses the form of logic: since A = B and B= C, then A must me ad
So equal to C. ee
i Weight item 9 uses the form of logic: since A > B and B>C, then A>C. a
= Area item 14 uses the form of logic: since A + B=C+DandA=C, then B
a must be equal to D. e
57 Area item 16 uses the form of logic: since 1A = 3 X units and 1B= 1 X units, i
a then 3B must be equal to 1A.
Volume item 14 uses the form of logic: since A= C and B = D and alsoA = B,
then C must be equal to D.

_ Table 3 Correct responses to tests of concreto-logic

7y 5m 7y 11m 8y 5m 8y 11m 9y 5m Sy 11m

Weight
iy | Item 8 52 36 65 43 92 61 97 63 115 74 112 75
¥ Item 9 47 32 58 39 80 53 93 60 95 61 101 68
a, Area
ayy Item 14 41 28 49 33 82 55 76 49 102 66 97 65
=e Item 16 27 18 27 18 50 33 57 37 81 52 82 55 @
py, Volume
Item 14

Sample size
N (= 100%)

= If one is to maintain that the concept of volume in general is more difficult to —

grasp than, say, the concept of weight, it is necessary to explore the children’s
responses to tests involving similar logical frameworks for their solution as well _
E«= as their responses to tests dealing with conservation. Such comparisons are rarely
carried out. —

me It is extremely difficult to design practical tests in each of the concepts which

% examine the same type of logical thinking. In the present study an attempt was
made, not so much to design identical tests, but to design tests which used forms
of reasoning which Piaget had identified as being typical for the stage of con-
: ceptual development likely to have been reached by a number of the children in
=i our sample. Nevertheless, the items are not exactly identical in degree of com-
ys plexity and, as a result, exact comparisons are difficult to make.
*; It is maintained that the logic A = B, B=C, therefore A = Cis easier to grasp
ore than the logic A > B, B > C, therefore A > C, and that these in turn are more
difficult than the logic A + B = C+ D andA =C, therefore B = D. The first two
of these logical forms occur in the weight test items, whilst the third occurs in
an area test item. Table 3 shows the numbers of correct responses which include
only those children who were able to explain correctly the reasons for their

106
 weight [15 [43]
Age 7y 11m,
NV = 150

24% 76%
weight 9
geo TS weight 8
66%
Age 8y 5m,
NV = 150

26% 74%
weight 9| 24 |
Ae oe ae weight 8
on 71% 29%
Age 8y 11m,
NV = 155

a 7 15% 85%
oe weight 9 |14 |

d
a

70%
3a] weiaht 8
30%
Age 9y 5m, NV = 155

ae 14% 86%
F weight 9 87
;
a , ‘ 87 weight 8
87% 13%
Age 9y 11m, V = 149

Figure 7
 J]weight8
40% 60%.
Age 7y 5m, NV = 146 |

35% 65%
area 14
[ae [33] weit 8
49% 51%
Age 7y 11m,
NV = 150

24% 76%
area 14

67%
[30]
33%
weiat8 -7
Age 8y 5m,
NV = 150 ze

83% 4

Erte GS a elf 2 aS e welght 8 %

65% 35% ms 4
Age 8y 11m, V = 155

18% 82%
- : area 14 18 |

73%
Pat weights
27% ‘oa
Age 9y 5m, NV = 155

17% 83%
“ULSD a Sd
Be oe Savane
Se; | 72% 28%
ae Aged 9y 11m,NV= 149
as =o Figure 8a

avy io

een 108
 Age 7y 5m, N = 146

61% 39%
areal4{__30
| 19 |
| 19 [8 | area 16 |
70% 30%
Age 7y 11m,
NV = 150

56% 44%
area 14
fee
ogre
[36 [44 Jaree 16 *

ote:

72% 28%
Age 8y 5m, NV = 150

49% 51%
area 14 37
aloo area 16
69% 31%
Age 8y 11m,N = 155

37% 63%
area 14

ne 79% 21%
Age 9y 5m, NV = 155

36% 64%
Brera OG a ge OZ ot |
ey
aa 76%
ee em. 24%
+ Age 9y 11m,NV = 149

_ Figure 8b

109
 area 14

22% 78%

Age 7y 5m, NV = 146

38% oe
volume 14
area 14
e. 67% ‘

Age 7y 11m,
N = 150

23% ie
peolurie. 14

ea 67% area 14
eh
Age aaeN = 150

25% 75%
volume 14|1

tec area 14
Age 8y aie sae
a
\s 25% 75%
| ae
eerie t4i[a5 ja mie anls nes orca 14
13%
volume 14
area 14

Age 9y oe 149

Figure 9a

a 4 apt ets
mh : ’

‘ fis AM Saas tae eae

 weight 8
12% 88%
Age 7y 5m, N = 146

ae 38% 62%
a volume 14 fofte} _____
| 49 |weight 8
’ xs
aa ze 75%
Age 7y 11m,
NV= 150

17% 83%

4 volume 14 fol 20 UE weight

ae page |p68
32% 68%
ro
Age 8y 5m, N = 150

25% 75% -
Be:
y volume 14
Pa? i 8
69%
Age ieaa. 155

== 17% 83%
[50
volume 14[foRai
ot a a TT
ais 5 44% 86%
Age 9y 5m, N = 155 @
ea

. 15% 85%
See volume 14

e ‘Sioa ae weight 8 es,

" 45%
Age 9y 11m, V = 149 \a

Figure 9b
Developing Mathematical Thinking

choices i.e. they clearly demonstrated the power to use the required form of
logical reasoning. The results appear to confirm the order of complexity of the
logic outlined above. In all the first three items the children remain in the passive
situation. Area item 16 calls upon the children to devise practical procedures
before they can use the required logic and they have to carry out practical tasks
by themselves. This added feature clearly makes the test more difficult and it is
difficult to determine whether or not this factor, rather than the form of logic,
caused the fall in the number of correct solutions. In volume item 14 the pupil
has to remember and relate separate pieces of information and this test proved
to be more difficult than any of the others.
This interpretation, if correct, seems to indicate that*it is the nature of the
logic applicable in any given situation that is the key to understanding rather
than the topic (area, weight or volume) in question. To identify conceptual
ability with physical ‘concepts’ such as weight or area or volume is an over-
simplification of the conceptual process. It was wondered how the children in
our sample would compare in their performances in the items using these forms
of logic. Although time did not permit, and test design did not warrant, an
exhaustive analysis of these results, a number of such comparisons are pre-
sented here, as all highlight, once more, the particularity of individual responses.
Figure 7 compares the results of weight item 9 with weight item 8. The logic
of item 8 is easier to understand than the logic of item 9: nevertheless a con-
siderable proportion of the children used one form of logic without using the
other. In other words, although one form of logic is generally shown to be used
“more often than the other form by more children at a given age, the fact that
some children are apparently able to use the harder form of logic without demon-
strating their ability to use the easier form in the other item complicates the
analysis of the conceptual process.
Figures 8 and 9 confirm the pattern of results. The logic required in weight
item 8 is seen to be easier than that required in area item 14 and this, in turn,
is an easier test than area item 16. Volume item 14 proved to be the most diffi-
cult of all. In all these figures, however, it is seen that a considerable proportion
of children continued to display an ability to solve the task generally accepted as
harder without being able to solve the task accepted as easier.
It is this asequential feature witnessed in all the results presented in this
chapter that emphasises the need for caution before accepting the principle that
all children will consistently follow the Piagetian stages of conceptual develop-
ment. Whilst this study demonstrates that children do display the type of think-
ing processes described by Piaget, it does not entirely support the interpretation
that these processes follow well-defined sequential paths. Patterns of perfor-
mances of groups of children taken together seem to follow Piagetian stages in
general, but the responses of individual children do not necessarily correspond
to such well-defined stages.
This chapter also emphasises the difficulties encountered when attempting
to design tests which allow the research worker to make meaningful comparisons.
Very often the introduction of a slightly different practical procedure alters the

112
 {SER ie erat i me Ae Fs eine ras

_ The order of acquisition of the concepts of weight, area and volume

picture presented to the children to such a degree that their responses vary con-
siderably from one test to another. Research studies which do not include care-
ful analysis of test design are of limited value in Piagetian studies of conceptual
development. [.. .]

Summary and conclusions

1 This research has not disproved Piaget’s main thesis that the conceptual pro-
cess follows stages of development. It would seem that, when examining groups
of children, this framework provides a more than useful guide for teacher and
research worker alike. However, the results of this study emphasise the particu-
larity of the individual and that it is a doubtful practice to categorise the per-
formances of individual children within a rigid framework of stages.
2 Children at younger ages (7y 5m) do not, in the main, display the ability to
use concreto-logic forms of reasoning but, on the other hand, more children at
the age of ten do display this ability. This finding agrees with Piaget’s thesis.
_ All children tend to rely on perception and the immediate appearances of
changes and, if presented with unfamiliar problems, tend to use such observa-
tions as a basis for conclusions. This is true even if the same children have earlier
displayed the ability to use forms of concreto-logic. This observation emphasises
the improbability of ever witnessing the true conceptual ability of children
through the use of single test items.
3 Many of the 7 year old children were able to use concreto-logical forms
of reasoning, whereas many of the 10 year olds never displayed such ability. This
finding suggests that ages should not be used as fine indicators of children’s
conceptual ability.
4 The relative difficulty of understanding the topics of area, weight and volume
is a factor which governs the teaching of these topics in school. As far as the
concepts of conservation and use of logic were concerned, the results show that
there is little difference in the degree of difficulty of understanding between the
three topics. It would appear that the nature of the thinking processes involved
at the various levels of achievement within the three topics is more important in
conceptualisation than the general nature of the topics themselves.
5 The majority of the children in this research did not fit neatly into one or
_ other of the stages described by Piaget. Most were in a transitional stage. Even
those who displayed the ability to use concreto-logical forms of reasoning (e.g.
reversibility) often reverted to reasons based on perception when presented with
test materials likely to produce conflict in the child’s mind between choices
based on perception and those based on concreto-logic. [. . .]
It is concluded that a high proportion of the children of average ability in this
sample used alternative forms of thinking depending on how they perceived the
problem. These children do not fall neatly into one stage or another in ail situ-
ations, although they may appear to do so if the evidence is based on single test
items. By its very nature the learning process is transitory, and the children con-
form to this dynamic principle.

113
Developing Mathematical Thinking

6 It is concluded that there is a relationship between the mental ability of

children as measured by a non-verbal intelligence test and their ability to under-
stand the concept of conservation of area, weight and volume as well as their —
ability to use concreto-logical forms of reasoning.
7 The study has highlighted some of the problems that need to be taken into
account when designing Piagetian research. Many of these difficulties were not
resolved and, in particular, the problem of measuring the conceptual process
through the use of verbal forms of communication remains a fundamental issue
in this form of research. It is believed, however, that the results presented here
do give good measures of the understandings and misunderstandings of children
between the ages of 7 and 11 in the concepts of area, weight and volume.

Many of the results of this inquiry raise issues for further research. An attempt
was made to standardise Piagetian testing procedures and to avoid pitfalls caused
by ambiguous questions and statements. Nevertheless, the form of the communi-
cation between pupil and teacher or tester remains the weakest link in the data-
gathering chain. Words or terms conveying real world images in the pupil’s mind
(e.g. ‘grass in a field’ to denote area) produced more right answers than when
abstract terms (‘amount of surface’ or ‘area’) were used. The linguistic form of
the question and its relationship to the task set often confused the children so
that a slight variation in the wording of the question or in the stress laid on cer-
tain words, or even of the practical objects themselves, generated different inter-
pretations of the question by the same children.
Furthermore, a number of children, especially the younger ones, were able to
make choices (often correct ones) in the tests and were obviously thinking about
the tasks but were quite unable to give reasons for their choices. In other words,
their ability to communicate in oral terms was not matched to their conceptual
ability. Curiously little reference is made in previous research to such groups of
children. There is a need for more research on this problem. It is wondered if
there is a relationship between stages of conceptualisation and stages of under-
standing terms and phrases.
All the test items — in common with other Piagetian researches — called upon
the children to listen with understanding, to interpret and respond according to
their conceptual powers and to communicate orally their reasons for their respon-
ses. It seems clear that these abilities may not be equally well developed in an
individual at any given time. Lack of these communication skills obviously masks
the true level of conceptualisation of the child.
Even Piaget seems to neglect this problem and all researchers in the field
should heed Donaldson’s recent comment (1978, p. 61) that:
‘When [Piaget] does talk about [language learning] he is much more sen-
sitive to differences between what language has become for the adult and
what language is for the child in the early stages. However, when he him-
self, as an experimenter, uses language as part of his method of studying
children’s thinking, he appears to lose sight of the significance of this issue.’
It seems to be clear, too, that further research in this field should incorporate

114
 i “

The order of acquisition of the concepts 0f weight, area and volume

in its design a number of similar or parallel tests. Many earlier researchers relied
on the data gathered from one or two items and the reliability of the ensuing
interpretations is open to question. More rigorous techniques need to be developed
so that experiments not only test the plausibility of a particular hypothesis or
explanation but also eliminate all other possible explanations. Recent experi-
ments by Bryant (1974), admittedly in a limited field, have highlighted the
necessity for this feature of test design, and this particular age when studying
conceptualisation. Mental ability, as measured by a non-verbal intelligence test,
appears to be closely related to stages in conceptual ability, and further research
needs to be developed in this area.
For the teacher the present research has accentuated the need to use prac-
tical materials with young children and, above all else, to structure the resulting
activities carefully. A course aiming at developing clear thinking and conceptual-
isation needs to be related from one school year to the next and calls for close
cooperation on the part of the teachers. Primary school teachers have many
schemes in mathematics and science at their disposal, and this study indicates
that guidance for teachers on the planning of curricular in a structured fashion
together with guidance on the evaluation of individual pupils’ progress should
now be the main objective of curriculum planners over the next decade (see the
Schools Council Progress in Learning Science Project (1977), directed by Wynne
Harlen, for recent work in this field).
Throughout, the variation in the responses of individuals has emerged as the
principal observation, and this hinders us from producing a neat and rigid frame-
work for the conceptual powers of our children. Nevertheless, the ability to
deviate from the average, from the expected behaviour, is the mark of the in-
telligent man. It can be maintained that it is only by such deviation, together
with the ability to move from thinking about the visual to thinking in terms of
mental images, that adults and particularly children can form new ideas and
understand the various concepts presented to them.
The measurement of the average ability of an age group or a group of pupils
does not supply information of any great worth. Such measurements create a
restrictive view of the performances of individuals within a group and tell us
nothing about the capabilities of, or the difficulties experienced by, individuals
within the group. The strength of Piagetian research lies not in the measurement er

of average performances but in the recording and measurement of individual

responses. —
‘Knowledge is not a loose-leaf notebook of facts. The commonplace of the
schoolbooks of tomorrow is the adventure of today, and that is what we
are engaged in.’ (J. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man, 1973)

References
Beard, R., ‘The Order of Concept Development: Studies in two fields, I, IP’, Edu-
cational Review vol. 15, (1962-3), pp. 105—17 and pp. 228—37, 1963.
Bryant, P. E., Perception and Understanding in Young Children, Methuen, Lon-
don, 1974.

115
 TheProcrest in Learning Science Project, Sehole Counc 1977: ‘y
Hyde, Piaget’s Conceptual Development: With a Cross-cultural Stud of Nua oe
ber and Quantity, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, London, 1970. z
Lister, R., ‘The Development of ESN Children’s Understanding of Conservation —Ne.
ina Range of Attribute Situations’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, a
vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 14—22, 1972.
 9 Thinking about problems
George Polya
Sources: Preface to Part 1 of Polya, G. Mathematical Discovery,
Wiley, New York, 1961; and Polya G., How to Solve it, pp 33—36,
Princeton University Press, 1971.

<K<<<<<<x<
— <<<<<xx<<x<KXKKKCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKS

Introduction

Our knowledge about any subject consists of information and of know-how. If

you have genuine bona fide experience of mathematical work on any level,
elementary or advanced, there will be no doubt in your mind that, in math-
ematics, know-how is much more important than mere possession of informa-
tion. Therefore, in the high school, as on any other level, we should impart,
along with a certain amount of information, a certain degree of know-how to
the student.
What is know-how in mathematics? The ability to solve problems — not
merely routine problems but problems requiring some degree of independence,
judgment, originality, creativity. Therefore, the first and foremost duty of the
high school in teaching mathematics is to emphasise methodical work in prob-
lem solving. This is my conviction; you may not go along with it all the way,
but I assume that you agree that problem-solving deserves some emphasis — and
this will do for the present.
The teacher should know what he is supposed to teach. He should show his
students how to solve problems — but if he does not know, how can he show
them? The teacher should develop his students’ know-how, their ability to
reason; he should recognise and encourage creative thinking — but the curriculum
he went through paid insufficient attention to his mastery of the subject matter
and no attention at all to his know-how, to his ability to reason, to his ability
to solve problems, to his creative thinking. Here is, in my opinion, the worst gap
in the present preparation of high school mathematics teachers. [The remainder
of this chapter is Polya’s advice about problem-solving, cast in the form of a
dialogue.]

How to solve it: a dialogue

Getting acquainted
Where should I start? Start from the statement of the problem.

117
Developing Mathematical Thinking

What can I do? Visualise the problem as a whole as clearly and as vividly as
you can. Do not concern yourself with details for the moment.
What can I gain by doing so? You should understand the problem, familiarise
‘yourself with it, impress its purpose on your mind. The attention bestowed on’
the problem may also stimulate your memory and prepare for the recollection of
relevant points.

Working for better understanding

Where should I start? Start again from the statement of the problem. Start when
this statement is so clear to you and so well impressed on your mind that you ~
may lose sight of it for a while without fear of losing it altogether.
What can I do? Isolate the principal parts of your problem. The hypothesis
and the conclusion are the principal parts of a ‘problem to prove’; the unknown,
the data, and the conditions are the principal parts of a ‘problem to find’. Go
through the principal parts of your problem, consider them one by one, consider
them in turn, consider them in various combinations, relating each detail to
other details and each to the whole of the problem.
What can I gain by doing so? You should prepare and clarify details which are
likely to play a role afterwards.

Hunting for the helpful idea

Where should I start? Start from the consideration of the principal parts of your
problem. Start when these principal parts are distinctly arranged and clearly con-
ceived, thanks to your previous work, and when your memory seems responsive.
What can I do? Consider your problem from various sides and s contacts
with your formerly acquired knowledge?
Consider your problem from various sides. Emphasise different parts, examine
different details, examine the same details repeatedly but in different ways,
combine the details differently, approach them from different sides. Try to see
some new meaning in each detail, some new interpretation of the whole.
Seek contacts with your formerly acquired knowledge. Try to think of what
helped you in similar situations in the past. Try to recognise something familiar
in what you examine, try to perceive something useful in what you recognise.
What could I perceive? A helpful idea, perhaps a decisive idea that shows you
at a glance the way to the very end.
How can an idea be helpful? It shows you the whole of the way or a part of
the way; it suggests to you more or less distinctly how you can proceed. Ideas
are more or less complete. You are lucky if you have any idea at all.
What can I do with an incomplete idea? You should consider it. If it looks
advantageous you should consider it longer. If it looks reliable you should
ascertain how far it leads you, and reconsider the situation. The situation has
changed, thanks to your helpful idea. Consider the new situation from various
sides and seek contacts with your formerly acquired knowledge.
What can I gain by doing so again? You may be lucky and have another idea.
Perhaps your next idea will lead you to the solution right away. Perhaps you

118
 ie 5:

Thinking about problems

need a few more helpful ideas after the next. Perhaps you will be led astray by
some of your ideas. Nevertheless you should be grateful for all new ideas, also
for the lesser ones, also for the hazy ones, also for the supplementary ideas
adding some precision to a hazy one, or attempting the correction of a less
fortunate one. Even if you do not have any appreciable new ideas for a while
you should be grateful if your conception of the problem becomes more com-
plete or more coherent, more homogeneous or better balanced.

Carrying out the plan

Where should I start? Start from the lucky idea that led you to the solution.
Start when you feel sure of your grasp of the main connection and you feel
confident that you can supply the minor details that may be wanting.
What can I do? Make your grasp quite secure. Carry through in detail all the
algebraic or geometric operations which you have recognised previously as
feasible. Convince yourself of the correctness of each step by formal reasoning,
or by intuitive insight, or both ways if you can. If your problem is very complex
you may distinguish ‘great’ steps and ‘small’ steps, each great step being com-
posed of several small ones. Check first the great steps, and get down to the
smaller ones afterwards.
What can I gain by doing so? A presentation of the solution of each step
which is correct beyond doubt.

Looking back
Where should I start? From the solution, complete and correct in each detail.
What can I do? Consider the solution from various sides and seek contacts
with your formerly acquired knowledge.
Consider the details of the solution and try to make them as simple as you
can; survey more extensive parts of the solution and try to make them shorter;
try to see the whole solution at a glance. Try to modify to their advantage
smaller or larger parts of the solution, try to improve the whole solution, to
make it intuitive, to fit it into your formerly acquired knowledge as naturally as
possible. Scrutinise the method that led you to the solution, try to see its point,
and try to make use of it for other problems. Scrutinise the result and try to
make use of it for other problems.
What can I gain by doing so? You may find a new and better solution, you
may discover new and interesting facts. In any case, if you get into the habit of
surveying and scrutinising your solutions in this way, you will acquire some
knowledge well ordered and ready to use, and you will develop your ability of
solving problems.

hee
10 The metaphoric mind: the gift of
beginning
Bob Samples
Source: Samples, B., The Metaphoric Mind, chapter 6,
Addison-Wesley, Philippines, 1976.
_ <<K<<<<KKKKXKKKKKKKK§K§K§KKCK$CK§KKKK#K#K#KKKK#K#KXK#KKXKKKRS

Bruner had written a fine book called On Knowing, Essays for the Left Hand,
and he introduced me to this metaphor as a basis for observations I would make
that summer and the following year. Although both Bruner and Hawkins were
disciples of Piaget, neither insisted that Piaget’s models be used. Instead we
gathered each day, planned some action assignments, tried them with classrooms
full of children, discussed them later, and wrote down our findings. Children of
all ages were available to us, so we could run the gamut from Piaget’s pre-
operational to supposedly formal-operations stages. Because I felt no compulsion
at that time to reverify Piaget’s logical progression, I chose to discover what I
could about left-handed learning.
One of the first things I learned was that it was more like play than work.
_ The children would take the ‘problem’ we had created and literally play with it. ;
r
Since our work usually involved some apparatus or some natural materials, the
:‘
children had something tangible to work on. In a typical beginning, given a series ;
of pendulums hanging from wooden racks, the children were instructed to ‘find
out what you can about pendulums.’
‘Children picked up the racks, looked underneath, set them down, and began
to swing pendulums. Some started pendulum wars (trying to hit pendulum
spheres together). Some chattered about the swings on the playground. Two
boys began trying to entwine their pendulum cords by swinging the pend-
ulums. A girl leaned over the frame with her lips on the top, feeling the vibra-
tions as the pendulum swung back and forth. Three boys and one girl tried
to make a stack of pendulums so there would be a tower of pendulums that
they could get to swing in unison. (This activity took about 40 minutes.)
At first I noticed a good deal of anxiety on the part of the adults who had
written the lessons. Most often they would circulate among the students and ask
leading questions — questions designed to ‘lead’ the children back to where the
adults were more comfortable, to a place where the lesson and experience were
more closely related to the intent of the lesson as seen by the adults.
In these instances David Hawkins protected the children as they explored. He
would weave great rational tales about the sophistication of some of the children’s

120
 The metaphoric mind: the gift of beginning
actions, much to the comfort of those whose rational neurosis was being sorely
taxed. He invoked everyone from Galileo to Confucius as he guaranteed a space
of time for the children to ‘mess around’ (one of his favourite phrases). Bruner
most often agreed and spoke about ‘left-handed’ knowing. I was enraptured by
the lack of structure the children showed until the nervous adults crept in and
asked questions or otherwise guided their actions back into ‘safe’ places.
Thus I was able to observe children playing with science and simultaneously
gather several important psychological insights from those participating:
‘Bruner: The students were involved in play, rich in “left-handed” knowing.
Hawkins: There were profound rational components being experienced
tacitly by the children.
Other adults: Teachers are generally made nervous by play.
Samples: Adults (the cultural order) affect the kind of knowing the child-
ren are permitted to experience.’

On the basis of these observations I decided to get a group of lesson-makers

together. My purpose was to work with children of several ages, in several con-
tent areas, and see how they operated through a learning sequence. That is, I
chose to observe them until they were really ‘finished’ with a problem. I did not
know whether comprehension or boredom would finish the learning. We worked
with third graders (7—8 years old), sixth graders (11—12 years old), and eighth
graders (13—14 years old). The content areas included physics, natural science
and astronomy. The results were remarkable.
All the students indulged in play for a long period of time at the onset of the
lesson. This play was facilitated by the degree of ‘trust’ we had established with
the children. They would often cue in on the adults to see how much we intended
to interfere before they got comfortable with the play. The older students
always took longer to be convinced of our ‘non-intervention’ policy. We mapped
the excursions of individual students into play—work areas. Work was defined
as that activity with obvious rational components. Play was that which lacked
these components. The results of several dozen observations that summer and
several hundred in the following year are shown in the illustrations that follow.
Generally the students would spend most of their early time within a problem
sequence in play. Then, as they reached saturation with the play, they would
shift to right-handed or rational knowing. At this point the teacher-observers
typically became noticeably more comfortable. The children were operating
within the context of their prejudices. They asked questions, performed tasks,
and generally conformed to behaviors that were consistent with Piaget’s criteria.
The students, however, were quickly satiated with rational discourse. They
often gathered their newfound data and then whipped back into metaphoric play
in the left-handed mode. After exhausting their rational fix in metaphor, how-
ever, the students again excursioned into the right. This always delighted the
teachers. But they became bewildered again as the students frequently whipped
once more into metaphor. I began to realise that the teachers were exhibiting
a form of neurosis consistent with the cultural order . . . rational neurosis. The
teachers were made anxious when the children moved away from the structures
the teachers had chosen to accept. ;

121
(metaphoric non-linear — _ (rational linear
thinking) thinking)

‘left-handed’ : @ ‘right-handed’
knowing problem knowing

4 5
P* ee Pg cA Ley
‘s

eee re hk eS
about, Paaibnds of ae way nat a biGblem elution sequence, he ake 7ee
Sorat knowing began to dominate. That is, the closer the children got to a ee a.
_ rational solution, the more difficult it was for them to return to metaphor. This — hse
- difficulty was demonstrated by the students consistently choosing linear and s
a logical explanations and routes for exploration. Even when led in less logical
_ directions, the students sik tenaciously to their rational conclusions. [...] —
11 And now for something different:
teaching by not teaching
Sandy Dawson and John Trivett
Source: specially written for this volume
KKK
K<<<<<<<<x<<x<<x<<<x<x<<<KXXKKCKKKKKKKKK KKK

Yes, now for something different. We suggest to you that there are alternative
and feasible ways of structuring what can take place in your classroom, that
these ways can be initiated by you now, tomorrow if you wish, and yet you
need not stop anything you do normally, at least not necessarily so.
Consequently, we issue you an invitation — no RSVP required — an in-
vitation to grasp the opportunity now, little by little:

1 tolook at and use what students really do,

2 to examine why they do it, and
13°\to comprehend what needs to be done — by you — in response to your stu-
dents’ activities.
In other words, we invite you to join with us in exploring how learners can joy-
fully assume much, much more responsibility for their own learning. In the pro-
cess of this exploration, we will introduce you to ways of working with children
in which you subordinate your teaching to the learning of the children with
whom you work, so that not only the responsibility for the learning but also the
awareness of how learning occurs rests where it must, namely, with the children.
We suggest that you begin this exploration by setting aside one lesson in
five, say, to try some of the activities which we will detail shortly. We contend
that there will be some very valuable by-products which arise from these ex-
plorations, by-products which will affect the remainder of your lessons.
Not the least of these by-products will be the introduction of a variety of
approaches as to how mathematics may be taught and learnt, perhaps a variety
of topics for the children and for you; an opportunity for an empirical study by
you to diagnose whether your children are very much affected by lessons of a
new kind; a renewed recognition of the individuality, sincerity, and originality
which all children are capable of displaying in classroom settings if given the
chance to do so.
However, this is not where we are in maths teaching today. We have had the
old math and the new math, worksheet maths because of the proliferation of

124
 RED Pe mata ee as Nh eh
ea re a
tes rl iewon ei Ae
ce ies he Deye eeWateio aad5
REN cm 4 * 4 i: ed al wage ran 4

And now for something different: teaching by not teaching

_ photo-copiers, ditto masters, and laminating machines; manipulative aids, maths
projects of millions of pounds, maths centres, the back-to-the-basics movement,
hand calculators, programmed learning, Tractenberg and Chisanbop, and now
micro-computers. But don’t you get the feeling that we are still where we were,
that the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same? Various
national and international reports attest to this.
Are we to be content to produce mathematicians only? We’ve always done
that, and probably always shall. Or are we to do more than that, and thereby
help all children be joyful at their own maths for general living purposes, spirit-
ually and practically? We choose the latter. If we did not, we would not bother
to write this article.
We allege that significant changes are not occurring because we don’t see the
proverbial woods for the trees. We contend that people in general and most
maths teachers in particular are still not aware that maths is a birthright of all
human beings.
Everyone, by virtue of being human, has what is needed for some maths.
Everyone abstracts, relates, connects, makes models, solves problems, generalises,
specialises, and so on, and, moreover, has done so since birth, if not before.
The newborn child must do many of these things in order to direct and control
its bodily functions. Most certainly, children teaching themselves to talk do each
of these things. Teachers need to become aware, if they are not aware already,
of just what capabilities children bring with them to classrooms. They should be
aware that they need not teach children how to do these things. Teachers need,
rather, to become aware of how to present maths to children so that these
capabilities can be exercised naturally by children. In short, teachers need to
educate themselves first to what it involves to teach oneself anything, and
secondly to educate themselves of how to assist learners to educate themselves,
in our case, with respect to mathematics.
What we presently do with children in classrooms does not, we would argue,
allow teachers to educate themselves in either of these ways. The prevalent way
of teaching maths in Europe and North America is based, in our view, on a mis-
guided view of the formal nature of mathematics.
None of the maths now reflected in texts, and perhaps by teachers , came into
existence in formal ways. The maths inventors doodled, made mistakes galore,
agonised over problems for hours, days, weeks, even years, disposed of hoards
of paper and chalk, and made haste slowly. Unfortunately, we now pressure
children to work hard without suggesting very clearly what they should work
hard at or in what way they should work. More often than not, what we teachers
have in mind is the final, formal product of many mathematicians’ work. This is
what we seem to want children to know, and not the excitement and disappoint-
ment or struggle with a problem which children could experience until they have
found a solution which is correct for them, at least for the moment. This situ-
ation is analogous to wanting children to know a dictionary, but not ever allow-
ing them to use the words in that dictionary for their own investigations and
creations, let alone to communicate with one another.

125
 Poe ie . ye Te Oe AL a laglt SS ay DN Sete a CBee Soe eS

Developing Mathematical Thinking

It has been said (one of the authors of this article said it!), ‘Rather than think
of maths being integrated with other subjects, maths is the integration itself.’
Language learning is one of the greatest evidences of that, and we have all learned S
language.
This gives rise to what for us are four absolutely basic questions. If significant
changes are to be made in the teaching of maths, then we contend that these
questions, as they pertain to maths teaching, must be answered by each teacher,
and answered in such a way that teachers know the answers are true based on
their own experience, on their own authority.
The questions are as follows:
1 Who is the authority for what is spoken in any language, in particular, the
language of mathematics?
2 What help do we as teachers have for learning and teaching the mathematical
language? What barriers are there?
3 What kind of learning do we want?
4 Where is the authority for our answers to the above?
Briefly, and later in more detail, our answers to these questions go something
like this:
1 The individual learner has to be responsible, because self-speaking and self-
education are not avoidable despite what anyone thinks or does. For example,
we cannot learn the multiplication table for you. You must do that yourself.
That is not to say we cannot help you, but in the final analysis you must do the
_ learning yourself.
2 The spoken and written language is itself a great aid for the teaching and
learning of mathematics. However, the native language has barriers built into it,
and as teachers we must know how to avoid these. More on this later.
3 The learning we want is for children to use their own individual thoughts,
their own direct experiences, their own sense of truth, their own time, their own
doubts and queries and so on. This all implies quite a different approach to the
teaching and learning of maths than is common today.
4 Our authority for the above answers rests on our own experience in teaching
ourselves something new, and also from our close observations of children learn-
ing new things if allowed to do so using the powers and capabilities they all
possess.
Your answers to these questions must come from you. You have done all your
own learning; you had no choice even if someone else helped considerably in
some way.
You are your own authority for what you deem to be correct. You use a
multitude of aids to help you. You are constantly working at processes.
You don’t think so? Examine your daily experiences. For example, examine
the way you use language fluently, whether you cook, drive, type or whatever.
You are responsible for all this regardless of what anyone else says about the
way it seems to them!

126
 te Ni dS een, ote i she olRe ee
uy iw x r
; i

And now for something different: teaching by not teaching —

The one lesson in five which we suggested to you at the outset, can be a great
opportunity for you, the teacher, to become aware of all of this, because no
matter how clearly we may write, our words are part of the barrier to your learn-
ing. Your learning must be based on your experience. It cannot be based on our
words. So try that one lesson in five.
Here are some suggestions of things you might try. In making these suggestions
we hope also to give more detailed answers to the questions posed above, as well
as to give some illustrations of what we are talking about.

1 Who is the authority?

If the learner is the ultimate authority, then you must ease up on the correction
of learners, or don’t correct at all. Place the responsibility for correction on the
learners. Allow the children to talk to one another, to check with each other.
After all, that is what they do when learning a new game, or new skill, or even in
learning to speak!
Assume, at least during this one lesson in five, that everyone is correct, not in
what is said or written, but in the intent behind such outward evidence. Each of
us have had the experience of not being able to say or write exactly what we
mean, but our intent is clear. So it is with children. Suspend your judgement
about what you think was said or written. Try to get at the meaning behind the
words and symbols.
Accept, but do not necessarily agree with, what is done. As far as possible for
you, become neutral.
All of this may be quite foreign to the way you usually operate, but remem-
ber, it is only one lesson in five, and it does provide you with a unique oppor-
tunity to stand back and observe what children can do. You may be surprised,
but at the very least be acutely observant.

2 What help do we have?

It seems in all but mathematics lessons children are encouraged to talk with each
other and to discuss what they are doing. For some reason, teachers tend to
view maths as something that children should do by themselves and preferably
in silence.
We suggest a reversal of this situation. Encourage two-way conversation in
pairs, or with everyone, talking about what is not what should be. In this, you
should remain silent, at least initially, so that you can watch the children’s eyes,
heads, and hand movements, and /isten to their tone of voice. We say you should
be silent, because if at each instance you are thinking about what you are going
to say you are preoccupied with your thoughts and thereby miss the chance of |
really seeing and hearing what the children are doing and saying.
Moreover, encourage the children to watch and listen to each other as well.
Both for you and the children, try to extract what is meant rather than just
noting what is said or written. And stop being in a hurry! Be patient, suspend
your judgement, and be as silent as possible.
Now, you won’t or shouldn’t be totally silent all the time. When you do

127
Developing Mathematical Thinking
intervene, adopt such phrases as “Are you. ee: _..? sather than ‘No, it’s
wrong’, or ‘Yes, that’s right’.
At some point you might even wish to have a dacusien with the children
about the difficulties of language expression, and the barriers to communication.
Someone once said (it might have even been one of us, but it wasn’t! It was
Caleb Gattegno.) ‘Verbalisation is relatively easy. Communication is a miracle.’
Yet all of us try to communicate our meanings to others. Indeed, we want to do
so, we want to tell others about our findings, our insights, our feelings, our dis-
coveries, and we wish to have others communicate with us. The difficulty is that
the content of our meanings — the sum total of our cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor knowledge of some subject — is usually far greater than the words
or time we possess to convey these meanings. As a result, our verbal descriptions
are always less than the content of our meanings. Hence, to communicate our
total meaning when lacking adequate time or words is truly miraculous!
There are, of course, aids other than language which can be used. In fact, the
use of manipulative aids and physical objects will provide something about
which to talk. Allow the children to use their fingers, pebbles, coloured rods,
attribute blocks, geoboards and so on. Not only can the use of such materials
provide the content for conversation, they can also be valuable tools for self-
correction, that is, the materials can be used as models which can establish
which of various claims made by children are correct. Teacher does not need to
do that. Often, the materials and one’s eyesight can take the place of the teacher
as authority figure.

3 What kind of learning do we want?

We’ve already indicated that we want children to use their own individual
thoughts, observations, experiences and so on. Perhaps the question now is, what .
is it that we want them to think about, observe, and experience?
As a beginning, for your very first one lesson in five, we suggest you select
some standard arithmetic problem, some old math perhaps, from a commercial
textbook, say, or some new problem you’ve come across in a journal or at a con-
ference. The topic does not particularly matter, because it is the process — what
happens during the lesson — that you should be intent on observing.
You might, for example, ask the children if they can invent new ways to add
or multiply. Or you might ask them if they could add from left to right (right
to left is the usual way!), get the ‘correct’ answer, and then teach this new way
to someone else.
For younger children, you might simply ask them to write as many names for
eight, say, as they can using only addition and the whole numbers. Do you think
every child in a class of 35 children could get a different answer? Try it yourself.
Then maybe extend the quest so that subtraction could be used as well. Or try
the same exercise again, this time for six. Or have groups of children work on
different numbers. Finally, if all the names for 4,5, 6,7, and 8 using the whole
numbers and addition only have been found and counted, is it possible to predict
how many names there would be for 9, or 3 or 2? Encourage the children to

128

ie
ha
 And now for something different: teaching by not teaching

look for patterns. (There is definitely a pattern here. In fact, more than one
pattern. Try to find some of them yourself, and watch yourself while you are
doing it. You are the learner in this situation. How are you educating yourself?
What processes did you go through? Did you make mistakes, grope around,
doodle, use hoards of paper, get confused or frustrated, and finally, joyfully,
reach some answer satisfactory to you?)
And don’t rush the children. Time is not of the essence here. Initially, it may
seem like the children are taking a long time to do what is so obvious to you, but
it is not necessarily obvious to them. If it was, they wouldn’t have to do it,
would they? For children not accustomed to searching for patterns and relation-
ships during maths lessons, it will take a while for them to get used to working in
this way. Once they begin to function in this fashion, however, we can almost
guarantee an explosion of work, because it is a natural manner for all humans to
work. It is not usually encouraged in schools, so children need time to become
used to doing in schools what comes naturally in the rest of their lives.
Nor should you try to force undue sophistication to their work at the begin-
ning. Maths in the making — pattern seeking, relationship building — is a game-
like activity, and premature formalism or written or verbal sophistication is
inappropriate. That can come later, and will come naturally as part of the process
of refinement and consolidation of results which the children will seek. So once
again, be patient and suspend your judgement.

4 Whose authority?
Yours, of course.
Here, try this, and after you have finished, decide who you needed to decide
if your answers were correct.
Write a name for each of the whole numbers (0, 1, 2,3, . . .) from 1 to 50
using the numerals 1, 2, 3, and 4 once and only once in each name. You can use
the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, powers, and
factorials.
For example, one way to write 10 would be 1+2+3+4; another way would
be (4 X 3) — (2 X 1); yet another way could be [(4 X 2) + 3] — 1. One way for
writing 17 would be 4” + 1°, and for 37 one way would be 3[4! + 2] + 1. Try it,
and then decide who was the author-ity for your learning.

Once more, through those questions, now, but let’s get even more specific this
time. You see, it is difficult to convey with words what we suggest you do with
yourself and with the children whom you will teach.

1 Who is the authority?

Most 6 year olds have no difficulty picking up this phrase and its meaning:
two apples plus three apples equals five apples,
or: two bananas plus three bananas equals five bananas,
or: two elephants plus three elephants equals five elephants,
or: two globs plus three globs equals five globs,

129
 x 5 ht

Developing Mathematical Thinking

or: (watch it now, these are 6 year olds)
two hundred plus three hundred equals five hundred,
| or: two thousand plus three thousand equals five thousand,
or: two million plus three million equals five million,
i or: two billion plus three billion equals five billion.
Here we use our language, the English language, and the patterns it has to aid us
in making children aware of some patterns. We are in a sense ‘forcing their
awareness’ in order that they may educate themselves. The above example can
re be extended so that 6 and 7 year olds can easily handle: 5
al
two billion, two million, two thousand, two hundred, two
plus 4
three billion, three million, three thousand, three hundred, three ;
equals :
. five billion, five million, five thousand, five hundred, five

Even if they can’t write the symbols of any of these numbers or have any idea :
how much a billion is! Moreover, they will know that they are correct. You
won't have to tell them. =
r

2 What help do we have?

Try this with older children — 9 or 10 or older.
Have the children construct the familiar 10 X 10 multiplication table on the
chalkboard. Then ask them to identify any patterns they see in the table. Your
role is to remain silent except as to clarify what the children describe or point e

out — not to correct, or to say we’ve had that one before. Here is such a table.

Sa etNa aah 416 see Fs Pes ae eae

Be Ea Ee ee iad
io ae

It is impossible to say what the children might pick out initially. They may, for
instance, note that each vertical column increases by the number at the head of
that column, that is, the 2s. column goes up by twos, the 3s by threes, and so on;
or that horizontal rows do the same thing.

130
 pita ae vestry ™) west a
Be BAT ryae
AN Ap | Ae
Ecce Me Meek YI, Tyke MAS ;
ding es ; Fat
‘ ae : -

nd now for something different: teaching by not teaching

Study the table yourself. See what patterns you can discern. Focus, for a
moment, on the 9 column or row. What things do you notice about the numerals
in that column? Is it the same for the corresponding row? Would the pattern
hold if you extended the column downward? upward? What further awarenesses
would children require for that pattern to assist them in learning their 9 times
table?
Are there any similar patterns in other rows or columns?
Study any two adjacent rows or columns. What awarenesses did you gain
from this study which might help you teach/learn fractions?
The point of all this is that the staid, old multiplication table can be an aid to
new and exciting studies. If children are allowed to explore this table, individually
or in small groups, then their teachers can, with careful listening and looking,
gain a wealth of insights as to how children learn, how they correct themselves
and others, how they make guesses and check them, how they formulate hypo-
theses and test them, all without direction or correction by the teacher. It is not
only insights the teacher may gain, but also a renewed respect for the individuality,
sincerity, and originality of their students. Try it. You have nothing to lose and
so much to gain.

3 What kind of learning do we want?

Let’s examine a topic in which children might be even more inventive: simple,
traditional addition of three-digit numbers. Could we add from left to right —
the usual direction for reading English — instead of from right to left as in the
~traditional algorithm? Let’s try.
425 (In our usual way, we say something like 5 plus
3 plus 1 is 9. Put down the 9. Now add the tens
143 column. 2 plus 4 plus 3 equals 9. Put down
another 9. Now the hundreds. 4 plus 1 plus 3 is
331 8. Put down the 8. Aha! 899.)
899

Now, from left to right. The hundreds first. 4 hundreds plus 1 hundred plus 3
hundreds is 8 hundreds or 800. Then the tens. 2 tens plus 4 tens plus 3 tens is
9 tens or 90. Finally the ones. 5 ones plus 3 ones plus 1 one is 9 ones or 9. 800
plus 90 plus 9. Aha, 899!
So, it makes no difference! We could even start from the middle column. Are
there other ways to add? Could you invent some? Would either of these patterns

oe
work?

143, 143
C431 331

The point is not that we want children to know all these ways of adding. There
are many points to this illustration. First, we want children and teachers to

131
Developing Mathematical Thinking

know — to be aware — that there is not just one right way of doing something
in maths. There are usually many ways, and the way which is best depends on
the situation. .
Second, we want teachers and children to become aware that these processes
are created by human beings, and that it is entirely possible for new ones to be
invented. Even children can do it! Third, we want teachers to know and children
to experience that mathematics is the study of relationships, and not the memor-
isation of predetermined processes and answers. Maths is something people do, all
the time, though perhaps unconsciously. People create, examine, modify, adjust,
eliminate, create anew, vast numbers of relationships. Maths is the study of these
relationships. We all do it. However, what we usually study as mathematics is the
final written product of a mathematician’s work. We are urging here that maths
for children and their teachers, as it is presented in classrooms, should come closer
to its true nature. To do so, children need to do maths, that is, they need to
study patterns and relationships in an atmosphere which supports their successes
and failures, and celebrates their individuality, sincerity, and originality.

4 Whose authority?
Recall now, as you sit there in your comfortable chair reading this, what you
yourself do in other non-maths lessons. Go ahead. Do it now!
In art, for example, do you have an emphasis on correction? Do you have
children only copy the art of others?
In science do you enquire, with lots of discussion? Whose authority do you
rely on for what each individual sees?
In physical education is there only one way of kicking the soccer ball?
In language lessons do you accept only one detailed form for everything your
children write? If letters to the Queen are taught in their particular formal way,
is there only one form for thanking grandma for a birthday present?
When children talk to us do we stop them every moment to correct their
speech, their accents, their intonations? Do we encourage them to speak like
us? (Pygmalion!)
Should I correct in detail what you say to me? Do you benefit from it if
Ido?
In summary, think of teaching maths in ways you teach other subjects and
try to use the same processes in maths, at least, for starters, during that one S
ay
lesson in five which you are going to try out tomorrow! .

Throughout what you have just read, we’ve made frequent reference to aware-
ness and to educating oneself. To us, these notions of awareness and self-education
are fundamental to all of education, whether or not it is in maths lessons.
When we try to teach children or adults something, we are at a very basic
level trying to get them to become aware of patterns and relationships which
they had not noticed before. Further, we are trying by emphasising certain
approaches — conversations, guessing and testing, conjecturing, use of mani-
pulative aids and physical objects, use of language and so on — to draw the

132
 Ni #

nd now
a Yer retin different: teaching bynotCeithige
learners’ attention to how they go about learning in a natural setting. It is our
experience that children welcome such approaches, because they view them as
part of what they do all the time when not in schools. They don’t see them as
different, just natural!
Consequently, when working with learners of whatever age, we attempt to
create situations which will force their awareness to what it is that we want them
to learn. If we do not succeed, we do not assume that there is something wrong
with the learner. Rather, we look for other ways to bring whatever awareness
it is we are after to the learner’s attention.
In order to be able to do that reasonably successfully, however, we have had
to educate ourselves not only to be aware of what the children must learn, but
to also be aware of those awarenesses. Confused? Let us try to clarify this a bit.
To learn something new requires, in our view, the education of one’s aware-
ness. One must become aware of the pattern in the 9s column, for example, if a
connection is to be made with the multiplication by 9. To learn the 9s table,
this is sufficient. To teach this to someone else requires something more. The
something more is the recognition — the awareness — of what the children must
do with themselves in order to see that initial pattern in the 9s column. The
teacher has to be aware of what awarenesses are requred for someone else to
learn. The teacher needs to be aware of the awarenesses.
Moreover, though we have focused here on mainly arithmetic awarenesses,
with a bit of language patterning thrown in, the range of awarenesses of which a
teacher must be cognisant is not limited to subject matter alone. Perhaps even
more importantly, it includes an awareness of what learners must do for and
with themselves in order to conquer some new subject, or skill, that is, some
new awareness.
Above all it requires the recognition that all of us, young or old, have no
choice but to educate ourselves. It is only each of us who can be aware of what _
we are aware. Someone else cannot be aware for us. Because of that, each of us
must teach ourselves, though it is obviously a tremendous help to have someone
else close by who is sensitive to us and to what it is we are trying to learn. Are
not good teachers those who can put challenges directly in front of their students
so that they are hooked immediately, and who then let students take over by get-
ting out of their way? So easily said, so hard to do, all the time, with all students.
The purpose, then, of encouraging you to try different ways in your maths
lessons — one in five of them, anyway — wasto provide vou with the opportunity
to first of all become aware of what is required to learn something new, and
second to alert yourself to the many awarenesses children must acquire before
you and they can proudly say, ‘We’ve mastered it!’
If you try any bit of this, you are giving yourself permission to flounder, at
least for a while, but the children won’t know that. They will be involved and
busy in doing something different and unusual.
You will be researching into how maths can be considered differently, with-
out having to change dramatically, without having to take the two recommended
courses.

133
you ee,via, held fora jee time, and hopefully 1 ain|
toi
_ small ways, about improving the situation. ; a
You have the opportunity for doing this each time te onecleeaa
comes around, perhaps while you wait patiently for more outside help in
form of better courses, better books, better aids, and for people who ey
they know better what you require than you do yourself.
You have an advantage over those folks. You have your children and yourse
and in the last analysis that is all you need, because all that needs to be done fe
to be done by you and your children in the ways you and they decide is most
appropriate for all of you. e
Good luck with that first of hopefully many, many one lesson every [Link]
-
 ba S Sere be SETA eGR heer re

12 Language and cognitive

development
Dan Slobin

Source: S/obin, D. |, Psycholinguistics, Scott Foresman, 1971.

Language is one of several means of representation. Taking this last term quite
literally, we see that we are concerned with re-presentation, that is, the problem
of presenting ourselves with experience again at some later time. As in the dis-
cussion of memory, the matter is one of internal coding of experience. The
psychologist Jerome Bruner (1966) has pointed to two other major modes of
representation, contrasting them with linguistic representation.
A primitive but often useful means of representation is through action. Some
things are best demonstrated by doing — as, for example, using tools, tying knots,
and other motor skills. Probably many things we know how to do are represented
by some sort of muscle imagery. Children learn much about the world through
active manipulation, and there is a good deal of evidence that ‘enactive’ re-
presentation is an early means for representing objects.
Enactive representation is limited, however, in that it is sequentially ordered
and not easily reversible. If you learn your way from home to work by remem-
bering a series of left and right turns, you will have difficulty in finding yourself
if you get lost, for you have no overall representation of the route. If you have
a map (or a visual image) of the route, however, you can scan it back and forth
and find your place and your way. Thus there is another, more compact mode of
representation which uses visual imagery as its mode. This mode allows for action-
free representation.
The most supple mode of action-free representation, however, is language
(and the other symbolic systems invented by man, such as mathematical systems).
Systems such as language make it possible to invent new symbols to represent
anything — even things which cannot be felt or seen. And, given rules of com-
bination and recombination, such as grammar, we can deal with all manner of
possibilities, going far beyond things and events we have experienced directly.
Thus there are at least three major means available for representing experience:
action, imagery, and language. No one mode serves all human purposes: we must
learn manipulative skills, visual configurations, social customs, science, history,
and so on. The three modes are used separately and in interaction. Furthermore

135
 i Mhdes bas a a
py eey :

Ly Seb t
te Hare ean,

Developing Marhenitcat : Thinking sy

[.. .] there must be inarticulate forms ofthought which precede the production
of acts, images, or utterances.
Bruner, Piaget, and others have presented evidence that the modes of re-
presentation develop in the order in which we have discussed them. We do not
have the means here to evaluate this complex issue, but a few examples may be
illuminating. As for the enactive mode, Piaget provides us with valuable observa-
tions from his own children during their first year of life (1954). At first it
seems that objects are, to a great extent, represented in terms of action. Consider
the following example, taken from Piaget’s observations of his seven-month-old
son (p. 22):
‘Laurent . . . loses a cigarette box which he has just grasped and swung to
and fro. Unintentionally he drops it outside his visual field. He then im-
mediately brings his hand before his eyes and looks at it for a long time
with an expression of surprise, disappointment, something like an expres-
sion of its disappearance. But far from considering the loss as irremediable,
he begins again to swing his hand, although it is empty. After this he looks
at it once more! For anyone who has seen this act and the child’s expression,
it is impossible not to interpret such behavior as an attempt to make the
object come back. Such an observation . . . places in full light the true
nature of the object peculiar to this stage: a mere extension of the action.’
Several months later, action and object are not so closely tied. Earlier, the child
would not show signs of missing an object when it was removed — unless he had
already begun reaching for it. But later he will cry and search for an object
which is presented for a moment and then hidden, even if he had not begun to
reach for it. He no longer repeats a movement to restore the object, but seems to
have an inner image of it. Development seems to go from a direct momentary
prehensive definition of an object to a definition which is increasingly less reliant
on action and more reliant upon visual representation (although certain basic
characteristics of visual representation are, of course, built-in at birth).
With age, visual imagery seems to play a more and more important role. There
is a considerable literature on children’s use of imagery. This literature points to
interesting conclusions about differences between children and adults in use of
imagery:

1 children use more imagery in carrying out intellectual tasks;

2 their imagery is more particularistic, rather than generic and schematic;
3. children’s images seem to have greater vividness and detail.
In the book, Studies in Cognitive Growth, 1966, Bruner and his co-workers
report a number of studies carried out at the Harvard Center for Cognitive
Studies documenting the use of imagery by children in intellectual tasks, and the
shift with age from visual to linguistic means of dealing with these tasks. For
example, if children are given a collection of pictures to be sorted into categories,
the younger children sort on the basis of visual features, such as colour, size,
pattern, and so on, while the older children sort on the basis of some super-
ordinate linguistic concept. A 6 year old may group together boat, ruler, doll,
bicycle, scissors, saw, shoe, gloves, barn, candle, pie, nails, taxi because: ‘Some

136
 ERC Se er Be “ iA. 2k a3 ~2 a ha ‘y os is _

Language and cognitive development

‘ are red, some are gold, and some are yellow. One is white, some are brown, and
| some are blue.’ Or he may group together screw, ruler, nails, candle, hammer,
h taxi, coat, scissors, sword, bicycle because: ‘They have a part that you get dressed
with, or they have holes in them, or you use them for tools, taxi goes with bicycle.’
By age eight the picture is different. Bruner reports:

‘Increasingly with development the child isolates one or more attributes

that are common to all the items in the group: “They are all tools,” or
“You can eat with them,” or “They can all move,” and so on’.
(pp. 83—84, 1966).
The child may be so struck by vivid perceptual details which attract him from
moment to moment that he is prevented from discerning common features.
Bruner suggests that the growth of linguistic skills gradually allows the child to
code and compare attributes of objects verbally, thus freeing him from the
momentary perceptual impact of one attribute or another.
The picture is not as simple as this, however. Note that both 6 and 8 year olds
have well-developed linguistic systems, but their means for sorting pictures into
categories are quite different. Simply having language is not enough: something
else must change with growth. The old ‘nature—nurture’ debate rages strongly
in this domain, and we are far from clear answers. The Americans and the
Russians tend to stress the role of training and instruction in cognitive develop-
ment: whereas Piaget and his school stress the role of naturally developing cog-
nitive growth as the child interacts with his environment. Bruner’s book suggests
that children must be trained — chiefly through formal school instruction — to
use language in ways which free them from attending to concrete, perceptual
attributes of things. In regard to the picture-sorting task, for example, he says
that the shift from the use of perceptual cues to more abstract, superordinate
grouping criteria ‘is not a universal property of “growing up”’ (p. 85, 1966). A
number of the experiments in Studies in Cognitive Growth were carried out in a
variety of cultural settings, leading to the conclusion that:

‘the “natural” terminus of growth depends to a very considerable extent

on the pattern imposed by the culture. The techniques used [here] have,
in modified form, been used in studies of children in Alaska, Mexico, and
Senegal . . . and it is plain that school children in Dakar or Mexico City
look very much like the school children of [suburban Boston]. But it is
equally plain that the village child of rural Mexico and the unschooled
Wolof of Senegal seem very different . . . much more perceptually oriented.
(Bruner et al., p. 85, 1966)
Bruner et al. thus suggest that the school is a very important determiner of the
use of language to facilitate cognitive growth. In school children must learn to
use language in the absence of immediate context. This is true especially of
learning to read and write, but it applies to a broader range of linguistic tasks
which a child must learn to perform in a school setting. Bruner’s cross-cultural
studies suggest that the sort of intellectual training a child receives is more im-
portant than the particular language he happens to speak — as far as the general
course of his cognitive growth is concerned. [. . .]

137
 fe ottek7
e
reasa Nic
Ra
Meeae aeat ie 7.
+ > |

Developing Mathematical Thinking 3

~ Another important consequence of the use of language is that the child does
not have to perform direct tests to acquire knowledge. By dealing with a prob-
lem verbally, he can act on possible information in addition to actual information
— that is, he can eliminate possibilities through reasoning, and can devise intelli-
ayy
gent tests of a situation to replace random probing or trial-and-error.
We still do not have sufficient information, however, to determine the extent
to which such reasoning abilities require language or schooling. We must know
much more about the level of intellectual development reached by individuals
deprived of language or deprived of formal education. The work of Piaget’s
school strongly suggests that language more often reflects than determines cog-
nitive development. He and his colleagues have made careful attempts to train
children in problem solving by teaching them new ways of talking about par-
ticular tasks and concepts. [. . .] The general finding has been that special linguis-
tic training will be of no avail to a child unless his level of cognitive development
has already reached the point at which it can embrace the relevant concepts
represented by the words. [.. .]
In Studies in Cognitive Growth, Bruner discusses five possible sources of
language-influenced intellectual development:
1 Words can serve as ‘invitations to form concepts.’ That is, the very occurrence
of unfamiliar words stimulates the child to discover the meanings of those words.
2 Dialogue between adult and child can serve to orient and educate the child,
providing an important source of experience and knowledge.
3 School creates the need for new uses of language — particularly context-free
and elaborated uses.
4 Scientific concepts are developed in a culture and are conveyed verbally.
5 The occurrence of conflict between modes of representation can be a source
of intellectual development.
We have touched upon these major issues briefly. These five aspects of language
use in cognitive development vary with culture and social class, interact with one
another, and can influence intelligence in many ways. Given these multifarious
questions about the role of language in human behavior, we must, of course,
accept the platitude that language is an important component of the psycho-
logical nature of man. But we are still a long way from understanding the specific
aspects and functions of this component in all of human behaviour and cognition.
[...]

References
Bruner, J. S. et al. (eds.), Studies in Cognitive Growth, New York, John Wiley,
1966.

138
: 13 Mathematics? | speak it fluently
: | David Pimm
Source: specially written for this volume

Introduction

2 As teachers, our primary concern should be encouraging and improving the

| communication of mathematical meanings, both between teacher and pupil,
but also among pupils themselves. Such communication about a situation or an
idea can be verbal, pictorial or in mathematical symbols, where I assume the
latter two to be written. Mathematical ideas are often conveyed using a special-
ised, highly condensed symbol system which attempts to reflect relationships
among the ideas by means of relationships among the symbols. In so doing, the
symbol system acts as a kind of filter, dispensing with all but the essential
elements involved, as by no means all the relationships among the ideas can be
simultaneously represented. The pupils must therefore come to understand this
.___
ee
a
filtering process and become confident users of it.
Thus we can see the dual nature of mathematics, at once medium and
message. Any mathematics classroom will provide many examples ‘ol the
medium “influencing, and sometimes distorting, the intended message. As a
consequence, one role for any maths teacher is the encouragement of fluency,
both oral and written, in the language of mathematics. But that the emphasis
must always remain on meaningful communication of experiences and ideas
is the main point of this introduction.
I want to take the commonly heard statement that mathematics is a language
as a starting point for this essay and explore in part what arises if this claim is
taken seriously. It could be taken to mean that mathematical language is a part
of English (or French, German, etc.). Another interpretation could be that it is
a universal shorthand, while a third might be that maths is a language in its own
right. However you interpret it, I think the main point for the teaching of
mathematics is the importance¢of ‘Meaning
mea ring to‘mathematical 2
activity, rather than
thee nmere “manipulation of symbols to which it so often degenerates. Therefore
the aim of mathematical language ‘should ‘be to help construct, express and
communicate thesé™ ‘Wathematical meanings. I hopé this point will becomé
clearer through the examples as thechapter unfolds.

139
 Ne Veh 9ait eg einenae
Developing Mathematical Thinking ; ee

My approach throughout is to look to natural language itself for certain

key ideas which we can then try to identify within mathematics itself. As a
brief overview of what is to come, the second section focuses on the basic
notions of vocabulary and grammar, and possible differences in these regards
between what I shall contrast as ordinary English and mathematical English.
Moving away from surface features, I shall look at metaphor, a common yet
powerful phenomenon in ordinary English. Does it arise in mathematics, and
if so what are some of the consequences? In the last section, I deal with the
question of the readability of mathematical prose. Many children’s difficulties.
with mathematics may be due more to the complexity of wording of written
material than to the express mathematical task being posed or explained.
In this introduction, I have tried to provide some idea of what this chapter
contains as well as a sense of some more general questions which can be posed
concerning the role of language in mathematics. This discussion is by no means
exhaustive. I have, for example, made no reference to the increasingly vexed
and important question of children for whom English is a second language.
Any reader who wishes to pursue further one of these areas may care to consult
the article by Austin and Howson listed in the references which reviews much
of the literature on the topic of language and mathematics.

Mathematical English and ordinary English

What does it mean to say that mathematics is a language and how does it differ
from English? If it is a shorthand, a shorthand is learned as a language, and not
just translation, for you can’t translate shorthand without learning the language.
Does it make sense to refer to mathematics as a language in its own right? Is it
not merely English with the addition of a few specialised terms, such as any
professional group might employ? Most mathematical classes actually take place
in a mixture of ordinary English and a mathematical English in which ordinary
words are used with a specialised meaning (Kane, 1968). It is important to
distinguish these as failure to do so can result in incongruous errors.
For example, in response to ‘What is the difference between 30 and 7?’
answers often include ‘30 is a big number and 7 is a small number’ or ‘30 is
even while 7 is odd’. Halving, indicating a process of division into two (not
necessarily equal) pieces allows us to speak of (and ask for!) ‘the larger half’.
Many confusions can occur as a result of differing linguistic usage with the
teacher, most often, speaking mathematical English, while the student interprets
it as ordinary English. Mathematics is notorious for attaching specialised mean-
ings to everyday words, words which already have meanings. Thus one set of
problems arise from two people using the same words but understanding dif-
ferent things by it.
Mathematics, when written, often employs its own symbols (e.g. 2 + 3 = 5)
yet, when spoken, comes out in English sentences. There are conventions de-
veloped over the centuries governing the construction of symbolic mathematical
sentences. In what ways do they differ from the structure of English? Are there

140
 Par Ue MEN c eas? art Ne AR ey SE eee Cite! e

Mathematics? I speak it fluently

many examples of conflict? For instance, we write 8 — 4 but sometimes say
‘four from eight’ where the written left-to-right order is the opposite of the
spoken order. (Another example of this is seventeen for 17, where the seven
comes first, compared with twenty-seven for 27). This can cause particular
problems when tens and units are reached, for example

38
maa
The direction of the operation must be indicated (top to bottom or conversely,
rather than left to right) for if you mix both expressions (‘eight take away
four’ and ‘four from eight’) you will only encourage the children’s natural
tendency to take the smaller from the larger. This problem becomes acute
with
34
a8.
With corresponding addition problems the choice is irrelevant due to com-
mutativity of addition which only encourages the problem.
A second difficulty thus arises from the lack of synonyms in mathematical
language. Many different processes and operations in the real world come
under the one heading ‘subtraction’, for example, as a result of the filtering
process I mentioned in the first section. Many different English words and
phrases have a single mathematical expression, as all the differences reflected
in the English have been filtered out. As further instances of how the richness
(and structure) of English is not necessarily a useful guide to its mathematical
equivalent, consider some of the ways we speak about basic arithmetic operations
in English. (I shall not concern myself here with words like more, extra, alto-
gether, which seem to indicate particular operations).

1 Addition: 3 + 2
This can be rendered in English as: the sum of three and two, add three and
two, add two to three, two added to three, three plus two. Only the last version
is a straightforward, term for term transliteration preserving the order of the
mathematical symbols.
2 Subtraction: 3 — 2
The difference between three and two (but not subtract two and three), take
two from three, three take away two, two from three, three minus two.
3 Multiplication: 3 X 2
Three times two (two is the operator, three the operand), multiply three by
two(the reverse), the product of three and two, take two three times.
4 Division: 2+ 3, 32, 4
Three into two, divide two into three (i.e. three pieces), divide two by three,
two over three.
Notice that we have three different ways of symbolising the same operation,
yet with entirely different orders. We have broken with the left to right order

141

pe ts
~~
Developing Mathematical Thinking

for our notation when we use 4. (Something more involved has happened since
from a verb phrase, we now see a noun, [Link]. What sense can be made of
2+ 3,37) ;
In each case, the English has at least two forms where the order of the num-
bers is reversed. Unfortunately only two of the operations, addition and multi-
plication, are commutative, that is, the order of operation is unimportant with
regard to the result. For many children, however, the other two operations,
subtraction and division also only have one permissible order: subtract smaller
from larger, divide smaller into larger.
As a final instance of ways in which mathematical English and ordinary
English differ, consider the grammatical function of number words themselves.
Cardinal numbers in everyday usage seem to function more as adjectives in
that they describe one property of a set. But in mathematical English, numbers
function as nouns, entities with properties of their own for instance, odd,
square, prime. This confusion can be seen in multiplication tables where both
arise together. One four is four, two fours are eight and so on. We have an
entity, a ‘four’, of which we can have any number. Notice this is usually called
the four times table, whereas the four times table might more logically run
four ones are four, four twos are eight and so on.
The third main point will comprise the remainder of this section and con-
cerns the differences in various conventions employed in mathematical sym-
bolism, differences within the supposedly consistent language of mathematics
itself. My focus is on the symbols themselves, but also on the uses to which they
are put as well as the conventions governing that use. Mathematical symbols
occur predominantly on paper and hence are two-dimensional, spatial entities
which have different meanings dependent on their position in relation to other
symbols. Thus the 2 in 23 differs in meaning from the 2 in 32, as does the
3 in from the 3 in 4. Possible relationships among symbols include above/
below, to the left/right of and not many more.
Orientation in the plane is also important in the interpretation of symbols,
(at the most basic level, that of distinguishing between 6 and 9 or 2 and 5).
I was once in a classroom talking with a 6 year old. He had just drawn . 7
on his paper and commented that to him it looked like a seven, but te he
girl opposite it looked like a nose! Yet, children see numbers in all dire: rons
1 1
and angles, for example 8 on abus, 8 ona gatepost (see Higginson, .980).
a 7
Consider powers such as 2*. A common misinterpretation of 2° is 2 X 3, fairly
reasonably as the operation does involve multiplication (in fact, 2 X 3 is three
times two as opposed to 2°, multiply two by itself three times). With powers,
in most books, there is a size relationship between the numerals (the exponent
is smaller). Thus relative size is another possible relationship among symbols.
Compare the requests, ‘draw a larger 2’ and ‘which is larger, 2 or 5?’. At some
level, a distinction between the symbol and the concept needs to be drawn, yet
it is difficult to indicate a desirable level of awareness at all clearly.

142
 Seu) Oe Ps il See ated: Ste Ce

Mathematics? I speak it fluently

Symbols can only be confidently interpreted within a given context. Some-
times the same spatial relationship reflects a different meaning according to that
context. In algebra, for example, juxtaposition of certain symbols denotes
multiplication, whereas in arithmetic it denotes place value. What is 3pq if
p = 4 and q = 2? In arithmetical terms the answer would be 342, but in algebra
a different convention provides with the interpretation 3 X 4 X 2 which is 24.
We know multiplication is commutative, so ab = ba, yet 23 #32. Our con-
ventions have changed regarding the interpretation of symbols yet you often
hear comments to the effect that, ‘algebra is just like arithmetic only you are
operating with letters rather than numbers.’ We need to ensure that the original
convention is made very explicit and secondly that we are changing it (and are
free to do so) in algebra. Although 23y does not mean 2 X 3 X y.
Another example comes from juxtaposition and the often subtle gap relation-
ship involved. Consider the sequence 891011. Why is 11 seen as a number and
not ‘one one’ or even ‘two ones’ (see Higginson again for a lovely exploration
of this point). Initially, number meant digit. Yet in algebra when we refer to
an entry in a matrix, for example, a, we revert to ‘a one one’ and not ‘a eleven’.
A further cause for concern comes from reading decimals aloud. 2.57 is often
referred to as two point fifty seven. One not unreasonable conclusion from this
‘is that two point fifty seven is bigger than two point seven since fifty seven is
bigger than seven. As a final example of symbol interpretation, look at the
complexity of place-value notation. The meaning we attach to each digit de-
pends precisely on its location within a string of digits. Yet even within the
context of arithmetic itself we write 32 to imply the invisible power of ten
and addition, 32 = 3 X 10 + 2, whereas we also write 23, where we just imply
addition.
So far, I have been dealing primarily with the vocabulary of mathematics,
both its place within spoken English and its written, symbolic form. Any math-
ematical expression can be written out as a sentence of English and this is one
way to gain an appreciation of exactly how compact is our contemporary
notation. But, just as knowing French is much more than knowing the con-
tents of a French dictionary, knowledge of mathematical language is far more
than an awareness of individual symbols and their meanings. One of the essential
characteristics of doing mathematics is not only forming grammatical mathemati-
cal sentences which describe something, but also transforming them to gain
further knowledge of the situation. Mathematics is action, it is operating on the
given to produce new things. The most commonly asked question in a maths
class is, I suspect, ‘how do I do this one?’. Listening to a child performing (!)
a long multiplication, one hears, ‘I do this ... then I go like this ...’. Any
algorithm in arithmetic consists of an ordered sequence of such actions.
But maths, as a transformational activity, comes into its own with algebra.
So often, sadly, learning algebra consists solely of learning the appropriate
‘moves’ to apply in particular situations, and how to discriminate among dif-
ferent situations. Even with a verbal arithmetic problem, the question often
asked is ‘is it an add or a times?’ What happens is that there are a few basic

143
 (ee
ey Re
ioe SRE 2 ae Oa Ne es PO
pias t sears Nares 42
: Wnt tg! Red a) ogee aed OL calanoid i eae

Developing Mathematical Thinking eae A ek ats

sequences of operations to apply and all that is required is a cue to clue pupils |
ae
4 .% in to which one. Because meaning, in the sense of an understanding of the
situation which gave rise to the problem, is so often absent for pupils in math-
ematics, it cannot guide them (as it does in English) to ‘correct’ sentence con-
struction. They have to fall back on trying to learn ‘the rules’ directly. In learn-
ing to speak English, they have acquired the rules governing formation of a
question, a negative, the passive construction and so on without having to be
taught them. Algebraic transformations are analogous to some degree, but are
taught consciously. Because the manipulations are necessarily transacted at the
symbolic level, most of the guidance tends to be phrased in terms of how to
obtain the desired surface features. For example:
1 Take it over to the other side and change the sign.
2 Cross multiply.
3 Move it one space to the left. This implies an absolute spacing on paper, so
we know how far ‘one space’ is.
4 To multiply by ten, add a nought. But adding a nought doesn’t change
anything?
5 Put down a zero, carry the one down (over).
6 You must always do the top what you do to the bottom. One instance
would be
AGE WOR De a PE ig
Vor hs et ey
X ee eX.
However —— = —
TY a Rey.
(where we broke the injunction), while
voy
a ==
ere
ee

2A SeeMe
7 Turn it upside down and multiply.
8 Collect all the xs on one side of the equation. Yet see Brown (1976) for an
_
ab>.
dense

“
FeDates
a exploration of a situation where he deliberately ignores this maxim.
;
i’

I’m sure you can come up with other examples. These are all instructions
iaoe (actions, note) on how to move symbols around on a piece of paper, guides of
greater or lesser efficacy, with no indication as to why they work. Nor is there
any feeling for what the effect is of these transformations at the level of mean-
ing, which is after all what should be guiding these manipulations. In other
words, we are unconscious of changing the underlying reality which these sym-
bols represent as well.
What are the transformations linking 7 -O = 4 to 4 +01 =7? One possible
sequence could be:
1 add UC to each side,
2 recombine via distributive law for addition,
3 ifa=b,thenb=a.
144
 Mathematics?I speak it fluently

_ Difficulties arise with 1 as pupils say ‘but we don’t know what 0 is. How can we
add it to each side?’ and 3 as pupils are so used to seeing derivations which end
up *. . . , sox = 2, when confronted with ‘. .. , so 2 =x,’ they declare ‘but
you’ve solved for 2, not x’. Reading left to right and word order mattering for
meaning (e.g. Mary hit John v. John hit Mary) may be powerful reasons under-
lying difficulty in grasping this sort of order invariance of meaning.
In conclusion, in this section I have outlined three possible sources of dif-
ficulty from the interaction of ordinary English with mathematical English,
at the level of individual words and conflicting meanings, at the level of grammar
and conflicts within the mathematical symbolism itself. There are undoubtedly
many more instances of these phenomena and I would be most interested to
hear of them.

Metaphor
Moving away from the question of grammatical structure, what are some con-
structions, figures of speech which make natural language so expressive? Meta-
phor comes to mind as a technique for creating new meanings, often by transfer
of meaning by means of an analogy. One’s initial inclination is to view math-
ematical language as clear and precise, while metaphors seem fuzzy, and, at best,
suggestive. One could be forgiven for thinking them unsuited to mathematical
work. I think, however, there are important cases of metaphor to be found in
arithmetic and algebra and that metaphor is as central to the expression of
mathematical meaning as it is to the expression of meaning in ordinary language
(see Lakoff, 1980).
Before trying to identify instances of metaphor in mathematics, let us look
at a straightforward everyday example: George is a lion. There are a number of
senses in which this could be meant. For instance he may be brave, he may have
a tremendous head of hair (‘a mane’), he may roar a lot, or some combination
of these. What is important to realise is that not everything which is the case
about lions will be transferable. The context of use will usually determine which
features are intended to be carried over and which are not. We will also under-
stand or make sense of the statement ‘George is a lion’ very differently according
to the situation. Often the force of a metaphoric statement comes from the
strength of the claim, that is ‘George is a lion’, compared with ‘George is like
a lion’ (simile).
So if we are looking for metaphor in mathematics, we need statements of
equality where the two things being equated are not the same. Then we can
look at which features are being transferred and which are not. My first example
comes from arithmetic. Contrast the statement 3 — 2 = 1 with 2— 3 =—1. The
latter involves an unexamined metaphor which leads us to presume that the
meanings of certain symbols, for instance, 2, —, =, are the same as had been
used previously. There are however conflicts which often arise as they are not
the same. The metaphor involved identifies 2 with the directed number + 2 (just
as George was identified with the lion) and so on, very soon after the introduction

145
pes PE en ee a ee ee ee, it a, Oe e
= F Sine st pe se oa oe ee. ae ale90 eae
Pee
Soe ae
e
ae ieee i
mae, y
3 e

Developing Mathematical Thinking

of directed numbers. The same notation is used for subtraction of directed —
numbers as for subtraction of counting (unsigned) numbers. But the results
disagree, for whereas 2 — 3 is impossible within the counting numbers, (+2) — .
(+3) = —1 within the system of directed numbers. The problem of taking a~
metaphor literally, which I shall examine for this example in the next couple
of paragraphs, is increased by its existence being concealed through using the
same symbols.
Discussions of metaphor often hinge on the distinction between literal and
metaphorical meaning. Let us look at the basic situation with the counting
numbers and the operations on them. From where does the meaning arise?
One approach, rich in meaning, is that counting numbers arise as possible answers
to the question ‘how many’, addition from conflating two sets of distinct
elements, subtraction from take away, multiplication from repeated addition
and division from equal sharing. Yet — 1 makes no sense as an answer to ‘how
many’, any more than + 2 does. — 1 is often referred to as ‘minus one’, a verb
without a subject. Yet previously, in all earlier work, the verb had always been
flanked on both sides by a number. We have switched systems while keeping the
language the same, yet not all of the properties of the old system are carried over
by the metaphor 2 = + 2, etc. particularly not the specific meanings involved.
The central issue is that although the symbolic statements equated by the
metaphor may behave in analogous ways, their meanings are not compatible.
Consider the case of multiplication of directed numbers (integers). I can find
no corresponding real-world situation to which we can refer. One force of
making + 2 into 2 is that it permits the literal meaning of multiplication of
counting numbers to be used metaphorically (transferring an old meaning to
construct a new meaning) with integers thus + 2 X +3 takes on the meaning
2X+3o0r +3++3. Having made sense of + in terms of movement to the
right on a number line (a fairly surface meaning) we obtain + 6. + 2 X —3 is
acceptable also without too much stretching (assuming our view of addition
works on all the integers). —3 X +2 we can approach by means of com-
mutativity, though justification of this is flimsy due to the absence of any
situational meaning guiding our actions. What can we do with — 2 X —3? Our
metaphor cannot help us here and this is, I believe, one of the causes of prob-
lems of multiplying negative numbers together.
Turning to the algebra of indices produces further instances of precisely this
extension of meaning, in one direction to negative numbers and in the other
to fractional numbers. a”, a°, . . . can be seen as a shorthand notation for
repeated multiplication (just as multiplication itself started out life as repeated
addition) where the index is the number (in the sense of ‘how many’) of times
it is to be repeated. What can be made of a™ in this light? What sort of state-
ment is a! = +? The metaphor 2 = + 2 gives us a? = a*? and then, presuming
we wish to preserve the law of exponents for counting numbers, namely that
a”. a” =a™*”, we can give a meaning to a°, a7', .. . . But just as with falling
back on commutativity of the extended operation of multiplication, the question
why should we accept this as justification is a difficult one to answer. In the

146
 et, a mae 6 ee 4 ~aiin ¢ A Se
ae Pee ea o> ey

Mathematics? I speak it fluently

1
same way a? =./a can extend the range of indices to fractions and then in a
2% <h : : :
double move, produce a? Son and so on that is, allowing directed fractional
numbers as indices).
Why is this a problem? If the metaphoric quality of certain conceptual exten-
sions in mathematics is not made clear to children, then specific meanings and
observations (whether intuitive or consciously formulated) about the original
setting will be carried over to the new setting where they are often inappropriate.
The identification, which is at the basis of the metaphor, guarantees only that
certain structural properties are preserved in the extended system, not the
meaning. Consider the observation that subtraction produces something less
than either of the two starting numbers. Then think about 4—(— 2) = 6. Or,
for example, that multiplying two whole numbers together results in a number
larger than each of the original pair. This is a correct concommitant of viewing
multiplication as repeated addition. This no longer holds with fractions. Why
do we call 4 X % multiplication anyway? What is the root meaning of this
operation? The extension of concepts in this fashion can result in the destruc-
tion of meaning, presuming no distinction is made between the literal and
metaphorical use, because the confusion arising from seeing such (often un-
analysed) truths fail contaminates not only the extended system but also the one
from which it grew. The old concept resists expansion precisely because it is
the literal, and hence, the most basic meaning. There is no trace in the symbolism
to indicate that a metaphor is in use, the same symbols and words are used
throughout. A metaphor skims over a lot and a polished notation permits this
riding on the surface. If students are not used to mathematics making sense,
then having tried and failed to make literal sense of a statement they are likely
to give up. But this experience also undermines their faith in situations where
the original meaning is the most sensible one.
[For an extended version of this section, see ‘Metaphor and Analogy in Math-
ematics’, Journal For the Learning of Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 3, March 1981.]

Other work on language and mathematics

Consideration of mathematics as language has almost always focused on the
obvious interaction of English with mathematics, namely text books in general
and verbal problems in particular. An example of the latter would be, “John has
seven sweets, Sally has nineteen. How many more does Sally have than John?’
The unquestionable difficulty pupils often encounter reading mathematical
prose in texts in general (at all age levels), and in contending with such problems
in particular has often been remarked upon and, as a result, verbal problems have
been singled out as an item of research interest as if it formed a coherent topic.
(Though, in fact, they cohere only in the uncommon form, namely prose, of
problem presentation). This provides another instance of the problem due to
the filtering from many forms of expression in English to one in mathematics.
The adopted approach to both problems has been to explain why certain

147
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

passages in texts or certain problems are difficult to read or interpret in terms

of the construct of text readability. As this area forms the overlap of reading
and mathematics, and readability measures abound for ordinary prose, the ~
first step was an attempt to modify the ubiquitous ‘cloze’ procedure in an
attempt to measure the reading difficulty level. I suspect this process will be
familiar to you, but there is a difficulty in applying it to mathematics, as the
redundancy patterns are very different and what constitutes a unit of math-
ematical prose is a very difficult question.
There is also a reasonable, general assumption that a poor reader is going to
have problems reading mathematics — although the extent to which the con-
verse is true remains unclear. Certainly the intervention strategies in this area
have focused on improving specific reading skills. An approach to difficulty
in work problems themselves (particularly arithmetic ones) has involved an
attempt to find a number of contributory factors (both linguistic and non-
linguistic) which would allow the difficulty level of a problem to be predicted.
Among examples of the sorts of things the researchers thought might be
relevant can be listed the length of the problem, the number of words and
sentences, the average sentence length, and some grammatical measures — for
instance, the presence of relative clauses, uncommon question forms, unusual
vocabulary. In some cases up to seventy different contributory factors were
examined at one time! It is, however, assumed that the variation in a problem’s
difficulty is within the problem itself and that an objective level of difficulty
can be assigned to any given problem. No discussion or importance is assigned
to the strategies the students actually use! The concern is merely whether or
not they correctly solve the problem so as to enable average success rates to be
calculated for a group of problems.
One general belief is that a straightforward translation technique from English
into arithmetic equations is the method to follow. As a result of this there has
been a lot of teaching based on verbal cues to be used as clues. Once again we
see surface features being used as a guide for action. ‘If the word more appears,
then the problem is a take away’. How can this be reconciled with ‘Charles
-earns four times more than Steve?’ Pearla Nesher and her co-workers have
investigated the topic thoroughly (1975, 1976, 1977), and come to the con-
clusion that it is impossible to make a one-to-one translation from ordinary
language to arithmetical language solely on a linguistic level. Thus it is inappro-
priate to teach by means of the presence or absence of certain key words. Once
again we see a move away from the surface level to a focusing on the meaning
inherent in the situation behind the problem. This is essential to a successful
mathematical formulation of the problem, one which depends on knowledge
of the real world and how to represent it mathematically as well as how to
mirror the relevant relationships through the choice of an appropriate math-
ematical model. If you wish to follow up the brief discussion of the work on
text readability, I suggest you write for a copy of Rothery et al., Children
Reading Maths, 1980.

148
 ior
a
es{oneebeFe ree
et
be i Agia
ee
pie
pr eh
7
ia
Wk lnSee es ae
Pi
She
“
ie
«
"
. nf
¥

i | Mathematics? I speak it fluently

Summary and conclusions
In this article I have tried to outline some of the many fascinating interactions
that there are between mathematics and ordinary language, as well as what
sense might be made of the claim that mathematics is a language. There are
many different levels on which one can operate. One is to focus on the particular
English words which crop up in mathematics classes (and the uncommon mean-
ings they have there). Another involves the different symbols we employ as part
of the representation system of mathematics and the conventions implicit in our
use of them both in understanding them as they stand (such as place-value
notation) and the transformations of mathematical phrases and sentences in
arithmetical computation and algebra. A third is to focus not on the words (or
symbols), nor on the grammar of mathematics at all, but on the meanings that
we are trying to convey through our language and how that meaning changes
and expands even though we may use the same words and symbols (the examples
of subtraction and multiplication were discussed).
Metaphors deny distinctions between things; problems often arise from taking
metaphors too literally. Because unexamined metaphors lead us to assume the
identity of non-identical things, conflicts can arise which c: *‘ only be explained
by understanding the metaphor which requires its recognition as such. Teachers
will often cease to use the term consciously in a metaphorical way when their
concept is an expanded one. This will not mirror the situation in most of their
pupils’ minds. The unexplained extension of concepts can too often result in
the destruction rather than an expansion of meaning. "+ is important to fell
children when we are using words with either an expanded or restricted meaning
and we underestimate children’s ability to understand that words can have
different meanings in different contexts.
Lastly I discussed the question of reading mathematical prose and the par-
ticular problems involved with mathematical (especially arithmetical) problems
posed in ordinary language. Many children’s difficulties with mathematics may
be due more to the complexity of wording of written material, rather than the
mathematical task being requested. This is something which has attracted a
good deal of attention of people professing an interest in the area of language
and mathematics. In fact, the two are often equated, though I hope that this is a
limited view and there are other possibilities of importance and interest. Lastly,
may I make a plea for you, as teachers of mathematics, to listen with an open
ear for what your children are trying to say. It is surprising how often there is a
comprehensible basis for mistakes and misunderstandings and one which has a
linguistic origin.

Bibliography
Austin, J. L. and Howson, A. G., ‘Language and Mathematical Education’
Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 10, pp. 161—197, 1979.

149
 Pe he ui si Pa, Be,OPeS aah
Renee Eee
“’ y
CANE
ay lee ‘
RR ie die tanlag See ee Eh at!eres
ve i , =i oe Tagg ae A Fu

Developing Mathematical Thinking

Brown, S. I., ‘From~the Golden Rectangle and Fibonaca to Pedagogy and

Problem-Solving’, Mathematics Teacher, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 180—188, March
1976. :
Higginson, W., ‘Berry Undecided: A Digital Dialogue’, Mathematics Teaching,
vol. 91, pp. 8—13, June 1980.
Kane, R. B., ‘The Readability of Mathematical English’, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, vol. 5, pp. 296—298, 1968.
Lakoff, G., Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1980.
Nesher, P. A., Three Determinants of Difficulty in Verbal Arithmetic Problems’,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 7, pp. 369—388, 1976.
Nesher, P. A. and Katriel, T., ‘A Semantic Analysis of Addition and Subtraction
Word Problems in Arithmetic’, Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 8,
pp. 257-269, 1977. :
Nesher, P. A. and Teubal, E., ‘Verbal Cues as an Interfering Factor in Verbal
Problem-Solving’, Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 6, pp. 41—51,
1975.
Pimm, D. J., ‘Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics’, For the Learning of
Mathematics, vol. 1, no. 3, 1981.
Rothery, A. et al., Children Reading Maths, a working paper of the Language
and Reading in Mathematics group. Obtainable from A. Rothery, Dept. of
Mathematics, Worcester College of Higher Education (unpublished).

150
Introduction
Many of the ideas about developing mathematical thinking that this book and
its associated course are seeking to convey are implicit in many articles that
have been written over the years concerning the teaching of particular math-
ematical topics. This section is a collection of some of these.
Between them they describe a wide range of activities which children can en-
gage in and discuss with each other and their teachers. Some of them are also
concerned with the transition from doing the activity to recording it in some
way. A key notion that several of those articles use in this connection is ‘infor-
mal mathematics’. By this is usually meant almost any means of calculating other
than by using one of the standard procedures. Calculating 35 — 19 by reasoning
‘if it were 35 — 20 the difference would be 15. The answer I need is one more
than that, so the answer is 16’ is an example of a piece of informal mathematics.
Such mathematics is not usually taught, but is commonly used. Several of the
chapters suggest that these informal methods should be built upon whenever
possible. This is particularly true of the first five chapters. The remaining eight
are more concerned with different kinds of investigation.
In Chapter 14, the first of the four chapters that are particularly concerned
with the role of informal mathematics, Kathy Hebbeler gives an account of her
study of young children’s addition. She found that in this respect children .
were ‘good informal mathematicians’ before they ever entered a classroom.
Herbert Ginsburg found that children who were having great difficulty with for-
mal mathematics were often surprisingly capable at the informal level, and in
chapter 15, he describes four such children. Both chapters advocate building on
informal methods whenever a standard (formal) method is the ultimate goal.
In chapter 16, Stuart Plunkett questions the central role that the standard
methods of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing play in the curriculum
and proposes a way of teaching basic arithmetic that lays much less stress on the
usual formal written procedures so that informal methods are used whenever
they are appropriate.
The last of these four chapters describes the way in which children in a
Russian classroom are helped to tease out the formal arithmetic it is necessary
to do in order to solve word problems, by coming to understand just what the
problems are about.
Chapter 18 is the first of the chapters primarily concerned with the role of
investigation in developing mathematical thinking and in it Alistair McIntosh

151
the teaching of time in senichl a riinber ofSoba inyecteetione are sugg sted.
Chapter 20, by David Hale, is concerned with algebra, in which he advocates ~
_ that the foundations of algebra are most ‘usefully laid by looking for number
patterns of various kinds. Chapter 21 by David Fielker and chapter 22 by Marie
Kuper and Marion Walter, both feature ideas for investigations in geometry.
Chapter 23 is an account, by Christine Billinge, of a number of different investi-
gations of spatial patterns. In the final chapter in this section, Seymour Papert
describes what children could do when given the opportunity of trying to make
a computer work for them. He argues forcibly that working with computers
_ is a very powerful means of developing mathematical thinking.

152 | :
14 Young children’s addition
Kathy Hebbeler
Source: Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behaviour, vol. 1,
no.4, pp. 108-121.

A 4 year old girl is playing with coloured beads. The girl has two red beads in her
hand and five more on the floor. The girl’s older brother asks her how many she
has altogether. The girl responds by placing the beads in a row and counting
them off, ‘1, 2,3,4,...’. She tells him she has seven.
This story is hypothetical but it does not seem too far removed from the
simple kinds of quantitative problems which must present themselves to young
children as part of their everyday lives. One mother has recorded how her young
son delighted in creating and solving mathematical problems for himself.
‘For instance, when there were apples in a problem, he would convert his
fingers to apples. He would thus use the fingers for any objects mentioned
in the problem. . . The next stage of abstraction consisted of his counting
on his fingers only the numbers to be added. He would wave his hand and
say: “I have three apples there: now, here are four more (his fingers); three
(over there), four, five, etc.” (pointing to his fingers).’
(Court, 1925, pp. 79—80)
This little boy was 4 years old at the time. He had not been to school but he had
learned how to solve simple addition problems.
Although all children may not know how to find sums at such a young age,
they do not wait for a teacher to hand them their first text book before they
start acquiring mathematical knowledge. Indeed, in many important ways, what
children learn in school about mathematics is not the beginning but the continu-
ation of the development of mathematical thinking. Some aspects of the pre-
school child’s quantitative skills are already well known. Young children are
actively involved with quantity in the world around them: they count, they
divide wholes into parts, they add objects to make ‘more’. Through actions such
as these, children acquire basic knowledge about the effects of certain operations
upon the objects around them (see Ginsburg, 1977, for a review of research on
young children’s mathematics).
When the child enters school, he or she will begin to learn mathematics in a
more formal way set apart from the context of daily activities. Here the child is

153
Developing Mathericcal Thinkbig

introduced to mathematical symbolism such as written numerals (which many

children know before beginning school) and signs such as ‘plus’ (+) and ‘minus’
(—) to be performed on the quantities those numerals represent. In school too,
children’s counting skills are expanded and perfected.
Hopefully, what the child learnsinschool will be useful for solving numerical
problems encountered out of school. While many of these problems could be
solved by counting — something the child has known how to do for years — it is
not a particularly efficient strategy. Written numbers and memorised sums can
make calculating an easier process. Part of the development of mathematical
thinking is the acquisition of more sophisticated procedures for dealing with
quantities. The child’s informal procedures are gradually replaced by the strate-
gies children learn in school. Numerous observations and interviews suggest that
the child’s informal counting procedures predominate as a reliable method of
solution for a number of years after the child enters school (Ginsburg, 1977).
Observations also suggest that children often have difficulty in integrating their
informal procedures with school learning: many children seem to be unaware
that there is a connection between the two.
In order to present to children the mathematics of the classroom in a way
most compatible with what they already understand, we need to know what
children learn about quantities and relations before the onset of schooling. This
study looks at the development of one mathematical skill: the solution of addi-
tion story problems. It is an investigation of how young children who have and
who have not been instructed in mathematics perform when they are presented
with tasks similar to those found in the ‘problem-solving’ section of any math-
ematics achievement test. The question asked is not only ‘can pre-school child-
ren do addition problems?’, but ‘how do they do them?’ and ‘what kind of
mistakes do they make when they don’t get a correct answer?’ Addition prob-
lems may be dealt with in any one of several ways. Young children may not have
any idea of how to solve an addition problem. They generally know how to count
but they may not realise that counting can be used to solve addition problems
and so they may just guess. Or they may count so poorly that they come close
but seldom get the problems exactly right. Or they may use methods other than
counting. Children’s strategies and errors are the keys to understanding their
early work in arithmetic. The child’s answer is the product of a complex process,
and errors often give insight into that process. It is also important to consider
how mathematical thinking develops. The study examines what both younger and
older children do with the same problems. The development of addition problem-
solving is followed from the pre-school years through second grade to learn how
this process changes as children are introduced to mathematics in a school setting.

Description of study
To examine the development of the quantitive problem-solving process, 128
children were asked to solve nine addition problems. Thirty-two children were
from each of the four grade levels: pre-kindergarten, first grade and second grade.

154
 me Young children’s addition —
The average age of the groups ranged from 5 years 2 months for the pre-school
children to 7 years 10 months for the second graders. All of theproblems in-
volved stories about animals. For example:
‘The elephant and the owl went shopping. The elephant brought along five
pennies and the owl brought along seven. How many pennies did they
bring altogether?’
Interspersed among the addition problems were subtraction problems and prob-
lems requiring ‘more’ or ‘less’ judgements. These were included to prevent the
child from blindly adopting the same operation and strategy for all the problems.
As the interviewer read the problem, stuffed animals to represent the characters
in the story were placed in front of the child. Half the children at each grade level
were also shown objects described in the stories. Thus, for the problem above,
five pennies were placed by the elephant and seven by the owl. The other half
of the children saw only the animals. These two conditions of administration
were used to examine how much of the children’s difficulties with the problems
could be attributed to a lack of representational skills. The objects should make
the problem more concrete and make a strategy easier to execute as the presence
of objects precludes the need for representing the quantities to be combined.
Each child was interviewed individually. After the child was read a problem
and gave an answer, the interviewer asked questions about how he or she got
the answer. Generally, a question such as ‘How did you get that?’ was sufficient
to elicit a detailed description of what the child did. Sometimes, especially with
the younger children, more direct questioning was required. In this case, the
interviewer might suggest a method: ‘Did you count?’, ‘Were you using your
fingers?’, ‘Did you already know that one?’. All sessions were videotaped. The
children’s strategies and errors were later coded from the videotapes by two
judges working independently. Reliability was high.

What young children can do

Accuracy
The pre-school children who were not shown the objects averaged 2.86 (of 9)
problems correct. If the children were just responding randomly by picking any
whole number from one to ten (pretesting had established that all the children
could count to at least 10), the chances of getting three problems out of nine
correct is 0.046. The mean score for these children does not tell the entire story.
The number of problems correct ranged from 0 to 9. Some children were very
good at solving addition problems while others, in fact most of the children,
could hardly do any. This contrasts sharply with the performance of the pre-
school children who were presented with the objects. The mean score for these
children was 5.43. The difference between the two means is significant at less
than 0.05. The probability of a child responding randomly and getting five
problems correct is 0.0074. Even with the objects present, the variability in the
children’s performances is great, with the scores again ranging from 0 to 9. Most
of the children solved five or more of the problems although a few children were

155
 e Oe alee
FS ee ue, Nm Pty 3D e ”
SETA AeaR onCe.
eee oe. era
kee.
Me e

Developing Mathematical Thinking

unable to do the problems even with objects present. The way in which the ob-
jects help the children will become clear when we examine strategies and mis-
takes. The pre-school children’s scores do show that some children understand
and can solve addition problems before they have learned mathematics in a
school setting. More children can do addition problems when they are given the
objects to which the problems refer.
Table 1 gives the mean scores of the pre-school groups and each of the older
grade levels. The scores continue to improve as children get older.

Table 7 Mean scores on addition problems

No objects
(N = 16)
Objects .
(NV = 16)

By kindergarten, the children are averaging seven problems correct. After only
one year of school, simple addition problems are easily understood and solved.
At each of the three older grade levels, the children who saw the objects do not
score significantly higher than those who did not. The older children do not
need the objects nor do they benefit from having them.

' Children’s strategies

The methods of solution were classified as one of six possible types:
1 counted (the child counted to find the sum),
2 looked (the child looked at the objects and then answered),
3 used number fact (the child solved the problem by using a number fact,
like 2 + 2),
4 guessed,
5 ambiguous,
6 no answer.
A ratio was calculated for each child as a measure of the relative use of counting
and number facts. The ‘counting ratio’ was defined as the number of problems
on which the child counted divided by the number of problems on which he
used non-ambiguous strategies (#1/#1—4, 6). For the ‘number-facts ratio’, the
number of times the child used number facts appeared in the numerator.
In regard to counting, when the youngest children are not given the objects
they use their counting skills on only 37 per cent of the problems. These two
groups differ significantly in their use of counting (p < 0.02). This was not true
of other groups. Kindergarten children, whether or not they saw the objects,
counted on about 70 per cent of the problems; first graders counted on about 50
per cent of the problems; and second graders on about 40 per cent. Thus, count-
ing peaks at kindergarten and declines thereafter.

156
 . _ Young children’s addition
Consider now use of number facts. This means the child was able to give the
sum of two or possibly three numbers without counting. Unlike the use of
counting, the use of number facts continues to increase as children get older.
This is expected as it is a more sophisticated problem-solving strategy than count-
ing. The pre-school and kindergarten children make a very limited use of number
facts (about 10 per cent of the problems) although some children can use them.
By first grade, children make considerable use of number facts (about 40 per
cent) and by second grade the use of number facts has become the predominant
mean of solution of the problems (about 60 per cent). At all grade levels, the
presence of the objects has no effect on the children’s use of number facts. This
demonstrates that it is not necessary to force children to give up counting as a
strategy. They readily adopted the more efficient procedures of using number
facts when they could, even though the presence of the objects would have made
counting quite easy.
A more complete picture of the development of problem-solving can be ob-
tained by examining the ratio of ‘useful’ strategies the children employed. The
‘useful-strategy ratio’ measures the total proportions of counting, number facts
and looking strategies used by each of the children. Counting is slower than
using a number fact but either strategy can produce the answer. Looking means
the child simply looks at the representation of the problem and gives the answer.
It is effective only for problems involving small numbers of objects. The pre-
school children who were not shown the objects were the only group who did
not employ a useful strategy on a majority of the problems. The presence of the
objects seems to allow the pre-school children to understand the problem and to
realise the applicability of their skills. Without the objects, many of the youngest
children did not undertake any useful strategy to solve the problem. Children
continue to improve as they get older and by second grade, the children are doing
something that could result in a right answer on 99 per cent of the problems.
The pre-kindergarten children who did not employ useful strategies preferred
another way of answering: they guessed. The mean guessing ratio for the children
who did not see the objects is 0.38. This is as high as their counting ratio which
means the children were just as likely to guess to find the answer as they were to
count. Seven of the sixteen children guessed on four or more of the problems.
Three of these guessed on eight or more problems. There were five pre-schoolers
in this group who did not guess at all, so guessing is not the only thing young
children do when asked to solve addition problems. It is, however, a very popular
method of getting an answer when the problem is not physically represented for
the child. Guessing is used very little by the kindergarten children and it is a
practically non-existent strategy among the first- and second-grade children.
This doesn’t mean these children don’t guess; it just means they have no need
to on problems which are this simple for them.

Children’s mistakes
One other wayto understand children’s problem solving is to look at the mistakes
children make. Wrong answers do not necessarily mean a complete failure to

157

ae
 nee eae a Na ke

Developing Mathematical Thinking

understand the problem; they could mean instead that the child counted clumsily
or made use of an incorrect number fact. All children’s errors were classified
as one of two types: execution errors or conceptual errors. An execution error
occurs when a child understands the problem but does not give the correct
answer because of an error made while carrying out a reasonable strategy. Con-
ceptual errors are more serious and mean that the child did not realise how to go
about solving the problem. This distinction is essential for helping children im-
prove their mathematics skill. A poor counter can practise counting but a child
who doesn’t understand the problem needs a different kind of help.
The data on the kinds of mistakes the children made can show if children
understood the problems even when they didn’t get the right answers. The
percent of the total errors which were execution errors was calculated for each
child. For this analysis, grades one and two were combined because of the small
number of second-grade children who made errors. The pre-school children who
were not. given the objects stand apart from the other seven groups. For these
children only 20 per cent of their errors are execution errors which means that
80 per cent are conceptual errors. When pre-school children see the objects,
about 75 per cent of their errors involve execution. Thus, without the objects,
the pre-school children do not understand the problem. With objects, they do
understand. For all the other children, the overwhelming majority of the mistakes
are due to the poor execution of good strategy.

_ Summary of results
1 Some pre-school children were able to use their informal counting skills to
solve addition problems even though they had never been instructed in school
mathematics. Their ability to solve problems was greatly enhanced when they
were shown a physical representation of the problem. After only one year of
kindergarten, the solution of simple addition problems was no mystery to most
of the children and they do as well without the objects as with them.
2 The children’s strategies for addition problems change drastically between
the pre-school and the early school years. The kindergarten children counted
more than the pre-schoolers, but after kindergarten, counting skills are used less
and less. Counting is replaced by a quicker procedure: number facts. When the
pre-school children don’t count, they are generally doing something less useful
such as guessing. When the older children don’t count, they are doing something
more sophisticated and efficient like using number facts. At no grade level do
children make less use of number facts when given objects which could be
easily counted.
3 The analysis of children’s mistakes revealed that only the pre-school children
in the no-objects condition made predominantly conceptual errors. The diffi-
culty for these children in solving addition problems was in understanding the
nature of the task. By contrast, the mistakes made by the other pre-schoolers
and the older children resulted mostly from an incorrect execution of a good
strategy.

158
 Young children’s addition

Discussion

Children’s understanding of addition seems to involve two key developments:

acquisition of the requisite representational capabilities and the development
of increasingly efficient strategies.
Consider first the problem of representation. The results showed that when
objects are present pre-school children generally understand this kind of addition
problent and solve it by use of counting skills. Schooling is not necessary for
this. When preschool children are not given the objects, they are unable to
conceptualise the problem and of course do not solve it. The difference between
the two groups indicates that pre-school children are able to understand addition
problems but that they do not yet possess the representational skills necessary
for solution in the absence of the problem’s objects. By kindergarten, however,
mental representation of the quantities presents no difficulty: now children
are as successful on addition problems without objects as with them. We do not
know what is responsible for this new-found representational ability: perhaps
general cognitive development, perhaps schooling, perhaps some combination
of the two.
The second thing that children learn is how to use more efficient strategies.
The development of problem-solving does not stop once children have learned
how to find an answer. Counting is the first problem-solving strategy that
children learn and it is the procedure they initially use to find solutions. Gradu-
ally, the slow counting procedures are replaced by a quicker and mote efficient
procedure, the use of memorised sums. The children’s school or other experiences
apparently provided them with sufficient practice with numbers so that they
acquired a repertoire of memorised sums. These sums were not isolated bits of
meaningless mathematical knowledge; the children were able to put them to
good use as a strategy for solving problems. After learning how to interpret
and represent addition problems children continue to improve through the
acquisition of more sophisticated methods.
The purpose of mathematics instruction in school is to foster the develop-
ment of mathematical thinking by helping children to achieve a greater under-
standing of quantitative phenomena and to learn more sophisticated procedures
for dealing with quantity. To best promote that development, it is essential
that the process of growth be understood. This means considering what children
already know about quantity through their everyday experiences and describing
precisely what school must teach. This study has shown that pre-school children
do understand addition problems at least when concrete embodiments are
employed. These children may need practice at using the calculation techniques
of addition and at employing representation, but their spontaneous use of
effective solutions procedures indicates that they do not need help in under-
standing the basic concept of addition.
Describing and explaining the process of mathematical development is par-
ticularly important for helping children with problems in mathematics. We
need to know what most children do in order to understand how and why the

159
 - . re WA RES Sac Bis cae Serty VET Be El eee eee
F “ ie Res se XP oe -
Saet
: : . Oe ee, eee .

Developing Mathematical Thinking

child who has problems with mathematics is different and can best be helped.
If a child doesn’t give a correct answer for ‘3 +4= °or ‘6+10= ” oreven
28 + 33 = ’, is this because the child doesn’t understand addition or because ~
he or she doesn’t understand the symbols and rules of written mathematics?
The impressive performance of the kindergarten children, many of who had not
yet learned how to do written ‘addition sentences’, suggests that young children
are good informal mathematicians: they can easily adapt their counting skills to
story problems. (Actually, all of the school children were in a curriculum which
does not have story problems. None of the children had been taught to use their
number knowledge in this way, but the children had no problems figuring out
how it could be done.) Addition is not difficult for:children to understand,
although mathematical symbolism might be.
The study of strategies and errors is especially relevant for children who have
trouble with mathematics. Not all children who were given the addition prob-
lems solved them in the same way. The older children who give correct answers
to these simple problems all look equally competent if only their success rate is
examined. Yet the information on strategies paints a slightly different picture.
A few of the second graders resembled kindergarten children in their solution
procedures. These second graders were capable of getting the right answers
but for them the road to solution was much longer than it was for most of their
classmates. While most children could use memorised sums, a few children had
to count out every problem. It is not difficult to see how these children could
become tired of mathematics. The simplest problem is tedious and mistakes can
occur as the problem solving process drags on. My own experiences from inter-
viewing and tutoring a child who was falling behind in his classroom work
support this conclusion. This boy, a third grader and not one of the children
in this study was having trouble with all kinds of written operations. By observ-
ing him working problems, I began to understand some of his difficulties. The
child knew few sums from memory so that even the simplest problem involved
counting. Although he understoond the mechanics of two-digit addition, his
answers rarely showed it. In the process of solving a problem by the only way
he knew, counting, he became bored and careless. He was well on his way to
becoming a maths hater at the ripe old age of nine. Where their classmates have
adopted short-cuts, this boy and some of the children in the study were still
clinging to counting. Use of number facts is not just frosting on the cake. This
strategy may be necessary to allow children to move on to bigger accomplish-
ments.
As this research has shown, the normal course of developments is for children
to shift spontaneously from counting to the use of number facts as a problem
solving strategy. Children who don’t adopt number facts on their own might
benefit from explicit instruction in using them in order to make their problem-
solving easier.
The significance of this study rests not only in what was found but also in
what was investigated. Studies of children’s mathematics cannot be restricted
to the correctness or incorrectness of answers. This applies equally to a researcher

160
 Young children’s addition

interested in the mathematics of children in general and to a teacher in her

students. In both cases, it is crucial to investigate the process of mathematical
problem-solving. Changes in the process of mathematical problem-solving are
as accessible to study as changes in test scores and are considerably more in-
formative. Through the close examination of what makes up the development
of problem-solving we can come to understand why children are getting better
— or why they are not. This knowledge in turn can be used to foster that de-
velopment by building on what children can understand through the presen-
tation of what they need to learn.

References

Court, S. R. A., ‘Numbers, Time, and Space in the First Five Years of a Child’s
Life’, Pedagogical Seminary, vol. 27, pp. 71—89, 1920.
Ginsburg, H., Children’s arithmetic: the Learning Process, Van Nostrand, New
York, 1977.

161
 ale

15 Learning difficulties
Herbert Ginsburg .
Source: Ginsburg H., Children’s Arithmetic: the Learning
Process, Van Nostrand, New York, 1977.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<Kc<KKKKKKKKKKCKKKKKKKKKK#KKKKKKKKKERKES

This chapter examines in detail four children experiencing severe difficulties in

the learning of arithmetic [. . .]
Three of the children (Bob, Patty, and Stacy) were selected in this way: I
asked a third-grade teacher in an elementary school serving both middle- and
lower-class children in Ithaca, New York, to choose the students having the most
trouble in arithmetic. I wanted to know nothing about them except that they
were having considerable difficulties learning arithmetic. I did not want to be
told their test scores, their IQs, their home situations, or anything else. I did not
_ want myself or the other interviewers to be biased in any way; we wanted to dis-
cover the child’s weaknesses — and strengths — for ourselves. by our own
methods of informal interviewing. While I requested no information, the teacher
could not keep from telling us that all of these children suffered from perceptual
problems. At the time, there seemed to be a virtual epidemic of this disease in
the Ithaca schools. No doubt it has lately been supplanted by something else.
Finally, George was selected when a parent asked for help with her child.
The children were receiving an eclectic form of instruction. For example,
Patty sometimes worked in her classsroom on Suppes’s Sets and Numbers text.
As the name suggests, this is a new math approach, based heavily on set theory
and logic. Sometimes she went to the learning centre where she worked on a
programmed learning system. This involved a procedure that attempted first
to diagnose children’s level of arithmetic knowledge and then assigned them to
specific lessons that they had to get right before being sent on to the next topic.
Consider now four ordinary children doing badly in school.

Bob and George

Bob, a fifth grader, exhibits a pattern that seems typical of children expriencing
difficulties in school mathematics.
[. . .] Bob had trouble with standard written algorithms, but at the same time

162
 a
ate he POT
age) AN Eel
33 4 Riaiin! ies See is Ree Shot Oy et-

Learning difficulties a) ie

Possessed elective informal procedures. There was a Prorous gap

between his formal and informal knowledge.
Consider first his work in addition.
Now we'll do some written problems. How much is 8 plus 11?
(He wrote 8 + 11 = 19.) 19.
How did you do it?
I counted, just take the largest number and add on 8.
So you went: 11,12,13...?
Bard Yeah.
lise
hese
oo

Bob had used the common strategy of counting on from the largest
number, and could even describe his method in words.

I: What about 22 plus 19?

B: (He wrote 22 + 19.) 41?
I: Did you count from 22 by ones?
B: I took the 10 and that’s 32, and then I took the 9, and that’s 41.

Bob had used regrouping to facilitate his addition. He rearranged the

problem into (22 + 10) + 9. He knew immediately that 22 + 10 = 32 and
then added on the 9.
In the same way, when given 22 + 26, he did (22 + 20) + 6. ‘I added the
20, got 42; then took 6 and added it.’ We see that Bob used sensible,
economical methods to do simple addition. From his performance to this
point, he does not seem to suffer from fundamental difficulties in under-
standing arithmetic.
The interviewer then wanted to see if he could do standard written
problems like
158
265
+98

[. ..] Bob had trouble with problems like this.

I: Can you do this problem with carrying?
He began by adding 8 + 5 + 8 to get 21. He wrote:
1
158
265
98
2
B: I take the 2 and write it down here [in the units column] and
carry the 1 .. . I carried, so I put the big number down here.

4 Bob’s rule was always to carry the smaller of the two numbers obtained by
adding the units column. Although this rule has sensible origins, it leads to
consistently wrong answers.
163

nak
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

Given 18 + 5, he did:
7718
+5)
“AL
He got 8 + 5 = 13, put down the 1 in the units column, and carried the 3.

I: Do you think that’s the right answer?

B: Yeah.
I: If you had eighteen candies and you got five more, how many would
you have altogether?
B: (He counted on his fingers) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. (Then he looked at
his previous answer, 41.) That’s wrong!
Unlike many other children. Bob placed greater confidence in his informal,
finger counting method than he did in the written algorithm. He relied on his
own intuition, rather than on his misinterpretation of what had been taught in
school.
Bob’s work with subtraction showed a similar gap between informal and
formal knowledge.
I: Do you want to write a take-away problem for yourself?
B: (He wrote 9 +5 =.) 4?
I: Right. How did you do it?
B: Icounted backwards.
_ The gap is evident at the outset: Bob could not write a proper symbol for minus;
and at the same time he solved the problem by a sound informal procedure,
namely counting backwards.
As in the case of addition, he used a regrouping procedure when the numbers
were relatively large.
I: If you had ninety-eight dollars and you gave away twenty-nine, how
many would you have left?
B: OK. 88, 78, and 9 would be 67.
I:_ Almost.
B: I mean 69.

Bob had transformed 98 — 29 into [(98 — 10) —10] — 9. He first subtracted or

counted back by tens — 98, 88, 78 — and then counted back by ones to subtract
the final 9. At first he made a minor error in the last step, but he soon corrected
it.
Asked to do written subtraction, Bob did poorly.

I: ot had 158 and you took away 96, how many would you have
eft?

Bob wrote

158
96

164
 ee ah erhveie ee ge ee wn Ma ti Om. Te lapett OR
iS ag Aa hecs
we 4 *
aL), at 2

a padi a a ae aaa ; _ Learning difficulties —

Then he corrected it to

158
96

He did 8 minus 6 by counting backward from 8. Then he said ‘9 minus 5 is

4’. This gave him

158
96
142
Next the interviewer gave him a simpler problem.
I: Let’s see, now, 21 take away 5.

Bob did
21
—'5
24
I: Do you think that’s the right answer?
B: (He checked his work.) Yes
I: If you had twenty-one candies and gave away five, how many would
you have left?
B: Oh! I think I added.
_ He seemed to mean that since he got more than 21 he must have added.
I: Do you still think that’s the right answer?
B: No. Cause five take away from 21 is 16.
I: (He pointed to his written 21 — 5 = 24.) But why isn’t that the right
answer?
B: I don’t know.
I: You had 21 and you took away 5. and you had 24 left. What’s wrong
with that?
B: Oh! I know! It’s from this one (the 1 in 21) that it was supposed to
taken away from.
In other words. Bob recognised that he should have subtracted the 5 from the 1
rather than the 1 from the 5.
In brief, Bob first used an incorrect written procedure for subtraction. This
gave him 21 — 5 = 24, where the result is larger than the number he started with.
He could easily do the same problem in his head by counting backwards and in
this way got the right answer. Bob then realised that his written answer was
wrong. ‘Oh! I think I added’. This shows that he knew that in subtraction you
should end up with less, not more, than you started with. Then he saw why he
was wrong in the first plage: he had reversed the order of subtraction.
George, a fifth grader too, was also typical in displaying a gap between in-
formal and formal knowledge.
After investigating George’s counting, the interviewer said, “Now I’m going to

165
Developing Mathematical Thinking

give you some arithmetic questions. You write them down yourself. How much
is 4 plus 2?’
George wrote: 4 X 2 — 8.
The interviewer thought that perhaps he did not understand the word plus.
I: How much is 3 and 1?
George wrote: 3 X 1 —3.
I: How much is 3 and 4 more altogether?

George wrote 3 X 4=, and then hesitated.

I: Perhaps you could figure this out another way. Would using these
clips help?
George took three paper clips, then another four, and counted them all to get
the correct answer of 7.

I: O.K. Now try writing this one: 5 and 2.

George wrote: 5 X 2= 10.
I: What happens if you do it the other way?
George took five paper clips, then two, and counted to get 7.
George’s responses illustrate a dramatic gap between the informal and formal.
Given a spoken addition problem (5 and 2), George used either informal
counting to get a correct answer or formal written multiplication to get a wrong
one. In his informal mode of operation, he used concrete aids, counting and
combining paper clips. In the formal mode, he converted the spoken addition
problem into the corresponding multiplication formula and in general (with the
exception of 3 X 4, which he did not complete) solved it. A strange gap indeed.
The cases of Bob and George illustrate some very fundamental points, which
we stress even at the risk of repetition.

1 The child’s errors often derive from systematic but incorrect written pro-
cedures. In adding, Bob always carried the smaller number; in subtracting, he
always subtracted the smaller number. Both methods are systematic but wrong.
Neither is capricious nor random. In adding, George always multiplied on paper.
Again, wrong but systematic.
2 The child often possesses sound informal techniques for arithmetic. Bob and
George added by counting and by regrouping. Bob subtracted by counting back-
wards. These informal techniques led to correct answers.
3 There often exists a gap between the child’s informal and formal knowledge.
Using formal, school-derived techniques, both Bob and George did poorly; rely-
ing on informal knowledge, they did well.
4 Understanding a child’s methods for doing arithmetic often leads to sugges-
tions for helping him. Since Bob’s informal counting methods were powerful,
and since he himself placed confidence in them, they could serve as a useful
basis for instruction. For example; Bob spontaneously made use of regrouping.

166
 Learning difficulties

Given 22 + 19, he regrouped into (22 + 10) + 9. This informal knowledge could
be used to teach the standard carrying algorithm. The latter regroups 22 + 19
into (20 + 10) + (2 + 9), which is not very much different from Bob’s invented
method. Similarly, George could be taught addition through counting. School
mathematics should be built on the child’s intuitions.

Patty
Patty, a 9 year old, illustrates another kind of difficulty. She was first given a
subtraction problem, which she did correctly by using the standard algorithm
with borrowing. She wrote:

9°62
439
Tae eae
226
Then she did an addition problem correctly +421. Again she used the standard
647
method, except that her procedure was to count out loud and on her fingers
when she could not remember the relevant number facts. Thus, she added from
right to left, remembering that 2 and 2 are 4 and counting to determine that 4
and 2 are 6.
129
Next she did +39. Again this involved the standard algorithm, with carrying,
68
and was done in part by counting on the fingers. Patty could give no rationale
for the carrying of the 1. Her only response was that it was wrong to place the
1 on the bottom with the 6 and the 8.
These first few incidents show that Patty had a few basic skills. She was
familiar with the common borrowing and carrying methods for subtraction and
addition, respectively. She could execute these fairly smoothly, at least under
certain conditions — specifically, when relatively small numbers, each having the
same number of digits, were involved, and when she could count on her fingers
and therefore did not have to rely on memory for number facts. She showed one
common and minor weakness: she did not seem to know much about the theory
of place value and hence could not explain why one carries, although she could
do it.
So far it did not seem as if Patty had any particular difficulties, perceptual or
otherwise, with arithmetic. But [. . . children often show complex patterns] of
skills and weaknesses.
I: I’m going to give you another problem. You seem to be doing pretty
well adding. Suppose you have 29 again and 4.
Px
Patty wrote: +4.

167
 PR AO On ape siore oy Neg ee eeF CS ate Rae ‘
em
4 ¥

neicdae een Thinking yer we,

Before placing the 4 under the 2 her hand hesitated is the 9;noes
she could not decide where to place the 4. Patty then said, “You put the 4 over
here ... that would be ... that’s9.. . (she whispered) 2,3,4,5,6... 69.’ She
29
had counted to get the sum of 2 and 4. She wrote +4 .
69

I: What does it say right here?

P: 29 and 4.
I: Are how much?
P: 69.

This was Patty’s first error in the interview. She got a wrong result (69) because
she employed a wrong strategy. When there were unequal numbers of digits she
lined them up from left to right and then applied the standard addition
algorithm, with counting on the fingers, from right to left. This systematic but
incorrect strategy, which we have seen in other children, leads to predictable
errors.
At this point one might wish to intervene and straighten out Patty’s incorrect
method. But there was still much to learn about her.

I: You’re sure that 29 and 4 are 69?

P: Altogether?
I: Altogether.
P: No. _
I: How much are 29 and 4?

Patty made a large number of tallies on the bottom of the page. She appeared to
count them, at least sometimes using her fingers. Then she announced the result:
33:
This seemed to show a gap between sound informal methods and faulty
formal ones. Patty had an incorrect strategy for written addition, as described
above. At the same time, she had an effective strategy for performing addition
when real objects — here tallies — are involved. The correct strategy for objects is
essentially to combine the two groups and count the aggregate. There is a gap
between written work and arithmetic with real objects.
The interviewer wanted to determine whether Patty placed more confidence
in the written procedure than in the counting one.

I: 33. O.K. How come this says 69 [She pointed to the written work]?
P: Oops! Because you’re not doing it like that [she pointed to the tallies].
Oh, this (the 69) is wrong.

Apparently Patty saw that her answer of 69 was wrong, and that it differed from
that result obtained by counting. She changed the 69 to 33. Patty seemed to
have greater confidence in her informal method than in written addition.
At this point, the interviewer decided to challenge Patty’s new response (33)
in order to see how firm was her belief in the counting-derived result.

168
 =e Te co +CMiie : Unb

be Pea Eg Learning difficulties

I: How can you put a 3 here [referring to the second 3 in oa. if it says 9
here (referring to the 9 in 29)?
29 29
Patty looked at what was written +4 and changed it backto +4 .
33 69
P: That’s 9 and that’s gotta be 6. It’s just that you’re doing it differently
than that.
— : So you get a different answer.

P: Yeah. Cause you’re adding all of this up together [meaning the tallies] .
You’re not adding it all up altogether this way (she pointed to the
written work). You’re putting the 9 by itself and that’s 69.
I: So when you do it on paper you get 69 and if you do it with the little
marks you get how many?
P: 33. Because you’re adding all of it altogether. And you’re not doing it
over here.

For Patty, written work was a world apart from the addition of real objects.
I: Suppose we had 29 of these little chips and put out 4 more. Would we
get 33 or 69?
33.
: How do you know?
a= : Because I did it down here and I added 4 more on to it (she pointed to
area]
the tallies on the bottom of the page).
O.K. So that means these chips would be like these lines.
3 Yes,
: What would be another thing that would be like this [the written
problem] where I could get 69?
P: There ain’t no other way. I don’t think.

So Patty knew that several ways of counting objects (tallies, chips) were equiva-
lent, but could think of nothing real that corresponded to the written problem. —
I: Let’s see. You have 29 and 4 and you get 69. Suppose you had 30, so
you had 1 more here, and 3, so you have 1 less there. Would you still
get 69?
The interviewer’s intention was to present Patty with a situation producing a
contradiction. 30 + 3 should yield the same sum as 29 + 4. Patty should easily
see that 30 had 1 more than 29, but 3 had 1 less than 4. Yet by Patty’s method,
29 30
she should get a different result for +4 than +3_. Would Patty see the
contradiction?
P: No. You’d get bigger than 69.
30
She did 30 + 4 instead of 30 + 3 and wrote +.4_
70
P: Yep. I told you you’d get more than 69.
I: What about on your fingers? Show me how you do it on your fingers.
You can use my fingers too. Put out your fingers too.
P: You put the zero on.

169
ia hskek
caw ee eh ‘one
he eewe eG 7 ibe ye eg PO a a “so Siw
thet aed
ne
WEP GaP pe
ag dar:
BEY Ae eee OOSSE re ae Th Se teee Rae
CNS Bol LR TI ee ‘
Developing Mathematical Thinking
‘I: No. I don’t see any zeros. All I see are these little fingers. Never mind —
zeros.
P: That’s hard. (She looked as though thinking intently.)
aS: Now you have all kinds of fingers to work with. Patty. Now you figure
out how much is 10 plus 1.
: You have to put a zero underneath.
: I don’t see any zero at all. All I see are these fingers.
lae): O.K. If you want zero you have to take those ten away (she pointed to
Neel
o>
the interviewer’s fingers). You put zero then you have 1 and 1 left and
you add them up and you get 2. So it’s 20.
I: Can you do it without zeros?
P: No.

Patty was most persistent. She could not seem to get away from using the in-
correct written algorithm, even when finger counting was suggested.
I: How about with little marks on your paper like you did here? How can
you make 10 and 1 on the paper?
In other words, could Patty use tallies to solve the problem of 10 and 1? Patty
made ten tallies.
P: (She whispered) 1, 2 ... 10, and then you put 1 (she made another
mark).
I: How many do you have altogether?
Pritt.
She made a sweeping motion with her hand as if to indicate that she meant to
combine the two sets.
porte:
P: Yeah. Altogether.
This incident seemed to show once again that Patty used one procedure (the in-
correct algorithm) for written numbers and even fingers and another procedure
(combining and counting) for tallies. The gap between the two seemed con-
- siderable. On the other hand, there was something strange going on with the
word altogether.

I: Eleven altogether . . . Let’s do this . . . There are 10 of these (chips) and

here’s 1 more. How many do you think altogether?
P: Altogether, it would be 11.
I: O.K. What about 10 plus one, not altogether but plus?
P: Then you’d have to put 20.
This was very interesting indeed. Even when real objects were involved, Patty
responded to the word plus with her incorrect algorithm. And she used the
sensible procedure of combining and counting only when the word altogether
was used. What would she do if written numbers were used?
At this point, it seems clear that Patty has been using two separate methods:
a combining and counting method to get correct sums when real objects are in-
volved and an incorrect written algorithm — lining up on the left with uneven
numbers of digits — when written numbers are involved. Now the interviewer

170
 Learning difficulties —
wondered whether Patty would continue to employ her written method in
extreme cases. ‘i
I: O.K. Let me try something. Patty. Can you write down for me 100 plus
1?
100
Patty wrote +1 and said. ‘Zero, zero, and 2. It would be 200.’
200
I: he plus 1, huh? Do you think that’s right? Got any other way of doing
it?
P: No. Unless the 1 is on the wrong side. Unless the 1 is supposed to be
there [she pointed to the ones column].
I: Where’s the 1 supposed to be?
P: I think it’s supposed to be there [pointed to the hundreds column].
I: You think it’s supposed to be there, huh? O.K. Let’s do another one.
What about 10 plus 1?
10
Patty wrote + 1_ and said, ‘That’s zero and that’s 2. 20.’
20
I: 20, think that’s right?
P: Yeah.
I: Got any other way of doing it?
Patty indicated no.
At this point, it was clear that Patty’s written method generalised widely,
even to extreme cases like 100 + 1. Now the interviewer wanted to get Patty to
see the discrepancy between her written and counting methods.
I: Well, suppose you couldn’t use paper at all and I said how much is 10
plus 1?
P: I’d count on my fingers.
I: Why don’t you do it?
Patty held up all ten fingers and stared at them.
P: You have 10 (she looked at the fingers). You put the zero on the
bottom [draws a zero with her finger] .
I: Just use your fingers now.
P: Then you put 2 and you add 1 and | and it’s 2.
Patty seemed unable to count 10 on her fingers! Instead she persisted in using
the written procedure, apparently doing in her head something very much like
10
at is
20
I: What if we write down on paper, here’s 20, now I write down another
1, and you want to find out how much the 20 and 1 are altogether.
The interviewer wrote 20 1 placing the numbers side by side. He had used the
word altogether, which should help her.

171
 Sa eile, ee Re ae a See tyetn Za per ae fx aa er
A) \ rg ae astg esia oe ae ar Ay >
edV re arg ¢ as ris ad '

Deophg Mathematical
linens”

P: It’s 21.
I: O.K. Now what would 20 plus 1 be? [The interviewer pointed at the written!
numbers.] i
20 %
P: 20 plus 1? She wrote +1_
30

The interviewer’s first interpretation was wrong. It was not true that Patty used thes
counting strategy with real objects and the incorrect algorithm with written numbers.
Unlike many other children. Patty did not simply show a gap between her informa
methods and her written arithmetic. Instead, matters were far more complex. Fo
Patty, language was crucial. Given the word plus, she applied an incorrect additio
method to both objects and written numbers. Given altogether, she used a sensibles
counting procedure, again for both objects and written numbers. Altogether is 2
natural word for addition: Patty probably used it in everyday life to talk about addingg
things.-Plus is a school word that Patty seems to have associated with a wrongs
algorithm that she did not understand.
The case study of Patty teaches us several things.

1 As we have seen over and over again, a child’s mistakes are seldom capricious: the
are instead the result of systematic but wrong strategies. Patty got wrong answers
because she lined up numbers from left to right when the word plus was used.
2 The artificial (albeit carefully defined) language of mathematics can present the
child with considerable difficulties. Plus, congruent, minus, and the like are unfamilist
words that children frequently misunderstand. Defining the artificial words does not
guarantee comprehension. The statement that subtraction is a binary operation or 4
relation among ordered pairs may be crucial for the mathematician but of little hel
for the child. Perhaps a greater effort could be made to relate the artificial terms to the
child’s familiar words like take away and altogether.
3 The child often displays unsuspected strengths. There were several things Patt 1
could do quite well. Despite frequent failure in school, she could add correctly whe
she used her informal counting strategy. It is crucial to locate areas of strength in tha
problem child. Apparently, Patty’s teacher was either unaware of her strengths or wa:
unable to exploit them.
4 The individual’s particular constellation
of difficulties often takes a unique for
Patty’s problem with,plus was unusual. This very uniqueness leads to doubts about tha
value of standard tests. It is hard to see how they can be sufficiently sensitive to
subtleties of this type. In addition to standard tests — and perhaps instead of them
we require flexible techniques for interviewing individual children.
5 Sound knowledge of children’s difficulties leads to ways of helping them. Th
teacher could try to help Patty by making the connection between her word altogethe?
and the arithmetic word plus. Also, the teacher might assist Patty by building on hee
strength — the counting and combining strategy. Instead of merely telling her to linw
up numbers differently, the teacher might help her to see that her ‘altogether strategy;
makes sense, and that it is related to the written algorithm. If Patty could be led to see
how the written algorithm is in some ways equivalent to combining and counting o:

172

on
IA
=
 as ee ee ee Oe Ose OP a
& 4 aA 3 ‘ae :

Learning difficulties

then perhaps she could learn to appreciate why one needs to line up numbers
properly in the algorithm.

Stacy
Stacy, also a third grader, seemed almost retarded at the outset.

I: Can you tell me first what kind of work you are doing in math now?

Stacy responded, and continued to respond throughout the session in a slow,

quiet voice. Her manner was extremely diffident — even lethargic and depressed.

S: Lots of things.
I: You write stuff on paper. Can you show me what stuff you write?
—N: Papers like maths [she then began to write a sentence in words as well
as numerals] .
Can you read that?
: Jimmy had 8 cats; he gave Brian 2 cats.
What comes next?
: How many does Jimmy have?
: How many do you think he has?
=A
: How did you know that?
: He had 8, and 2 and 1.

It was very hard to get Stacy to respond — to indicate how she had done the
problem.

I: How did you do that, Stacy? He had eight cats, and he gave Brian two
cats. How many did he have left?
: 5. He had 5 and 2 others got away.
: So how many did he have left?
: Eight cats and I count back.
: How do you count back?
: 8 and I got 3 more and then I took 2 away.
ball
0}
7
lel
2
"pel What do you mean 3 more? Let’s start from the beginning. Show me
how you count back.
: 8,7, 6,5, 4. He had 4 left.
Sa: How did you know how to stop at 4? You went 8, 7, 6, 5, 4. How did
you know to stop at 4?
S: Because there’s 7.
This initial episode gives the flavor of interaction with Stacy. She posed herself a
very simple problem with which a third grader ought to have no difficulty.
Indeed, the problem was in words, rather than written numerals, and involved a
simple story: If Jimmy had eight cats and gave away two, how many would be
left? In response to this problem, Stacy did several things. The most obvious is
that she gave several different wrong answers. She changed her response several
times. She indicated that her method of solution was by counting backwards.
But her behaviour did not seem to be a simple product of this or any other
strategy. Indeed, her responses were so disorganised and chaotic that it is hard to
see how-any_underlying rules could have produced them. In brief Stacy gave

173
 Bt To Pa Ee vy Tag” ee gale a ee
: ; - 4 By eee or Bs

Developing Mathematical Thinking :

wrong answers to an extremely simple problem and seemed to have no organised
method for producing answers.
The remainder of the first interview showed: that Stacy’s work was on a very
low level. The interviewer gave her a very simple problem: If there were four
dogs and two ran away, how many would be left? Stacy gave the correct answer.
When asked how she did it, she replied, ‘Because 2 and 2 is 4’. So Stacy seemed
to do subtraction by remembering some relevant addition facts. Asked to solve
this problem by counting backwards, she could not do so: she merely persisted
in the addition or produced apparently chaotic, senseless behaviour.
Next the interviewer gave Stacy some simple addition problems. First, ‘How
much are three apples and four apples?’ Stacy answered, 6 ‘because 3 and 4 is 6.’
The wrong answer was apparently the result of faulty memory of the addition
facts. Asked to do the problem by counting, Stacy merely shrugged her shoulder
and shook her head — behaviour that she often displayed when she did not know
what to do. Next the interviewer asked Stacy, ‘How much are two oranges and
one more?’ She got the answer right, apparently because she remembered the
number facts. That was the end of the first interview.
Stacy could do very little. She was struggling with problems that should have
been trivially simple for a child her age. Her only achievement was occasionally
to remember some number facts. She seemed unable to use counting procedures
— which, as we have seen, are usually children’s method of preference.
After the first interview, we were very discouraged. We seemed to have en-
countered a child — the first we had seen — who had almost nothing going for
her. The initial episode led us to formulate the following questions: Is she
retarded? Can she hear properly? Was she very nervous or intimidated by the
interviewer? Can she count? Can she conserve number? How would she do with
concrete objects? Some of the questions referred to her motivation and some to
her intellectual abilities. We wanted to know, essentially, whether the testing
situation failed to uncover her true competence or whether she had much of any
competence to begin with.
In the next session, the interviewer first established that Stacy could count as
high as 80. Also, Stacy could solve Piaget’s conservation problem: she recognised
that a row of seven elements had the same number as another row of seven,
regaidless of whether the rows were the same length or whether one was
bunched up.
Then the interviewer asked Stacy to get seven chips from a large pile of chips.
Stacy took seven, one at a time, and put them in a straight line. The interviewer
asked her to get three more. Stacy did so, putting them in aline below the first.
Thus:

on O 0.30 O O
Oe. 0 O

Figure 1 Stacy’s chips

I: O.K. How many do you have altogether now?

174
 Learning difficulties
S:
I: Ten. Very good. How did you figure that out?
S : Just counted them.
I : Counted them up. O.K. Now suppose we have one more. Can you get
one more chip? How many do we have altogether now?
: Eleven.
: Eleven. And how about one more. How many do we have now?
: Twelve.
: How come you did that so fast?
: There’s 11, then I count 12.
: You count 12. O.K. How about getting two more?
: (quickly) 14.
2 : 14. O.K. How are you doing that so fast? What are you doing in your
eral
Ld?
eal
0)
Maral
head? Are you doing something, saying some numbers to yourself?
—~N: Tsay 13, 14, like that.

Stacy could count collections of objects; she could remember from one situation
to the next; she could add by counting on when real objects are involved and
when the numbers are small. Stacy had stopped shrugging her shoulders; she
looked more lively. Later in the interview she demonstrated an ability to work
with larger numbers. She was able to add ten and twelve chips.
Next, the interviewer wanted to see if Stacy could do addition in the absence
of real objects. The interviewer took four chips, one at a time, and placed them
behind a screen. The interviewer did the same with another three chips, and said
that there are three chips behind the screen here and four there. All Stacy could
see was each chip going behind the screen. How many altogether? Stacy
answered correctly. Then the interviewer presented Stacy with four and five
chips in the same manner. Again, she answered correctly. How did she do it?
Previously she had denied counting on fingers. Probably the denial was the result
of her teacher’s strong opposition to such methods. Now, however, Stacy
admitted to solving the problem by counting. She was able to do 6 + 5 (after an
initial error); 10 + 4; 14 + 6. She seemed to count on her fingers, sometimes
starting from 1, and sometimes counting on from the larger number. Apparently,
Stacy could solve problems involving absent objects, at least when she had the
opportunity to see them, however fleetingly, before they were hidden.
These episodes bring out the following points.

1 Even children who fail badly seem to possess some kind of intellectual
strengths that can be used as a basis for learning. At the outset, Stacy’s be-
haviour seemed chaotic; she appeared to be retarded. Everything she did con-
firmed the teacher’s judgment that she had the most difficulty of anyone in the
class. She could not do anything right, and we felt quite hopeless about helping
her. Nevertheless, subsequent interviewing showed that she had some basic skills,
especially for dealing with concrete objects. I believe that if you dig deep enough
you will find in virtually all children a core of arithmetic skills on which they
can build. At least that has been our experience with every child we have seen.
2 The child’s hidden strengths usually involve some form of counting. Stacy
could add by counting sets or by counting on from the larger number. We have

175
 Developing Mathematical Thinking — oh |
seen repeatedly that children frequently use some variant of counting in their
) arithmetic work. Do we stress counting enough in our curricula?
/ 3 Intellectual success helps to alleviate emotional difficulties. At the outset, it
"was abundantly clear that Stacy was depressed. She was lethargic, she seemed
miserable, it was hard to get her to say anything. All this was typical of her
ordinary classroom behaviour. We. do not know the reason for her depression:
perhaps it was linked to some events at home; perhaps it was the result of her
failure to learn in school; or perhaps it stemmed from some combination of the
two. Whatever its causes, her depression seemed to have been alleviated by her
improved performance in arithmetic. When the interviewer succeeded in dis-
covering some of Stacy’s competencies and in getting her to use them, her entire
manner changed: she seemed more alert, more lively, she had some sparkle.
Stacy seemed to enjoy seeing herself as a child with ability. Children’s self-
concept is usually bound up with their intellectual achievements. In some cases,
helping children to improve their schoolwork may do more for their emotional
health than well-meaning attempts to analyse and treat their emotional distur-
bances directly.
| 4 Informal methods often play a key role in getting to know and in helping
i
| children with problems. On discovering how badly Stacy did on ordinary arith-
| metic problems, the interviewer introduced concrete tasks, phrased them in ways
that Stacy could understand, and attempted, in a deliberately non-standardised
way, to tailor the testing of her strengths. This procedure seemed to relax her, to
reduce her anxieties about being tested, and provided her with opportunities to
show and discover what she could do. The interview also suggested some very
specific ways of helping her — for example, by developing her finger counting.
By contrast, standard tests are of little value in a case like Stacy’s. They often
frighten children doing badly. They yield unhelpful labels like ‘low mathe-
matical aptitude’. And worst of all, they fail to reveal children’s strengths. The
tests say nothing specific about what the child can do and about how instruc-
' tion should proceed. All this is positively harmful to the child who has trouble
learning.

176
 o 2% se fhes-ea & tT Og it
ee ie PlOn aeanS ie e a
“ 2 ; arts fot tants
aw agnoe
te vane
eae fe sad
Oepe Al oe
: eae “eas p
A \ oe a 2 © . : : t

16 Decomposition and all that rot

Stuart Plunkett
Source: Mathematics in Schools, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 2—7, May 1979.

How do people caiculate?

Well, it varies rather a lot. Here are just three stories:

Me: Do you know what 7 lots of 8 are?

Peter (7): No.
Me: Could you work it out?
Peter: (Long pause) 56.
Me: How did you do that?
Peter: Well . . . I knew 10 8s so I took away 8, that’s 72 and another
and another — 56.

Me: What’s 213 take away 188?

Ray (adult): 25.
Me: How d’you do it?
Ray: Well it’s 12 up to 200 and 13s 25.

Me: What’s 213 take away 188?

Student (19): Silence
Me: What happened when I asked?
Student: Panic. .
Me: Did you see anything in your mind...
Student: Yes. I saw 213 written down and 188 underneath, and then a
nG.2

Ask people how they calculate, and indeed observe yourself at work, and you
will soon find a fascinating variety of idiosyncratic methods.

How are calculations taught?

In contrast to the diversity of methods people actually use, there is very little
variation in the methods taught in schools. At the present moment, it is a fair
bet that almost all children in this country are taught standard written algorithms
for the four rules of number. By this Imean processes for addition, subtraction,
long and short multiplication and division which are laid out something like this:

177

PES eas
 y Bi a ie i
Developing Mathematical Thinking
Sa] ae 57 a)

Pas Pe ee Xx 3[5 27
95 ie 45
5
There are minor variations, of course, concerning whether you multiply first
by the units or by the tens in long multiplication, and whether the quotient
goes above or below the dividend in short division, and there is the relatively
major distinction between decomposition and equal additions. But that’s about
the sum of it. The vast majority of children are taught these methods as the
primary way of dealing with whole number (and decimal) calculations; and for
the majority, I suspect, these are the only methods they are taught.

The nature of standard written algorithms

Why should this be? The reasons lie largely in the nature of these algorithms.
It is worth attempting to summarise them.
1 They are written, so the calculation is permanent and correctible.
2 They are standardised: it is possible to arrange that everyone does the same
thing.
3 They are contracted in the sense that they summarise several lines of equations
involving distributivity and associativity.
4 They are efficient. For instance, it’s less efficient to add the tens first, be-
cause you might need to make a subsequent amendment to their total after
you’ve added the units.
_5 They can be automatic: they can be taught to, and carried out by, someone
who has no understanding of what is happening.
6 They are symbolic. One does one’s calculations entirely by symbol mani-
pulation, with no reference to the real world, or any other model. At the last
stage the answer appears with, usually, no previous approach to it.
7 They are general in the sense that they will work for any numbers, large or
small, whole or decimal, with few or many digits. This is perhaps their greatest
attraction, and it comes from their exploitation of place-value.
8 They are analytic. They require the numbers to be broken up, into tens and
units digits, and the digits dealt with separately.
9 They are not easily internalised. They do not correspond to the ways in
which people tend to think about numbers.
10They encourage cognitive passivity or suspended understanding. One is
unlikely to exercise any choice over method and while the calculation is being
carried out one does not think much about why one does it in that way.
Possibly the most significant of these characteristics is the eighth. By breaking
a number up into hundreds, tens and units digits, and dealing with these as
digits, we develop methods which can be applied to all numbers, however large
or small, and which can be applied efficiently. However, such an analytical
approach detaches the methods from the area of complete numbers (i.e. numbers

178
 ex
P* int rian iil (sosmieleie aera
oul AurGS Sa
ae __SaasDecomposition
Se RHP
and all that rot
»

not split into digits) where people are more at home. Thus even if the rules
can be remembered they are learnt largely without reasons and are not
related to other number knowledge. They are far from aiding the understanding
of numbers; rather they encourage a belief that mathematics is essentially
arbitrary.
As has often been stated, training in these methods may be a good idea if
you want to produce clerks, and others, who are quick and accurate at doing
large numbers of difficult calculations by hand. Also, teaching these methods
leaves you with work which is easy to manage and to mark.
Perhaps a further point should be added to the list above: they are traditional.
For a lot of non-specialist teachers of mathematics, as for the general public,
the four rules of number are the standard written algorithms. Concept and
algorithm are equated. So to teach division you teach a method rather than an
idea. And the method will be the one you were taught, and in this area, at
least, you can perpetuate your own knowledge with some confidence.

The use of standard written algorithms

One of the most remarkable things about these methods is that they are used so
little. In some research directed to quite other ends, D. A. Jones, 1973, investi-
gated the methods used by each of 80 11 year olds to calculate 67 + 38,
83 — 26, 17 X 6 and 116 + 4”. The questions were written in this form, and the
children were free to use written or mental methods. Over half of the 320
calculations were successfully completed by non-standard methods, such as
83 — 26: 83, 73, 63, 60, 57; 17 X 6: 12 X 6=72, 72 + 30 = 102. Thus despite
the heavy teaching of standard algorithms, they are not necessarily chosen for
calculations of this order of difficulty. This suggests, at the least, that the
standard methods are not suitable for mental work. Casual enquiry amongst
both adults and children into how they do their ‘sums’ yields similar results.
At the same time, the standard algorithms are not understood by children.
Any teacher of maths to children between 8 and 16 will recognise these:

35 45 35
+ 47 —37 ae. 2|216
91 12 915 ee:

and probably quickly add to the sad collection. The situation is highlighted if
the child who has failed on paper is asked the question orally and is able, as so
often, to do it in his head. Mary Harris writes about the two different spaces
in which the child operates: the space of written numbers and the space of
spoken numbers. She conjectures that there is only the most tenuous con-
nection between the two.
The standard algorithms are also misused, like sledge-hammers to crack
nuts. How many children have recorded calculations like these?

179
Developing Mathematical Thinking
140.7072 26 10|6°27770
= 10g 109° 5 X 100 62 Zen
0 O07 . 00
000
2600.
2600

Either being required to conform, or not expecting to think for themselves, they
apply standard methods as though they were always the most appropriate.

The nature of mental algorithms

Work these in your head, or better still ask a child, and try to determine how
they were done:
57 + 24 83 — 69 3X 24 112+4
Here are some of the characteristics of mental algorithms. They contrast with
those in the list above, but there has been no attempt to match them point for
point.
1 They are fleeting and often difficult to catch hold of.
2 They are variable. From his 80 children, Jones recorded 16 different methods
altogether for finding 83 — 26. Of these, three were standard written algorithms.
3 They are flexible, and can be adapted to suit the numbers involved. Do you
have different methods for 83 — 79, 83 — 51, 83 —7?
4 They are active methods in the sense that the user makes a definite, if not
always very conscious, choice of method and is in control of his own calcu-
lations.
5 They are usually holistic, in that they work with complete numbers rather
than separated tens and units digits, e.g. 4X 35=2X 70=140; 4X 28:
4X 30= 120, — 8, 112.
6 They are frequently constructive, working from one part of the question
towards the answer, e.g. 37 + 28: 37, 47, 57, 67, 65.
7 They are not designed for recording. So written down they tend to sprawl,
as in the example above. But they can of course be recorded where this is
desirable.
8 They require understanding all along. A child who gets his mental calcu-
lations right almost certainly understands what he is doing. Equally their use
develops understanding. But on the other hand they cannot be used to achieve
performance in advance of understanding.
9 They are often iconic. Either they relate to an icon such as the number line or
a number square, or they depend upon serial enunciation as in 32 + 21: 32, 42,
52,53. In either case some overall picture of the numbers is being used.
10 Often they give an early approximation to the correct answer. This is usually
because a left-most digit is calculated first, but in the context of complete
numbers, e.g. 145 + 37: 175, 182;34 X 4 = 120, 136.

180
 ficult calculations, such as 269 X 23. Nevertheless they are suitable for a greater
range of problems than a casual observation of school number work might lead
one to suspect.

It is fairly clear that mental methods are the ones to foster if you wish to use
and develop children’s understanding of number, and any teaching of them
would obviously be accompanied by other means to this end. You would have to
accept that children would not be able to do calculations before they had a
pretty clear idea of what was going on. You would have to be able to provide
them with alternative ways of dealing with difficult calculations. And a teacher
of these methods would obviously expect a degree of independence and indivi-
duality in his pupils.
So teachers, or schools, or society, have a choice in the methods which might
be taught, and the choice can be made on the basis of previously determined
aims in number education. Either standard written algorithms for efficiency
and order and because that is what we have taught for 100 years, or mental
algorithms for independence and understanding and because they are the
methods people actually use. Or both: ‘Ah, mental algorithms are all very well,
but they must learn the standard methods sooner or later.’ Must they?

A spectrum of calculations
In order to discuss what we should teach, it helps to take a look at the range of
calculations we can do with numbers. It is easy to include ‘the four rules of
number’ as a basic skill for all citizens without considering exactly what this
entails. The general applicability of the standard algorithms makes us forget
the enormous width of the spectrum (see table 1). For convenience, I have
divided the range into five rough bands. They are approximately in order of
decreasing frequency of use, and I suspect the relationship is a negative expon-
ential one. (When did you last need to do a long multiplication, other than in
your professional work?) Needless to say the order is also one of increasing
difficulty. This is very convenient: the calculations we use a lot are the easy
ones. It should also give us occasion to pause before spending a lot of energy on
teaching processes which will be used very little (see Moore and Williams for
figures on frequency of use of some calculations).

Table 1

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue

5+9 135+ 100 139 + 28 592 + 276 3964 + 7123

+ 4918 + 5960
13—8 85 — 20 33 — 26 592 — 276
4X7 5 X 30 17X3 931X 8 931X 768
35=5 90-3 72+=4 693+ 7 8391+57

181
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

I have- put some typical calculations in each band, but have no wish to make
very precise distinctions. In general terms the See of the bands are
these:
Red band This is the only one clearly defined and it contains number bonds up
to 10 + 10 and 10 X 10 and their inverses. It is highly desirable to have all
these facts available for instant recall.
Orange band These are roughly addition, subtraction, multiplication and
division with a number with a single non-zero digit and for which everything
is fairly straightforward. They can all be done by a one-step mental process,
given thorough knowledge of results in the red band. It is to these calculations
that one most frequently sees standard written said inappropriately
applied.
Yellow band This covers the range of calculations fe which mental methods
are entirely appropriate. The average person in the street, given a practical,
motivating context, would do these in his head. So can average 11 year olds,
given encouragement. It is for calculations in this band that one so often sees
the disjunction between a child’s space of written numbers and his space of
spoken numbers.
Green band These could be done mentally but on the whole few people would
want to, or need to.
Blue band In a practical situation it would be absurd to use a mental process
for these. If a calculator were available, it would be equally absurd to use a
written method.

- Proposal
I think that the reasons for teaching the standard written algorithms are out of
date, and that it is time we all took notice of this. I believe there is a place for
mental algorithms, for the use of calculators, and for ad hoc, non-standard
written methods. I think a large amount of time is at present wasted on attempts
to teach and to learn the standard algorithms, and that the most common results
are frustration, unhappiness and a deteriorating attitude to mathematics.
I therefore propose, for consideration and criticism, an alternative approach
to the teaching of elementary arithmetic. Very roughly, children should go
through three stages, progressing according to their ability.
Stage I The acquisition of mental techniques for calculations in the red, orange,
and yellow bands.
Stage 2 The use of calculators for green and blue calculations.
Stage 3 The development of some casual written methods.
I must stress that I am referring to only one aspect of children’s mathematics.
Calculations are only a part of number work, and number only a part of math-
ematics.
I want to elaborate a little on these three stages (particularly the first) but
clearly I cannot do more than give an outline. I make no reference to children’s

182
 ee er eed UE
g inh Mall [Link] ee
Decomposition and all that rot
ages, since the age at which they can begin to understand a given aspect of
number work is so variable.

Stage 7
I imagine there is little controversy in the suggestion that red and orange band
calculations should be done in the head. Nevertheless it is important to remember
that children do take quite a time to appreciate facts like 47+ 10 =57 and
13 X 10 = 130. This is a measure of the subtlety and power of our place-value
system. It is also an indication of the nature of children’s problem: if they are
not certain of facts like these, they should not be rushed to calculations like
47+ 18 or 13 X 12.
Two sorts of understanding have to be fostered at this stage. First the under-
standing of numbers and the place-value system. One tool which I think is
invaluable for this is the number line. This version is commonly met in infants
classes:

bee an 1819 10-21 12-15 14-15 16°17 18.19. 20

but for bigger number the place-value structure needs to be emphasised:

{ nit | 4 1 poe Ly 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Further extensions to hundreds, thousands, fractional numbers and negative

numbers are also invaluable. Use of these number lines can help to give children
a personal, overall picture of the numbers (and how they relate to each other)
which I think is often missing. Mathematicians seem commonly to possess an
iconic number line permanently available in their heads, and we might attempt
to give children a similar icon.
The other part of understanding is of the meaning and nature of the four
operations: of multiplication as repeated addition, of division both as repeated
subtraction and as the opposite of multiplication, of subtraction both as ‘take
away’ and, perhaps more importantly, ‘and how many [more]’. This point
seems to be particularly important. Both large and small subtractions make
more sense in terms of complementary addition: how does one work out 15 — 8,
oh = 275?
Given understanding of and facility with calculations in the red and orange
bands, and some personal picture of the number system, children should have
little difficulty in developing methods for dealing with yellow band problems.
The usual mental algorithms seem to be based on serial enumeration, as in
47 + 34: 47, 57, 67, 77, 81; or on successive approximation, as in 17 X 4:
20 X 4= 80, 76, 72, 68; or on some icon such as a number line: 110 — 88:
gas hie
8090 100 110 120. 22
183
 me. Aeb e i a ie ey Mn” eee
Ptr, 2 ieee Liga
Developing Mathemutteai Thinking maak yn ee eA Pee

It is perfectly possible for these methods to be recorded, and doing so andy

help children to be aware of their mental operations. If free format recording
is allowed, children are less likely to develop the all too common inhibition
about expressing their own mathematical thoughts. As they become confident,
they will abbreviate what they write. The aim is an internalised process which is
understood, rather than an externalised one which may not be.

Stage 2
Understanding of larger numbers is a necessary preliminary to using them in
green and blue band calculations. Given this, and the understanding of mental
methods for the previous bands, children will be able and likely to make sensible
use of calculators for more difficult problems. Their personal understanding
of number should make it unlikely that they will ask ‘Is it an add, Miss?’ and
press the wrong button. They will be able to use orange band calculations to
check the machine’s answer for reasonableness. .
They will get pleasure from observing that their answers to simpler problems
agree with those on the calculator. There will be no disjunction between their
‘spoken’ space and their ‘calculator’ space. The calculator will make sense.

Stage 3
Money calculations are rather anomalous in that it is sometimes necessary to
work to 4 or 5 significant figures, an accuracy which seldom makes sense in
other areas. But money calculations are those most frequently used by the
person in the street, so it would be sensible to provide most people with means
_ to add or subtract numbers like 54.75 and 32.80 when they have no calculator
available. Non-standard written methods for dealing with these can be adapted
by children and teachers from mental algorithms used for more manageable
numbers. For instance, addition can easily and sensibly proceed from the left:
54 .75
32 80
867 Befo)
Subtraction by complementary addition can be recorded in a variety of ways,
e.g. .
32.80
42.80 10
52.80 20
54.80 22
54.75 21.95
A person who has to do a lot of such calculations will soon develop methods
of a brevity suited to his needs. Here is a non-standard method for long multi-
plication:
20.53
10 |200 30
8 |160 24
414
184
te u . Decomposition and all that rot

which shows how much diagrams can help. The important thing is a process which is
intelligible (to the user), rather than one which is standardised or quickest.

A great opportunity
The advent of calculators has provided us with a great opportunity. We are freed from
the necessity to provide every citizen with methods for dealing with calculations of
indefinite complexity. So we can abandon the standard written algorithms, of general
applicability and limited intelligibility, in favour of methods more suited to the minds
and purposes of the users. Up to now I don’t think this point has been sufficiently
appreciated. In his stimulating, and otherwise excellent article, Michael Girling writes:
‘The most refined methods of long division, for instance . . . need not be taught.’
Why teach any ‘refined’ methods? They would only be needed by people who do
a lot of calculations, and for such people a calculator is a better aid than a pencil and
paper.
A difficulty in advocating a programme such as this is the common confusion of
concept with algorithm. The argument starts from the quite acceptable premise
that children should learn how to calculate and arrives at the conclusion that they
should be taught the standard algorithms. Calculators can then be seen as a great
bogey in schools. The emphasis must be shifted to the other end of the argument.
Children should be helped to acquire sensible methods for calculating, and for the
majority of calculations met in everyday use these will be mental methods. Teaching
mental techniques will not lead to children doing less calculations in school: probably
they will do more. More importantly children will acquire a better understanding than
from the repeated application of standard algorithms they do not comprehend. With
mental methods occupying their proper place as the principal means for doing simple
calculations, the position of calculators is clear. They are the sensible tool for difficult
calculations, the ideal complement to mental arithmetic.

References
Williams, J. D., ‘Arithmetic and the Difficulties of Calculative Thinking’,
Educational Research, vol. 5, no. 3, 1962-3.
Jones, D. A., ‘An investigation of the Differences Between Boys and Girls During the
Formative Yearsin the Methods Used to Solve Mathematical Problems’, unpublished
[Link]. thesis, University of London. For an abbreviated account, see Mathematics
in School, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 29—31, May 1975.
Harris, M., ‘Personal Factors in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics in the
Primary School’, unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Southampton.
Moore, N. and Williams, A., Mathematics for Life, Teachers Book, General Intro-
duction.
Brown, [Link] Kuchemann, D., ‘Is it an add, Miss?’ Mathematics in School, vol. 5,
no. 5, November 1976.
Girling, M., ‘Towards a Definition of Basic Numeracy’, Mathematics Teaching, no. 81.

185
 17 Coping with word problems:
observations of V. D. Petrova’s
class
Jeremy Kilpatrick (ed.)
Source: Kilpatrick J. et al. (eds), Soviet Studies in the Psychology of
Learning and Teaching Mathematics, vol. 2, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1975.
<<<<<<<<x<<<<x<<<<KKXKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK#KKKKKKKKRES

The pupils of V. D. Petrova (172nd School, fourth grade) attracted my attention.

They showed (in individual experiments) an excellent ability to solve problems
without assistance. The model for independent solution of problems that were
quite complex for fourth grade was a pupil in this class, Valya K. [. . .]
Her solution was detailed and well substantiated. Valya’s style of problem
breakdown was characteristic of both good pupils and average pupils in this
class. When difficulty arose, V. D. Petrova’s pupils returned to the text of the
problem, reread it, and looked through the solution they had done. They corrected
most of the errors they made by themselves. They were able, in case of failure,
to change the method of solution they were using or to replace it by a new one.
' They could outline a different plan of solution for a single problem. All of this
shows a high level of development of the analytic—synthetic activity for the
given grade. It should be noted that V. D. Petrova’s pupils did not lower their
level of achievement, as so often happens. Of the 36 pupils (all were passed) in
the first quarter of the fifth grade, 11 received excellent marks in all their sub-
jects, 18 pupils had 4s and 5s; and 7 had 4s and 3s. The mathematics instructor
in the middle school mentioned the ability of V. D. Petrova’s pupils to analyse
the text of problems that were new for them.
Undoubtedly, the ability of these pupils to solve problems is determined by
their entire system of working. However, it is also certain that their success in
solving problems largely depends on the correct means of analysis that they used.
These proper methods of working on problems and analyses of them are fre-
quently instilled from the very beginning of instruction.
I observed V. D. Petrova systematically while she was teaching problem-solving
during 1952-3 in the first grade. [. . . Ishall describe . . .] the method she used
in teaching first-grade pupils the methods of analysis and synthesis in solving
problems.

Emphasis on reading the problem

The work on the analysis of a problem begins with reading it properly, with intona-

186
BR rer ep tsp 5
Jie Sie Coping with word problems: observations of V. D. Petrova’s class
tional expression, and in this process the first primary separation of the text occurs,
as well as the isolation of the unknown and the individual data. V. D. Petrova
devotes much attention to this — she teaches her pupils how to read problems.
From the beginning the teacher continually emphasises that each word in the
problem, regardless of how small it is, has its importance. If one changes ‘tiny
little words’ — ‘in’ and ‘on’ — the entire sense of the problem is changed. These
small but very important words must be emphasised by intonation. V.D. Petrova
makes the pupils vary their intonation when they see punctuation marks (pauses),
to aid in breaking down the problem into its component parts. She requires
special expressive emphasis of the problem’s question. All of these demands are
mastered by the pupils, and they begin to demand it of themselves and of their
classmates. A pupil read a problem:
““Ten aspen .. . logs were put into a stove and—”
She put in a pause which destroyed the logic, and the teacher immediately
called her attention to this: “Where is the comma?” she asked.
“After the word ‘stove’,” answered the girl.
“Then a voice pause should be there also,” the teacher reminded her
and demanded another reading with the correct intonation.
The girl read: “Ten aspen logs were put into a stove, and six fewer birch
logs were put in than aspen. How many logs were put into the stove in all?”
The teacher asked the class what other mistakes this girl had made in
reading.
The pupils noticed:
“She read the word ‘than’ poorly.”
“She did not emphasise the word ‘fewer’.”
“She did not emphasise the number .. .”’
The problem was read again, in an attempt to meet all of the teacher’s demands.
The monotony of this repeated reading did not deaden the girls’ attention,
because they were on the alert to notice if the reader made any mistakes and
were to correct any inaccuracies.
The teacher emphasised that the solution itself largely depends on a correct
reading of the problem: ‘Valya, here, read the problem poorly and cannot explain
its solution; and Katya was mistaken because she missed this important little
word “than” when she read the problem at home,’ she explained. The pupils
developed a genuine respect for this stage of the work on a problem. Gradually
they formed a sound habit of reading the text of a problem with the correct
intonation, and the teacher devoted less and less attention to this stage.

Emphasis on a breakdown of the text of a problem

Although the individual data and the unknown are isolated while reading the prob-
lem, the teacher did not limit her class to this. In the initial period of teaching the
separation of the text of the problem into individual data and the unknown, she
singled this out as one stage in the work on problems. Having read the problem, the
pupils were to enumerate each of the data and isolate the unknown in particular.
Here is how this breakdown of the above problem was done by one of the
pupils, Katya S.:

187

——s
“-
 Shai PE ae Mae a See ias:
_ Developing Mathematical Thinking Se ay aes
“Tt is known,” she says, ‘‘that they put 10 aspen logs into the stove. It is
also known that six fewer birch logs were put in than the number of aspen
logs, but it is unknown how many logs were put into the stove in all.””
Here the text of the problem has been repeated in a slightly different form, and
one datum was distinguished from another very precisely icthis is one thing that
must be taught. The investigation of the peculiarities of problem solving by
young pupils has shown that, if they are only able to reproduce the text of a
problem verbatim, they sometimes separate it into its components incorrectly,
isolating partial complexes whose operations lead to mistakes (this type of
mistake was described above).
At the end of the second quarter all the pupils in this class, even the weak
ones, could break down the problem in this manner, and in the future the teacher
became more and more inclined to skip this stage, returning to it only in more
difficult cases.
Having separated the text of the problem, the pupils started a more detailed
analysis of each datum and the unknown.
‘What kind of logs were put in the stove?’ the teacher asked.
‘Birch and aspen.’
‘How many aspen logs were put in?’
‘Ten.’
‘Read again what it says about the birch logs.’
‘Six fewer birch logs were put in than aspen logs.’
‘Fewer than what?’
‘Than aspen logs.’
‘And how many aspen logs?’
‘Ten.’
‘What is asked in the problem?’
‘How many logs in all were put in.’
‘In all — this is, consequently, what kind of logs?’
‘Aspen and birch.’
After this type of breakdown the way to solve the problem will become clear.
If unfamiliar words are found in a problem, the teacher reveals their meaning
in detail, so that the pupils can imagine very clearly the articles referred to in
the problem.
Once, the number of pine trees that were sawed up into boards was mentioned
in a problem. In repeating the problem, one girl used the word ‘logs’ in place of
‘boards.’ The teacher then explained the difference between the concepts. She
cut up a stick into a ‘board’ and a ‘log’ and discussed the uses of boards and logs.
With this type of work, the problem evoked a more vivid, clear concept in
the students and became part of life for them. Thus the solution was simplified
for them, and they could verify their results more realistically. [. . .]

Emphasis on differentiation of concepts

The teacher always dwelt particularly on similar concepts which should be

188
 Coping with ed onions: Bhacrvations of V. D. Pewora! ‘Ss class

differentiated from one another. The confusion of concepts sometimes hinders

the conscious solution of the problem (for example, a problem about 5-kopek
pieces and 3-kopek pieces in the workbook).
The analysis of concepts that express a quantitative relationship between ob-
jects (fewer than . . . so many times bigger than, etc.) was guided by a great deal
of systematic work by the teacher on these concepts. (I do not have the oppor-
tunity to explain this in more detail here.)
The teacher elaborates proper concepts about quantitative relationships
between objects by visual material. In the analysis of problems she observes
whether the pupils understand the meanings of all these ‘small, but important,
words,’ so that they can imagine clearly the relationships described by the prob-
lem, and she turns to visual aids when difficulties arise.

Emphasis on substantiation
In solving problems, V. D. Petrova demands a substantiation of the method of
solving of a problem from the text. She demands that the pupils point out the
part of the text that determines the operation performed by the pupil. Thus, in
solving the above problem about the aspen and the birch logs, the pupils asked,
‘How many birch logs were brought?’ To answer it they proposed subtracting
six logs from 10 logs. The teacher requested rereading the part of the problem
that stated that subtraction should be carried out (‘six logs fewer’). Through this
type of work the pupils became accustomed to conducting the solution on the
basis of an analysis of the text, thus controlling their choice of operation.
The analysis is subordinate not only to the data contained in the problem but
also to the intermediate data obtained during the solution. In doing the appro-
priate arithmetical operation, the pupils indicate precisely what kind of data
they obtained and connect these data with those contained in the problem.
‘Now we know,’ a pupil said, in solving the problem about the logs, ‘that they
put 4 birch logs into the stove. We also know, that they put in 10 aspen logs . .
Now we can find out. . . .” He continued with the statement and resolution of
the next question.

Emphasis on the question of a problem

V. D. Petrova devoted much attention to ‘work on the question of a problem,’
on the unknown. The pupils isolated and separated the unknown data. The
teacher emphasised that determining the value of the unknown and answering
the question of the problem are the goals of the solution and that there should
be no superfluous operations — all operations should serve the one basic goal of
determining the unknown.
When they found the value of the unknown, the girls explained: ‘We have
solved the problem because we have answered its question. In the question the
following is asked: How many logs in all were put into the stove? We found out
that 14 logs were put into the stove.’

189
Mg pete.” Pry Pe. Ger
isle vispyle Thinking et a7 We ats “7

‘Katya here,’ said the teacher, ‘solved this problem in one , operation: She ae
tracted 6 logs from 10 logs. Did she complete the problem?’
‘No, Katya did not read the question of the problem. She didn’t answer it,’
the children explained.
This kind of work established the purpose of looking for the ankiowiin the
solution and prevents superfluous syntheses.
V. D. Petrova teaches the pupils to ask themselves questions for different un-
known data (‘What can we find out if we know . . .’) to select data for the question
(‘What must we know in order to determine . . .’). Sometimes she asks if they
can immediately, with one operation, find the answer to the problem’s question,
and has them explain why this is impossible. Thus, she includes elements of the
method of analysis, but still does not teach the pupils to conduct the ‘classical’
analysis of problems on their own.
She also teaches them different formulations of questions referring to a single
operation. If one reads: ‘A boy had 20 notebooks and gave half of them to his
sister,’ the following questions could be posed.

1 How many books did he have left?

2 To what is half the books equal?
3 How many notebooks did he give his sister?

The answer to these questions, as the pupils explain, is found in one operation:
20 + 2. This type of work makes the pupils’ thought more flexible; the transition
from one system of connections to another will not be so difficult for them. [. . .]

Emphasis on analysis of errors

V. D. Petrova also trains the pupils to analyse their mistakes, showing that the
basic source of the mistake is a superficial analysis of the text. For example,
they had the problem:

- ‘Twenty birch trees were planted in a park, then 10 more poplars than
birches, and as many linden trees as poplars and birches put together were
planted. How many linden trees were planted?’

Valya S. found how many lindens were planted by adding 20 and 10.
The teacher, in reviewing the solution, asked the girls to indicate where Valya
had gone wrong, and what part of the problem she had ignored (‘10 more poplars
than birches’).
Nina K. solved a problem about nickels. To answer a question about the num-
ber of pennies in a nickel, she wrote the operation thus:

3NX5p

The teacher again demanded that the pupils show why Nina was wrong, what
rule she had forgotten. The teacher requires independence in her pupils’ problem
solving and does not consider homework done unless the girl shows the sheet of
scratch paper on which she solved the problem. The teacher told the girls how

190
 je Rea TeB a, IRA OK. Cred eae ce gs a ae 5 7
Coping with ard Drabien: observations of V. D. Petrova’s class
this pupil solved the problem, and then they all singled out the errors she made
and told why the problem was not solved.
The pupils were gradually trained in controlling the operations they used and
in correcting their mistakes; this training, as we saw, is reflected in their ability
to solve problems.

Emphasis on developing language powers

A person thinks with words. ‘Naked thoughts, free from linguistic material, free
from linguistic “natural material,” do not exist,’ says J. V. Stalin. Developing the
pupils’ speech also involves developing logical thought and increasing the level of
their analytic—synthetic activity.
V. D. Petrova worked very hard to develop the speech powers of her pupils.
She broadened their active vocabulary, including words to signify abstract con-
cepts (weight, quantity, etc.). She constantly required detailed, precise answers,
without extra words, to her questions. By the first half of the year her first-
graders could, without the teacher’s helping questions, transmit the content of a
problem and explain how to solve it.

An individual experiment
At the end of the year an individual experiment with 15 pupils was conducted
(5 having Ss, 5 having 4s, and 5 having 3s in arithmetic). The following problem
was given for independent solution:

‘Forty metres of satin were brought into a store. Half the material was sold
on the first day, and 7 metres less was sold on the second day than on the
first. How many metres of satin were sold on the second day?’

Of the 15 pupils, only one required some help from the experimenter; the rest
solved the problem all by themselves, giving a detailed explanation of the course
of solution. As an example of such a solution and the explanation of this prob-
lem, I introduce the record of Zhenya S. (she had a ‘4’ in arithmetic). After
repeating the text of the problem, Zhenya began its breakdown:
‘We know that 40 metres of material were brought into the store, and we
know that half of the material was sold on the first day, but it is unknown
how many metres were sold on the second day. This we shall have to find out.
In order to find out how many metres were sold on the first day, we must
divide: 40 m + 2 = 20 m. Twenty m of material were sold on the first day.
Now we know that 20 metres were sold in one day, and that 7 m less
were sold on the second day, but it is unknown how many metres were
sold on the second day.
In order to find out how many metres of material were sold on the
second day, we must subtract. 20m —7m=13m. Thirteen metres of
material were sold on the second day.’
Such a detailed, well-founded solution was very typical of the pupils in V. D.
Petrova’s class.

191
 Developing Mathematical Thinking fa ee aly Sie :

The initial knowledge of functional relationships between data was given by

V. D. Petrova in first grade during the solution of simple problems. Later, in
grades 3 and 4, she broadened the scope of the connections to be learned and
achieved a sound mastery of them. She worked hard to decrease the time spent
in translating the concrete data of the problem into more abstract mathematical
concepts.
Thus, in solving quite a complex problem involving finding the difference in
gasoline consumption of two different automobiles, the fourth-grade pupils in-
dicated that they must explain which of the automobiles consumed more gasoline
and by what amount.
‘What shall we do?’ asked the teacher.
‘We should compare the amount of gasoline used by the automobiles. In
order to do this, we must subtract the amount of gasoline consumed by one
automobile from the amount of gasoline consumed by the other, and thus find
the difference between them.’
‘The difference of what?’ The teacher demanded precision.
‘We shall find the difference in gasoline consumption,’ a girl answered.
Thus, the entire course of the solution was traced in an abstract formulation.

Emphasis on alternative solution

V. D. Petrova ordinarily considers and evaluates, from the point of view of their
productiveness, various possible solutions of a single problem and the solution of
problems without using numbers or numerical formulas.
These means of training instill in pupils the ability to plan different courses of
solution of a problem and the ability to choose the most rational of them. This
was very clearly shown [. . .] by fourth-grade pupils in the 172nd School. The
girls planned two or three possible ways to solve a problem and indicated the
best one. All of this shows a high level of analytic—synthetic activity.
Her success in her work was determined, as I have already indicated, by her
entire approach, not just in arithmetic lessons. The ability to think logically, to
reason, to express thoughts precisely and accurately, all of this she taught the
pupils in all the lessons. The methods used by this teacher are described in the
methodological literature. The definite, strictly-thought-out system of using
them was valuable in her work, and as a result, this method was mastered not
only by the best pupils, but by the weaker ones as well, and these became means
- of creative thinking for them. As was indicated above, the fourth-grade pupils of
V. D. Petrova, made very few errors in analysis when they solved a difficult
problem on their own, and when difficulties arose they turned to a repeated
analysis of the text, analysed their reasoning and mistakes. All of this shows the
productiveness of the system described here.
*

192
 ’ oA

18 Learning their tables: a suggested

reorientation
Alistair McIntosh

Source: Mathematics Teaching, vol. 56, pp. 2—5 Autumn 1971.

SRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKXKK
KKK KKKKKKKXKKKKKK

Introduction

In spite of the advent of modern mathematics in all its many-headed, misunder-

stood, mindblocking glory, in the middle of any discussion about primary math-
ematics comes the cri de coeur, ‘and what about learning their tables?’ Hackles
rise amongst the traditionalists; eyebrows rise amongst the moderns. The primary
teacher cries from the bowels of his Nuffield-fed being: ‘Understanding is all:
rote-learning is an abomination.’ ‘Rubbish!’ mutters the secondary teacher from
the ordered chasm of his brain, ‘they don’t realise the pressures we face’ — and
another attempt at primary-secondary liaison falters and dies. ‘Well, we tried,’
says the primary teacher, ‘but they don’t understand.’ ‘Well, we understand’,
says the secondary teacher, ‘but they are trying — very!’

Some assumptions
I want to make some suggestions which I hope may clear the air, suggestions
based on a number of assumptions which I believe would be generally accepted.
The assumptions are these:

1 Both points of view contain a degree of truth, but they are in both cases
presented in too extreme a form. Thus on the one hand we can be tolerably
certain, both from the results of research and from our own individual observ-
ation of children in our classrooms, that children do better what they under-
stand, enjoy it more, and can build more upon it. On thé other hand the bonds
between numbers, whether addition/subtraction bonds or multiplication/division
bonds are essential bricks on which to build, and essential tools with which to
build. For example there is no doubt that number patterns provide a rich, fertile
field of exploration in the junior and lower secondary school; but if these
patterns depend solely on addition and subtraction they are very restricted; if
they are to include patterns involving multiplication and division, then some
immediate recognition of certain ‘table’ facts is necessary.

193

ok
Developing Mathematical Thinking . ask i ho
For example, here is a series of numbers:
02,6, 125 20,30; 42 ae
What is the pattern? Most people I have asked see this in terms of successive
additions of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 . . . What is the 8th number? Easy, add 14, it is 56.
What is the 10th number? Easy, add 16, then 18 . . . 90. What is the 100th
number? Wait a minute, I’m not going to add all those up.
Can you see the pattern in some other way? Think about 42, or 56 or 90.
If we know the multiplication facts, we may re-see the pattern as:

OX 1,1X%2,2X3,3X4,4X5,5X6..
Then the 100th number is easy.
2 These table-facts are only bricks or tools — they are tot an end in themselves.
They are useless except in so far as they are used.
3 It is the facts themselves (3 X 4= 12, 12 + 4 =3, the factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3,
4,6, 12) which are important; the table form (3 X 1=3,3 X 2=6,3X3=9...)
is quite unimportant. We do want children to know these facts, and the inter-
connections between them; we will not mind if they are not learned in table form.
4 The table form of learning these facts in many ways obscures the inter-
connections; at the least, it is not helpful in highlighting these connections.
For example, consider the following statements:
3X4=12
4X 3=12
3X4=4X3
3 is a factor of 12
4 is a factor of 12
12 is a multiple of 3
12 is a multiple of 4
12+4=3
12+3=4
12base 10 = 11 0pase3= 30base4
All these statements are very closely connected, and all are important: but
the table form highlights only the first two statements and ignores or obscures
all the rest.
Other disadvantages of concentration on the table form are:
(a) It obscures the relationship
between multiples of 2, 4 and 8
between multiples of 3, 6 and 9
and between multiples of 5 and 10.
(b) 63 and 64 are, after all, next to each other on the number line, yet they
appear in quite different tables. The connection between 8 X 8 and 7 X 9, as one
instance of the general case x? — 1 = (x + 1) (x — 1) comes,I find, to most
teachers as a complete surprise; and yet the tables conceal many instances of
this general form: 3 and 4, 8 and 9, 15 and 16, 24 and 25, 35 and 36, 48 and 49,
etc.

194
rs si ao sic meaeoepes Learning their tables: a suggested reorientation

(c) Gornmulativity is 4 not made explicit: for example 4 X 7 and 7 X 4 appear in

quite different tables. Of course one points out the connection, but one
shouldn’t have to.
(d) 24 appears in many different tables. In general the table form concentrates
on multiplication and multiples, and is unhelpful about division and factors; and
yet the set of factors of a number is at least as important as the set of multiples
of a number. I have recently asked ten separate groups of primary teachers to
write down (i) the multiples of 3 as far as 24 and (ii) the factors of 24. In every
case part (ii) took twice as long, caused twice the number of worried looks, and
was incorrectly done by most.
(e) The table form makes the 10 times table look easy: it is, of course, easy to
memorise this particular set of facts; but it completely obscures the point that
these facts are one of the corner stones of place value rather than of simple
multiplication. Keeping only to base ten, it does not seem to me that ‘three tens
make thirty’ and ‘ten threes make thirty’ are equally obvious. The first is simple:
the second is not at all so obvious.
(f) The multiples of 11 and 12 are simply not worth the trouble involved. The
11 times table is useless, and the 12 times table is better seen as a question of
long multiplication, particularly as metrication and decimalisation will make
these facts less commonly used.
5 Children learn better by starting with a small collection of things which they
understand and then, when these are familiar, by building on these facts and
extending them, using similar methods. For example larger numbers should be
seen as extensions of smaller numbers which behave in a similar way, just as
negative numbers and rationals are an extension of the natural numbers. The
table form, however, keeps leap-frogging up the number line, and then leaping
back to square one in a manner calculated to bemuse the clearest young mind.
6 Children of primary age need visual or tactual pegs on which to hang abstrac-
tions. Thus numbers in particular, being totally abstract, need some visual or
tactual representation to make them accessible to young children.
7 The reasons why a teacher may wish children to know the multiplication/
division bonds between numbers may well be different from the reasons which
may impel children to want to know them. The teacher’s reasons may be more
remote and long-term; children will need more immediate satisfactions, and
these satisfactions will be more successful if they are intrinsic to the field of
study than rewards/marks/punishments, which are extrinsic, which say in effect,
‘I can’t think of a reason why you should want to know those facts, so I’ll make
you learn them regardless’. Such an attitude is at best an admission of failure; at
worst it is an insult to the child’s ability and desire to learn.
8 A personal belief, but one I know is shared by others: the numbers from 1 to
100 are a much under-used source of excitement for children. The introduction
of place value opens up the possibility (or the threat) of using much larger
numbers; it often tends to obscure the over-riding importance of familiarity with
the smaller numbers. It is, for example, on an investigation of patterns and
connections between these numbers that the generalisations of the algebra

195
‘Developing Mathematical Thinking — .

numbers will be properly based. Too often. the generalisations precede the in-
vestigations; too often the investigations are never undertaken.
For example, the series 0, 2, 6, 12, 20, 30, 42 ... . may be seen by some as
0X1 andbyothersas 0? +0
1x2 eden
2X3 , 2? +2
3X4 37 +3
4X5 47 +4

Clearly these sets of expressions are equivalent, and we can go on to write this
equivalence more neatly asn X (n+ 1) =n? +7.
That is the right order of events:
(a) play with numbers
(b) find some patterns
(c) generalise by algebra.

Some proposals
Now to some concrete proposals, first about restructuring the order in which
these facts should be met by children, then about methods.
My proposal about the order in which children should meet these facts is very
simple: instead of separating the facts into ten subsets — the ten tables — I
suggest that they should be built up in three stages:
Stage 1 — Acquaintance with numbers up to 20 (roughly the infant stage).
Stage 2 — Acquaintance with numbers up to 50 (roughly the lower junior stage).
Stage 3 — Acquaintance with numbers up to 100 (roughly the upper junior stage).

Thus all the following are examples of Stage 1 facts, and all are equally
important:
3x a= 15
12+4=3
2X32 3X2
multiples of4 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
factors of 18 are 1, 2,3,6,9,18
13 is a prime number
The general intention would be that children should initially become friendly
with the numbers up to 20; this familiarity would then be extended to the
numbers up to 50, and finally to 100.
The two main advantages which I see in such a restructuring would be first,
that each stage would build on the previous stage, extending and enlarging while
including it, and second that at any stage teachers and children would have a
coherent set of numbers within which most aspects of number work could be
explored. At present children are more than likely to meet numbers like 27, 40,
even 100 as numbers appearing in tables, before they meet them as numbers
which they can use for addition and subtraction.

196
 Soaps epee PMR tense, pieRte ieseke EN ama ne BRA,
Learning their iy: asuggested reorientation Pia.
>
Methcdolony — the basic. concept of the rectangle
How then could children explore these numbers, bearing in mind that they need
concrete representations of them? My suggestions here are not radically new, but
I do believe that they bring together a number of strands present in number
work but not hitherto unified from the start.
An important starting point is that we are here primarily concerned with
multiplication and division. So long as addition and subtraction are the main
concern, the number line is a useful metaphor. Addition and subtraction can
usefully be seen as moves to the right and left respectively along the number
line. Moreover the number line (or more accurately the free vectors associated
with addition and subtraction) can be made concrete in the form of wooden or
plastic strips — as with Unifix, Cuisenaire, Colour-Factor or Stern materials.
However, when we come to multiplication and division, the use of the
number line tells only half the story. The two operations can be seen as repeated
addition and subtraction (‘so many lots of 3’ or ‘how many threes in . . .”). But
in fact we can see in any classroom that the usual representation of 4 X 3 is not

sy field
dS ey
but

HHH
While up to this point the rods are seen as strips, only incidentally having width
as well as length, children are suddenly assumed to accept that the width, being
one unit, is also important, and the rectangle is introduced as the model.
I suggest that we make quite explicit the implication of this changeover, and
see multiplication as a two-dimensional question — the making of rectangular
arrays — as opposed to addition and subtraction whose analogy is the one-
dimensional idea of length.
Whereas the addition and subtraction bonds will be seen in terms of strips,
the multiplication and division bonds will be seen primarily in terms of
rectangles. This idea is incorporated in the Dienes AEM material, but where this
is used it is not introduced until the age of 9 or 10, and is then introduced in a a
at

rather perfunctory manner at a late stage in the child’s development. It seems so

fundamental and fruitful an idea that it should be introduced at a much earlier
stage.
This, incidentally, would make much more sense of the Cartesian product, in-
troduced to many teachers by the Nuffield S—13 Mathematics Project in a way
calculated to deter them from understanding it. For, in practical terms, the idea
of the Cartesian product is the notion of the rectangle in which both measure-
ments are equals, as opposed to the traditional view of multiplication as
repeated addition on the number line where, for example, in ‘three lots of four’

197
Developing Mathematical Thinking

the ‘three’ and the ‘four’ are two different sorts of numbers. Secondary teachers
will no doubt be aware of the difficulties caused by the idea of multiplication as
repeated addition when fractions are introduced. '
Finally, here are a series of jottings about the rectangular array, which may
suggest activities at various levels.

1 Man seems to like the rectangular array: milk bottled in a crate, windows in
office blocks, floor tiles, banks of switches, pegboard, graph paper, calendars (I
can see at a glance from my calendar for June that 30 is not divisible by 7).
2 Logic blocks:

Triangle Square Circle Oblong

N ©
HN
Yellow

Blue

Four shapes; three colours; twelve pieces.

3 Factors of 6:

OO
O90 “Oy On OROs©)
On@r@
OOO
CY.

0C9O
O00
‘Obviously’ multiplication is commutative.
4 Prime numbers:
OOandd
OO OandOOO0OO00

5 Square numbers:

‘Obviously’ squares are rectangles — special rectangles.

6 Multiples of 3:
and

OOO OOO
O-GOO O00
Q0:O
OOO

198
 ~ rs ee ei SB ae ee ree we 7
NaS AD 48 btme Cg ry inte is IS ¥ ee
ort ea
om ue 2 hide AS pp

Learning their tables: a suggested reorientation

All the possible rectangles up to 6 by 6. Where are the multiples of 4? Where are
the squares?
8 Consolidation again.

Take a piece of squared paper 10 by 10. Place a dot in the top left hand corner
as shown. This will form the top left hand corner of a lot of rectangles which
you can see on the squared paper. Two of these have been outlined on the
diagram. Can you see why 8 and 9 have been written in two of the small
squares? Write a number for the same reason in each of the small squares on
your squared paper.

199
 ORs aA ace ;

9 Anextension to long multiplication: 27X 13000

¢ 27 ie mi: ERn. ot
13 : ESS ; <5 hel .
«81 + rectangle 3X 27 RES ta RT ine EO
270 > rectangle 10 X 27 : ”

a 20 7
o>
aes 40

; 7‘ae

.4 10An extension to fractions.

af —— @ @ CE _ represents4 (the ratio of shaded to
eae the whole)
—— @ @ @ OC tepresents# (the ratio of shaded .
to the whole)
@ @ O represents§X 4, the result of which
@ @O _ isclearly 5 (the ratio of shaded
@eo to the whole). ;

Sere 2X3
i " Clearly 3 X # is the same as 3X4 neo
' / \ :

; (the comparison of two rectangles)

Conclusion.
_ I hope these suggestions are seen to be both intelligible and practical, not as a
radical change suggesting that the facts are unimportant or as a denial of what is
useful in present practice, but as a sensible shift of emphasis which incorporates
____ this important aspect of primary work in a wider and more mathematically
coherent context. [. . .]

iy
ghee
%
ps = ¢ ‘ bs i> yates
Bre toe , } nd a oe te ete es
oe a m, ar Pe We artctoe
 ie ae Sb ee -_? Up vad Aft '
ere a8 hese, Ps ti
fe
oon

19 Taking time out

Daphne Kerslake
S ¢ 8 Nd > = 3 d ct8 o! 8 = =:SS) S =~ 8 3 3 = S we)3 ® : 3 S
=~ Q

Grandmother to 7 year old: ‘Pll buy a watch for your birthday if you learn
to tell the time by then.’
Teacher to student: ‘The children should be able to tell the hours and half-hours,
but they not very good at the quarter-hours yet.’
Teacher to 8 year old: ‘What is the time?’
‘Twenty-five past ten.’
‘Twenty-five what? What is it twenty-five of?’
‘Twenty-five anything, I suppose.’
Why is it that ‘time’ is so difficult to teach? It is the one aspect of mathematics
that is still conventionally taught by rote, and one that causes many children
considerable problems. How often do we see teachers manipulating the hands of
a cardboard or wooden ‘clock’, saying ‘What time is it now?’
‘Half past two.’
‘Good. Now what time is it?’ as she moves the hands.
‘Quarter past ten.’
‘Right. Now you seem to understand.’
Yet the clock on the wall of the classroom is suggesting that it is 11.30. Now
we all like to think of teachers being in control of the situation, but to give the
child the impression that his teacher can actually control the passage of time is
surely going a bit far! Are we also making it difficult for a child to develop a
concept of time, when we use these so-called ‘clocks’, and pages of clock faces
stamped on a page, all recording different times simultaneously?
It is important to realise that ‘telling the time’ is nothing more than a dial-
reading exercise, and is not necessarily related to the concept of time itself. It is
possible to read a dial without having any understanding of what the dial is
measuring. Interpreting a clock face bears the same relation to time as using a
metre rule does to the concept of length, although the clock as a measuring
device is considerably more complex than a rule. It is worth considering clocks
in the context of other dial-reading activities. It is not assumed, for example,
by gas and electricity boards that people in general are capable of reading their

201
ie
i PP
Ee
ee
-
me: ‘
RAPS one 18 Ce eyeMee On das ne a
ne Ps ‘\
oe
yy
at; tena, ey ‘i cy ee me ts “oe 7 +. Goa at
a 7%
hae, *¢
Developing Mathematical Thinking — ee
own meters. If one is out when the meter is to be read, a card is left behind,
not asking one to read the dials, but to draw the position of the hands on a
picture of the set of dials. It is rather like a child telling you that ‘the big hand
is on the seven and the small hand on the five.’ In some cases, one is not asked
to draw a picture of the dials, but to record the digits on either side of the hands.
Yet, although the electricity and gas meters have several dials, numbered in al-
ternate directions, they are in many ways much easier to read than clock dials.
Each dial has only one hand, and has a set of digits O—9 only. Compare this
with the two hands of a clock, moving at different rates over a single scale with
digits 1—12, which have to be interpreted differently, depending on the size of
the hand. So a hand pointing at a seven may call for the response ‘seven’, or
‘twenty-five to’ or ‘thirty-five past’. A hand pointing to a nine is sometimes to be
interpreted as ‘quarter-to’ in addition to ‘nine’, ‘forty-five’, ‘fifteen’. To add to
the confusion, some watches have no digits at all marked on them, and the child
will see clocks with Roman numerals, twenty-four hour clocks and digital clocks.
With all this, 8 year olds are expected to be able to tell the time, while adults
are not expected to read meters. Indeed, if the reading of meters is taught in
school at all, then it is often done in secondary schools, perhaps in the third
or fourth year, or as part of a general sixth form course! A good argument could
be made for removing ‘telling the time’ from the primary school curriculum, and
treating clocks as one of a set of dials, including speedometers, fuel guages and
so on in the secondary school. But unfortunately this argument is not socially
very acceptable, least of all to parents who like to be able to set time limits on
children’s movements, and to give them times to be home by, for example.
There is however a great deal that can be done by small children that will
help to develop their concept of time. Time is a difficult experience to describe.
The notion of it being continuous, extending infinitely into past and future, is a
disturbing one, and the dictionary definitions of time as ‘a limited stretch of
continued existence’ or ‘the interval between two events’ do not really make the
idea much easier. Edmund Leach, addressing the Second International Congress
on Mathematical Education in Exeter, suggested that time experience appears
in six quite separable forms.
1 time as alternation,
time as sequence,
time as distance,
time as delimitation,
time as repetition,
Hh
NN
WN time as ageing.

Some of these aspects can certainly provide practical activities that can be made
use of in the classroom. Indeed the routine of a school day can lead to the idea
of alternation — week followed by weekend followed by week, etc. — and of
repetition, when the class has P.E. every Tuesday afternoon, for example. The
passage of time as an ageing process can be seen in its effect on growing things
kept in the classroom, weekly records on a graph of a growing plant, perhaps,

202

<
 Taking time out
or termly ones of the height of the children themselves. Activities involving
timing events give the idea of delimitation, with each event having a beginning
and an end. So, using arbitrary units of time, such as the time taken by water
to flow from a can with a hole in its bottom, or the time it takes the can to sink
when it is placed in water or the time it takes the sand to flow from one end of
an eggtimer, we can time any events we choose, the time it takes to walk upstairs
or downstairs, run along the corridor, walk backwards along it, count up to one
hundred, or whatever. Thus we can emphasise the passage of time and the
beginning and end of the activity defining an interval of time. We could use
clockwork devices, and find the time they take to run down, or combine ideas of
time and distance in finding how long it takes for a model car or train to travel
a fixed distance. The related procedure of finding how far something travels in a
fixed time, together with that of finding how long it takes to travel a fixed dis-
tance, will prepare the way for an understanding of speed. A graph of the time
taken by children to travel a fixed distance is also interesting in that the child
who ‘wins’ the ‘race’ has the shortest time, and therefore the smallest column on
the graph, a counterexample to the common feeling that ‘more is best’. Music,
with its different lengths of notes and repeated rhythms, also gives valuable time
experiences. The sound when a chime bar is struck will fade with time, a plucked
string can be seen to vibrate for a time; some music is played fast, some slowly,
and we may move quickly or slowly in response to it.
A young child entering school often has a very sketchy idea of time. Words
like ‘yesterday’, ‘last week,’ ‘tomorrow’ (which is often used by teachers and
parents as a delaying tactic, and is synonymous with ‘never’!) are often not yet
understood. Certainly the idea of ‘last year’ is likely to be very hazy. It is quite
common to find a child asking half way through the morning if it is ‘going-home
time’, or whether they have had dinner yet. It has to be explained that Saturdays
and Sundays are not school days. Research suggests that it is reasonable to expect
understanding of the child’s own age, of morning and of afternoon by the age of
six, and weeks, months and years by the age of eight, although we have all
probably suffered from a grossly exaggerated view of our own age by a child,
such as when we are asked if we can remember seeing Queen Elizabeth the First!
We are also told that only about two thirds of all 8 year olds realise that it is
the same day of the week in a nearby town. Yet in two or three years at school
we expect children to be able to mark off the passage of time in hours, half-
hours and quarter-hours. An hour, the first unit conventionally dealt with, is a
difficult unit of time for a child, being too long for one span of attention,
whereas the seconds that a stop-clock measures are much more realistic. A child
can measure events in seconds and minutes much more easily; he can concentrate
his attention for that period. Using hours first is a bit like expecting a child to
measure in kilometres before any experience of metres or centimetres. Indeed,
how well are we able to estimate the period of an hour? We all know of hours
that seem to pass like minutes, and hours that seem to go on for days! This is
very like the young child’s view of ‘five’, as shown by Piaget, that spread out can
seem to be more than five, and pushed together can seem less. Perhaps we are

203
 nye ‘fy i oe eS OP IST ae Bes he Se
De On Re Cr 57 ies ¥ io eenoe

fin Ree iatneteen Thinking

none of us at Piaget’s stage of conservation as far as our concept of time is

concerned. .
The child’s concept of time, then, is more likely to be developed by the
‘timing’ activities mentioned earlier, than by concentrating on ‘telling the time’,
and likely to be harmed by wooden or cardboard ‘clocks’ and rows of clock
faces stamped on exercise books’ However, it is clearly important for a child to
learn to tell the time in the conventional sense. Now, instead of measuring the
passage of time, one is trying to pinpoint a particular moment of time. The clock,
of course, since it has to measure something which stretches infinitely from the
past to the future, is constructed so that when it arrives at the end of its scale,
at 12 o’clock, it goes back to the beginning and starts again. And of course,
by the time that it it 5 o’clock, the seconds have ticked by, and our reading is
no longer accurate. At least when a child measures a length, he can takes his
time over interpreting the ruler, and can check his measurement as many times
as he likes. A child is more likely to learn to tell the time when he has a need to
do so, and the first times to be important to him are the times of his favourite
television programmes, the end of the school morning or afternoon, his bed-time,
the time he gets up, and so on. These times may well seem to be more difficult,
as they are more likely to be awkward times like 5.10, 6.40, 7.35, 12.30 and
3.45 than the hours that we tend to teach first, followed by half-hours then
- quarters. But children by no means always learn in the same nice tidy ways that
we as adults think might be best for them. We no longer teach all about the num-
ber 1 first, then move to the number 2 and so on, and we certainly do not expect
them to learn all the two letter words like ‘at’, ‘as’, ‘on’, ‘of’, ‘to’, ‘by’, ‘an
before they learn to recognise three- and four-letter words. Children often learn
in a random fashion, although we may prefer to present them with logical
structures.
We fall back on encouraging learning by rote when the ideas we are trying to
teach are too difficult for the learner. If we are prepared to spend more time
on developing the concept of time and less on ‘telling’ it, we may make things
easier for ourselves and the children.

204
20 Teaching algebra
David Hale

Source: specially written for this volume

Introduction

Until fairly recent times only the abler child was expected to study algebra as
part of his or her mathematical education and it is probably still true that the
average man (or woman) in the street regards anyone who can ‘do algebra’ as
rather unusual, perhaps slightly odd. When confronting the challenge of giving
all pupils an opportunity to learn some algebra, we do well to remember that
past generations of educators have regarded algebra for all as either an irrelevant
slogan or too difficult a task to attempt. There is little doubt that, with hind-
sight, these views were unduly pessimistic and defeatist. But it can also reason-
ably be argued that algebra, perhaps more than any other area of mathematics,
needs sensitive and imaginative treatment by the teacher if it is to have mean-
ing and interest for all pupils.
If there is general agreement that one of the contemporary aims of math-
ematics teaching should be to provide most children with an understanding of,
and a reasonable facility in, the application of algebraic methods, then there is
also some obligation to ask to what extent we are succeeding in this aim; is the
effort being made by teachers and pupils producing a reasonable pay-off? An
objective reading of HMSO’s report on secondary education (1979) and their
report of 1980 would seem to suggest that for many 15 to 16 year olds, perhaps
a majority, the outcome of their algebraic efforts is disappointing; they have
little confidence in applying the algebraic procedures which have been practised
regularly over the preceding three years or so.
There are several possible responses to this apparent lack of success:
1 abandon the aim of algebra for all,
2 practise the procedures (collecting like terms, removing brackets, etc.) even
more assiduously than before,
3 plan the early stages of learning algebra in such a way that later developments
are based on a sound basis of understanding and experience.
This article takes the view that the first response is unacceptable — a considerable

205
 SL e " ‘en ae bi eS Ae ne - ey ei be os eye ‘
io oe
Daé . A > om hn vine 2 cas ey Pt. ee foe %
2 5 K? ee - rrOe é Se a ad sity PMs d*
7] # =y pe Aer tee

Developing Mathematical Thinking |

educational gain would be lost — and that the second response has and is, being ~
tried with little sign of benefit to the majority of pupils. It is the third option
which may provide the most hopeful means of improving the quality of alge-
braic performance in the classroom. The article suggests what might be involved ~
in developing a sound basis of understanding and experience in algebra.

How algebra begins in many classrooms today

Apart from a fortunate minority, adults tend to remember their first encounter
with algebra at school as a sudden and traumatic experience which left a lasting
and not always happy impression. In all probability the encounter was with the
manipulation of algebraic symbols rather than with the notion of algebra as a
generalised version of previous work in arithmetic. The result of such initiation
was often counter-productive: many adults will say that they never did under-
stand what was happening once letters, as well as numbers, started to appear
on the blackboard.
Have recent generations of pupils had better algebraic experiences? Clearly
there have been significant gains, not least in pupils’ attitudes towards math-
ematics in general and algebra in particular. But the impression persists that
pupils are introduced to algebra today in ways that have changed little over the
years, and as a result may be as mystified as their parents were about the letters
which suddenly appear on the blackboard and in the text book. The 11 year old
pupil may still be solving simple linear equations by applying rules in an un-
thinking way and neglecting to check the reasonableness of answers.
Consider an equation as 2x —3=9 (or the form 2X 0—3=9). Some
11 year olds will interpret it as: ‘I think of a number, double it and subtract
three. The answer I get is nine’. This interpretation, followed by a trial-and-error
method of solution might provide a surer basis for later work than the early
introduction of rules for solution of the ‘change side, change sign’ variety.
On another occasion the children might be working through an exercise on
the collection of like terms. They may be working on the expression

3a + 2b — 3a — 4b + Sb
and, remembering the advice ‘you can’t add apples and bananas’.
(It is interesting to note that this statement can be criticised on at least three
counts — mathematically, pedagogically, and as a matter of common sense. How
many pupils believe, as a result, that algebra is a strange game played with the
initial letters of nouns?)
Or again, the exercise may be concerned with substitution but it is unlikely
that the expressions involved will have any tangible meaning: at best the pupil
demonstrates that he or she can follow an abstract procedure successfully.
They may be told that in a given sequence the nth term = 4n + 4 and asked
to find the nth term when n = 100 by substitution. This formula could relate to
the length of wood needed to surround a square picture whose side is n cm long
and might conceivably be used by professional picture framers to price the

206
 we Oh oP Oe aoe oo te a > ete 4 >, ae e ee, Wise! tae ls
‘ x
ras Vy; x w

Teaching algebra
frames they make for customers. Knowing this would provide a tangible reason
for the existence and use of such a formula. Pe
There is another more subtle and important sense in which children’s intro-
duction to algebra may be unsatisfactory. If algebra is seen by the pupil as a
completely new topic, unrelated to any previous mathematical knowledge or
experience he or she has acquired, then it will not be surprising if lack of con-
fidence and understanding soon lead to disenchantment and frustration. This is
precisely how many pupils appear to see the topic: with no roots and no context.

What can be done to give algebra a meaningful context

It is important to recognise that the roots of algebra lie in the arithmetic of
primary and first schools. There is a crucial role for teachers in providing clear
links with past work; this cannot be overemphasised. The examples in the pre-
vious section also suggest that the teaching of algebra calls for a resourceful and
imaginative approach and it may be helpful to take these points a little further
and try to indicate some teaching approaches which may particularly facilitate
pupils’ learning.
Number work which involves recognising, describing or extending patterns
has considerable value as a precursor to formal algebra. For instance, the teacher
who helps children to notice the patterns in number as they learn their element-
ary number bonds is, at the same time, laying the foundations of algebra which
will then leave links with their early experience. Whilst emphasising that import-
ant foundations for algebra need to be laid before the pupil reaches the second-
ary stage, it is not being suggested here that an introduction to algebraic symbol-
ism is necessarily appropriate — that will depend on the judgement of the primary
school teacher.
Personal experience as well as research evidence indicates that we all need
tangible assistance in moving towards the acquisition of abstract notions such
as that of generalisation, a key concept of algebra. The teacher who devises
appropriate class and group activities involving the use of concrete materials —
cubes, matchsticks, squared paper, etc. — is giving pupils vital reference points
for later work of a more abstract nature. Teachers can refer children to earlier
apparatus-based activities which all embody the same mathematical concepts and
help them to extract what is the same about all of them. The resulting abstraction
involves children in generalising their experiences, thereby giving them a grasp of
this fundamental algebraic idea. In the primary stages this will usually involve
verbal statements, but the principle is precisely the same as the more sophisticated
processes using letters and numbers developed later in the middle and secondary
levels. It may not be sufficiently realised, though, that the use of such materials
can profitably extend into the secondary school. As algebraic work progresses
and the use of symbols increases the need to give an understandable context
persists though this may now be done by reference to everyday situations in
which formulae or expressions arise rather than the use of concrete objects
themselves.

207
 Cok Wied

Developing Mathematical Thinking

One such example is the not very well-known formula:

72
pene
This gives the time, d years, in which prices will double given an annual infla-
tion rate of r per cent. Thus if inflation runs at 12% per annum, prices will
double about every 6 years.
If it is important for the teacher to devise appropriate activities using a range
of ideas and materials, then his or her role as manager and director of the acti-
vities in the classroom is crucial. The task is complex and involves ensuring that
there is sufficient time for class or group discussions. It is easy to underestimate
_ how long pupils will need first to collect their thoughts into a sufficiently ordered
form and then to express them in a coherent way; any attempt to rush this pro-
cess will almost certainly be self-defeating. The value of pupils communicating
orally their tentative generalisations in situations such as the following match-
stick square example cannot be over stressed.

matchstick squares

ip <(allt)
1 square
ab ala 2 squares 3 squares
4 matches 7 matches 10 matches ?

Until a child has attempted to express in simple everyday language how the
number of matchsticks is related to the number of squares, it is unlikely that
the use of algebraic symbolism will serve a useful purpose, indeed it may inhibit
future development by introducing a degree of abstraction for which the pupil
is not ready.
In the type of activity just referred to, the nature and timing of the teacher’s
intervention is all important. On the one hand he or she will want pupils to make
the verbal generalisation about numbers of matches and squares for themselves,
on the other hand there will be some, perhaps the majority, who need various
degrees of guidance if they are to be successful within a reasonable time. The pro-
fessional skill involved in handling such a situation is of a high order: pupils who
make the generalisation quickly will need further challenge and stimulus, others
will require patient and positive encouragement if they are to reach their goal.

Concluding comments
The need for pupils to play an active part in learning algebra has long been re-
cognised but not always practised.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the pupil will benefit more from
the invention and interpretation of formulae than from their application,
since the latter process may easily be and remain merely mechanical.
(Senior School Mathematics)

208
 oe esa

1 The early work should develop naturally from previous arithmetical experi- s
, ence and there should be ample time for discussion leading to the expression of
generalisations in simple everyday language.
2 Subsequent work should not be obsessively concerned with symbol manipu- a
lation for its own sake; techniques should be learned and practised only in so far nt
as they will be needed to solve problems which are seen to be interesting (as in o q
the case of some recreational puzzles) or relevant (‘real life’ avon oe for nay
example). “3 4
The illustrations given in this article are intended to suggest how these conditions .
might be met in the classroom. Ox

References -
Aspects of Secondary Education in England, HMSO, 1979. a pe:
Mathematical development: Secondary Survey Report No. 1, HMSO, 1980. ‘ A
Senior School Mathematics: Board of Education, HMSO, 1935. a

oe

. i
ee
1
hak .a “e

M48
= es

‘ n ;
» hn

we ;

7 ees

; 209". ae
Y= s
21 A structural approach to primary
school geometry
David Fielker
Source: Mathematics Teaching vol. 63, pp. 12—17, June 1973.

If one takes a cynical view of primary-school geometry today — and I have met
many teachers who do — then one could very well dismiss it as a series of party
tricks. One dabbles in curve-stitching, symmetry, tessellations and a few topol-
ogical topics, all of which may be a lot of fun, and generally recognisable perhaps
as geometry, but where does it all fit in?
Everybody does curve-stitching, from the age of five up to fifteen in fact, and
they all seer to get the same out of it. The sole justification seems to be a
demonstration that curves can be produced from straight lines. The rest is art
or design.
Symmetry usually involves a look at butterflies and buildings, and at Christ-
mas the windows of any primary school are decorated with symmetrical Christmas
trees and snowflakes (the latter usually octagonal rather than hexagonal!) —
which seems to be more Christmas decoration than mathematics.
Most primary pupils now study something we call ‘shape’. This means that
they can recognise a square, rectangle, triangle or circle, and perhaps a hexagon;
it depends which logical blocks you use! But too many infant classrooms have a
chart on the wall saying ‘these are triangles’ and showing lots of coloured triangles,
all equilateral and all with a horizontal base, so that the children do not recognise
a triangle which is a different shape or a different way up. And too many pupils
use incorrectly the words ‘rectangle’ and ‘oblong’.
These are details, it is true, but primary school geometry, free from a practical
introduction to Euclid and from the numerical aspects of length, area and
volume, seems to be nothing but detail, a patchy set of enjoyable experiences
with no structure to hold them together other than the teacher’s intuitive feeling
that it is all part of mathematics.
We seem to have the topic of number sorted out. We realise the psychological
and pedagogical implications of one-to-one correspondence and conservation,
we know the difference between ordinal and cardinal number, and we recognise
that there are concepts of natural number and place value, etc. We have some
order in which to develop these ideas.

210
 po? a
ale
sites Ny ahaa ner4Ea en: eid) CL
re. ees Tet? SS
etee ee ek,
t
4

par |structural Cron to primary schoo! eae

It may be more helpful to analyse number from a more mathematical point

of view. We have, for instance, different sets of numbers, whole numbers, frac-
tions, and later positive and negative integers, and within these we have subsets
like even or odd numbers, square numbers and multiples of three. Then we do
things with numbers, usually the ‘four rules’, addition, subtraction, multipli-
cation and division. These are ways of taking two numbers and combining them
to produce a third number, and these are called operations.
Less obvious is the emphasis we put on relations between numbers. We begin
with relations like ‘bigger than’ and ‘smaller than’, which we apply to things
other than numbers, and progress to more sophisticated relations like ‘is double’,
‘is the square of, or ‘is divisible by’.
If we isolate the structure of the number situation then we have the ideas on
which all mathematical structures are based. We have sets (in this case sets of
numbers); we have operations on these sets, i.e. ways of combining two members
of a set to produce a third; and we have relations between members of a set. (If
you want to get more abstract than this then you can have sets of relations and
operations on these and .. .).
Now if we want to think in a structural way about geometry, let’s take these
three ideas. In geometry we have sets of things, and in fact we have more choice
than we do in arithmetic. Let’s explore operations on these sets, that is, ways of
combining two geometric entities to produce a geometric entity, and relations
between these entities. There will probably be a difference in emphasis, because
usually in the primary school one is concerned with operations on numbers. (I
am not sure if this is a good thing, and it might be an idea if we thought more
about relations between numbers instead of worrying so much about the four
tules.) Perhaps the emphasis in geometry is on relations, but we shall see; because
thinking about the whole structure in any branch of mathematics usually opens
up more possibilities.
Now what sort of geometric entities can we deal with?
Take a straight line.

This is not much on its own, so take another straight line.

We don’t get much out of combining the two straight lines, so let’s explore
relations between them. (The pupils should tackle all these problems with
shapes drawn on tracing paper or acetate sheet.) If Imove one of them I can per-
ceive a relation which changes, the angle between them. Can we think of angle
as a relation between two straight lines? In fact, whichever way you teach the

211
 OP pr Tepe Anes me
4

Developing Mathematical Thinking

idea of angle it amounts to this. And there are some particular cases of this
|
relation, like ‘perpendicular’

or ‘paralle?’.

aid a
Yet how often are these two relations taught quite separately from the idea of
angle? The structural approach is unifying — these are all relations between
straight lines. Furthermore the relation ‘perpendicular’ can be freed from ‘hori-
zontal’ and ‘vertical’. (Are these relations, and where do they fit in?)
One consequence of thinking structurally is that we can borrow structural
ideas from other branches of mathematics. We know that if 3 is bigger than 2,
and 2 is bigger than 1, then 3 is bigger than 1; and we can solve those old 11+
riddles about Bill being older than Charlie and Charlie being older than Alfred.
Consider three parallel lines, A, B and C

&

= eae
‘A is parallel to B and B to C’ the class of 11 year olds told me.
‘Then A is parallel to C’ I said, without thinking.
‘No,’ they said!
‘Why not?’
‘Because B is in the way!’

212
 In fact, I can make a whole set of squares, and can specify the relation between —
the right angles to ensure this. I can make a set of rectangles,

‘ Pe
with similar considerations; or a set of kites;
;
7

or a more general By of quadrilaterals (all with a particular property that willups

more evident to the mathematician— but this need not concern us). ode
Take a set of parallel lines. (This now becomes a member of a set — a set of
parallels.) Combine this with another set of parallel lines. '
 = 2a _| <a oil vi" tia ae, ee

According to the relation between the two sets (if you can bear in mind which
are sets and which sets are members — you see how complex the situation can be
if you wantit to!) the shapes that appear will be different rhombuses (‘diamonds’
is such an ambiguous word), and just as ‘perpendicular’ was a particular angle
relation so the square is seen as a particular member of the set of rhombuses. In
the same way, if the distances between one set of parallel lines are different from
those of the other, a tessellation of parallelograms is produced and the rectangle
is seen as a particular parallelogram. Note also how the relation between the two
sets of lines tells you something about the angle properties of a parallelogram.
Now we can perhaps achieve something more fruitful with circles than some
nomenclature and an idea about 7. Consider possible relations between a circle
and a straight line

and between two circles.

Oe
Oe
OQ
Q
©
214
 DON ot eS ee ee EP |
Weegee Mito Seo Ras The a eS

A structural approach to primary school geometry

The idea of tangency becomes a simple one, and so does the idea of a common
tangent.

cee

Perhaps the ultimate problem for bright juniors is: how many distinct ways can
you arrange three different circles?
Pupils can experiment with cardboard discs to find ways of arranging sets of
circles so that they touch. What happens if you draw in some common tangents?

A related set of problems is due to Colin Banwell. Can you arrange sets of circles
so that each touches 2 others; 3 others; 4 others; etc.? How many distinct
arrangements are there each time?
We seem to have done quite a lot without saying very much about shape. Our
geometrical entities have been straight lines or circles which are simpler than
polygons, but polygons have been produced by combining them, that is operat-
ing on them.
Sets of shapes can be sorted into sets, remembering that younger children in
particular may not choose the attributes that seem obvious to us (see ‘Sets for
Squares’ in Mathematical Teaching, no. 61). But in their continual classification
pupils will appreciate relations like reflection, rotation, congruence and similarity,
and symmetry in particular will appear as a relation between a shape and itself.
Geometrical shapes, a set of wooden shapes produced by School Utilities,
is particularly interesting for the opportunities it provides for operation on
shapes. For instance, two right-angled triangles will combine to give a rectangle.

215
 pe Gerais it ee 3 ee i
J
EE sic
ees Tae
oe eel
PM 0hAn . a
es
- ed
ee
¥
r

Developing Mathematical Thinking = =

This raises problems like: what other shapes can be made from the two triangles? i
What shapes can be made from two isosceles right-angled triangles?

ve
‘

What other shapes will combine to give a rectangle, or a square?

This last question is rather like following sums (3 + 7 = ?, 4 + 6 = ?) with the
question: what can you add together to make 10? The ‘story of ten’ becomes
‘the story of the rectangle’. In other words, the operation of combination be-
comes the inverse one of dissection. As well as asking what shapes fitted together
will make,we can ask what shapes taken apart will make. Both activities are em-
bodied in the well-known tangram, for instance, another geometrical toy that we
can now fit into the structure.
There is a connection here with simple fractions, which need not worry us
too much, but it reminds me of Derick Last’s stimulating film loop Let’s Take
Half, Rank, which suggests a variety of dissections of a square. Other ideas
appeared in ‘Dissections on a Geoboard’ in Mathematics Teaching, no. 61.
Tessellations, too, can be seen as combinations of shapes, taken many at a
time instead of just two, in the same way as 2 + 2 can be extended to2+2+2...
Tessellation is the geometric analogue of multiplication!
We need not go quite as far as this. There are some interesting duplication (or
replication) problems in which a shape becomes enlarged by being combined
with itself or with other shapes.

Both tangrams and polyominoes provide some well-known puzzles.

We can become too obsessed with the non-overlapping juxtaposition of shapes
typified by polyominoes. Take some clear plastic polygons like Geometric
Shapes (Taskmaster) and what pupil will not be tempted to put one square on
top of the other?

216
 i: oe eee or 2 Re heet ah1 Ps of e erty
. iar Ay 7 ee , Ses mn ee at
= a re Ko ad Kees ¥ f '
$01 ne ee a ei e "ys

A structural approach to primary school geometry

You can pat him on the head and say, ‘That’s very nice. Now get on with what I
have asked you to do’! Or you can base a whole lesson on a discussion of what
he has produced. (How many sides has it, 8 or 16? What will other polygons
produce? When is the octagon regular?) One problem is to find out what else
can be produced from the intersection of the two squares. By just using a right
angle of each we can produce the quadrilaterals discussed earlier. Can you pro-
duce a pentagon, a hexagon or a heptagon? For each set of polygons, what is
special about them?
All these examples do not provide a syllabus for primary school geometry.
Structure is not a syllabus, although it may help you to put a syllabus together.
And there is no reason why you should not continue to teach geometry in bits
and pieces. The question ‘Where does it all fit in?’ is asked by teachers, not by
pupils. The structure gives the teacher a mathematical frame of reference, and
therefore some coherence for the teacher to the activities given to the pupils.
The pupils do not worry about the lack of coherence. As long as they are
having fun with the activity and getting something out of it they will not mind
what they do. They do not want a structure yet. They will understand structure
later, when they are at the top of the secondary school, or perhaps not until
they teach mathematics!
Perhaps even for the primary teacher the structure is not of first importance.
What is important is what activities to give the pupils. The advantage of the
structure is that when you begin to see where things fit in you also see where the
gaps are. If you know where a particular activity fits into the structure you can
then examine the structure for other activities, and for problems that the pupils
can solve.
For one of the barren aspects of primary school geometry is that so much of
it concerns the formation of concepts about space and the mere observation of
geometrical entities in space. We look round the room and observe rectangles,
or look at leaves and observe symmetry. In arithmetic we pose problems and
encourage pupils to think about solutions (though that may be debatable). This
is not so in geometry, which tends at primary level to be all observation and no
problems. Structure provides the problems as well as the activities.
And it makes you feel better about the party tricks.

217
22 From edges to solids
Marie Kuper and Marion Walter
fie
aaDi
e
ee
ee
PeT
ond
Source: Mathematics Teaching, vol. 74, March 1976.

e
a

Choose three numbers, for example, 3, 5, 8. Draw and cut out all possible
rectangles using any of these numbers as the lengths of the sides.
_ Sometimes, when they begin, children will say that they cannot make a e
eae—

rectangle out of only three lengths or sides, so you need to explain that they
are allowed to use a length more than once. Some children think that squares
are not rectangles, and this confusion affords a good opportunity for discussion.
Once the children get going, they soon find all six rectangles.
We have then provided each small group of children with about fifteen
rectangles of each type. One does not need quite that many cut-outs but it
is useful for the children to have more than they really need. Now ask each
group to make all possible different boxes with these rectangles. Do not, at
this point, explain what you mean by ‘different’. You may want to ask the
children to guess in advance how many different boxes there will be. Even e
a.

adults do not always come ‘close’ in their guesses.

It is interesting to watch children (and adults!) make the boxes. Some do it
7
by laying out the nets of the boxes and then sticking the pieces together. Others
hold up the pieces in their final positions and stick them piece by piece. Com- 7

binations that do not work are often tried.

When the boxes have been made, you can ask them to check that no two
boxes are the same shape.

218
 From edges to solids

Children can then compare their collections and reassure themselves that they
have all ten possibilities.
A challenging problem now is to order the boxes by eye océeine to volume.
Try this yourself first! Let the children label and list the boxes in order of their
guesses and only then let them calculate the volume of the boxes. When they
have completed a table they may be surprised!
Table 7

Box Volume

A SNS 27
B 3, 3,5 45
C Some
D :
E

J 8, 8,8 512

One may try other number triples as starting points. Arranging the boxes by
eye may then be more (or less) difficult.
You can suggest a variety of games to give children a better ‘feel’ for the
differently shaped boxes. Ask two or more children to play together. One
child closes his eyes, while the other hides a box; then the first child tries to
find which one was hidden. This is not so easy.
Another game is based on arranging the boxes in sets. One child groups the
boxes into two or more sets, according to a rule of his own. The other child,
or children, try to guess the rule the first one used. Among classifications that
children have chosen in this game are:
1 those with square faces, those without,
2 those that are cubes, those that are non-cubes;
3 those with some 3 cm edges, those without any 3 cm edges. (They may say,
‘Those that are flat and those that are not’.)
Of course, you could encourage them to find non-empty intersections if these
are not suggested by the children.
It is not impossible for even young children to make the following table.
They can find the necessary information by counting.
Table 2

No. of edge Possible no. Possible no. of Total

lengths of squares rectangles
(non-squares)

1 1 0 1
2 2 1 a
3 3 3 6
4 4 6 10

219
\Developing ethene nea Thinking —
They can examine the table for number patterns ad eiabe even find the
general rule. We shall discuss this activity more fully later. .
If you arrange the boxes in order of increasing volume, will they also eiin
order of increasing surface area? What about the sums of the edge lengths?
Are they in the same order? How is this related to the volume of the box?
Incidentally, even children who have not learned to calculate volume can
compare volumes by filling the boxes with small beans (then counting or weight-
ing them), or packing them tightly with unit cubes. While trying to fill a box
with cubes a ten-year-old realised very quickly that she would not have to
complete filling the box but needed only to do the following,

ee
e
eas
e

and she did the rest by multiplying.

If you provide one set of well-made boxes then the volumes can be found
with sand or even water. Graph paper can be used to compare surface areas, by
counting squares. Do not attempt to get the children to make well finished
boxes at this stage. If they need a well-made set of boxes then give them a pre-
pared set. It is important however, that the accuracy of building does not
distract them while they are finding out how many boxes it is possible to make.
With older children we can generalise the above questions to any number of
different lengths.
Given four lengths, such as 2, 3, 5 and 8, there are at least two ways in which
a pupil can tackle the problem of how many rectangles and boxes there are.
One way is to draw and build and then count. Comparison by the pupils will
help to eliminate duplicates and find any missing ones. Another method is to
find a systematic way to tabulate the rectangles and boxes. The problem can
also be solved using combinatorial theory.
Let us first look at the specific case of only three lengths, such as 3, 5 and 8.
For a rectangle of sides a and b we can first choose a as 3. Then b will be 3,
5 or 8 giving three different rectangles. Taking a as 5 we can get a new rectangle
when b is 5 or 8. Finally, if a is 8, there is only the 8 by 8 square. In all we have

220
 From edges to solids
S241 46
different rectangles. By similar arguments one can find the number of rectangles,
given 4, 5, 6, .. ., n different edge lengths. Now the pupils are ready to find
the number of different boxes for a given value of n by working with edges and
enumerating all possibilities without duplicates.
Another method is to consider rectangles rather than edges and enumerate
how many ways they can be put together.

Table 3

No. of No. of No. of

edge lengths rectangles boxes
(column 7) (column 2) (column 3)

1 1 1
2. 3 4
3 6 10
4 10 20

We can see some number patterns in this table. For example, the number of
rectangles increases regularly, i.e. the differences are in arithmetic progression.
The first differences in column 3 are the same numbers as in column 2. This
pattern helps us to generalise for the case when the number of different edge
lengths is n. By examining the table, pupils can notice that for the general case
the number of rectangles will be
n(n
+ 1)
2

The number of boxes with n different edge lengths is more difficult to calculate.
The students can certainly notice that the nth entry in column 3 is the sum of
all possible rectangles up to n, i.e., the sum of the numbers in column 2.
One can also compute the number of rectangles starting with n edges by
first looking at the non-square rectangles. There are

n\ _ n@—1)
i ane
rectangles of that type. To this we must add the number of squares, which is
of course n, so for n different edge lengths, we can make
a S pet D
2 4Bi

different rectangles.
To find the total number of boxes, we first compute the number of boxes
with no square sides. This is
(5)_ a(n—1)n—2)
a 193
221
 ae ‘x = og fai fetaeResheea are Be Ce
me # : isn
<9e Z 4 . » * Pore

yc Mathematical Thinking
For the number of boxes with two square faces we are free to choose Say two
lengths, that is the length of the side of the square and the length of the third ©
edge. For each choice of a and b we get two different boxes, namely a X a X b ;
andaXbXb. ;
n
:
Thus we must multiply 9. by 2.
There are n solids all of whose faces are squares, i.e. the cubes. Obviously
|
it is not possible to make boxes with four or with an odd number of square
sides, so our count is complete. In all we have
n(n — 1)(n
— 2) 4 2nn—1) ie
ta3 1.2
_reer
nn+1)(n+
eeaIne2)

different boxes. This result is equal to

se m(m +1)
i 2
Notice that the number of boxes without square faces is
n(n — 1)(n —2)
6
Investigation of this question could be an interesting exercise for younger
children and they could find the result inductively.
After we had built a set of ten boxes using edge lengths 2, 3 and 5, we our-
selves tried to arrange them in order of volume by eye. We found that several
pairs of boxes were rather difficult to put in the correct order. Both children
and adults found it an enjoyable and surprisingly challenging exercise.
We wanted to investigate this situation further and see if it was possible
to find a way to predict the ‘dangerous’ boxes, for this and other sets of num-
bers. We decided to arrange the boxes in a systematic order and arbitrarily chose
the order shown. We labelled them A to J and repeated the calculations for a
second set of a, b, c, the edge lengths, labelling these boxes A’ to J’. The results
for our two sets of values are shown below.
Table 4
Boxes Edge Volume Boxes Edge Volume
lengths lengths
3, 5,8 PT 8 (|
A Sys 27 A’ Bla? deh? 8
B 3,3,0 45 B’ Ze ane. 28
Cc 3,3,8 72 C' Ovi nae esle 44
D 3,5,5 75 D’ 2, Ge 98
= 3,5,8 120 E' 2 LENA 154
|= 3,8,8 192 F’ 201711 242
G 5, 5,5 125 G' al pt | 343
H 5,5,8 200 H’ Tarde ta 539
| 5,5,8 320 I 7,11, 11 847
J 8, 8,8 - 512 iy 11,11, 11 1331

wae
werenot arranged in Winds orscading yeaihie: sll the seeded set on to y ")
were. The pairs of boxes E and G, C and D were difficult to arrange by eye and,
as can be seen, were close together in volume, but not adjacent in our table.
This led us to ask the question, what are the conditions on edge lengths a<b<c .
so that for our particular ordering system, the boxes would be arranged in order
of ascending volume?

Table 5

Boxes Edge Volume Ratio of the volume

lengths of neighbouring boxes
a,b,c

a,a,a a®
B a,a,b
i¢ 7 a’b 2
b

a b
C a,a,c a°c ame
c
ac
D a.b,b ab? a
b
Ee a,b,c abc —
c
2 b
E a,c,c ac =
c

G b, b, b b> © :
5 b
H b, b,c b*c a
c
, b
| b,c,¢ be —
c
b
J C,C,C ce =
c

We wrote the volumes algebraically, and asked a young student, Gabriel Kuper,
to investigate the conditions we required. He examined the table and by com-
paring adjacent volumes reduced the condition for increasing volumes to

ime

Notice that the number of triples 2, 7, 11 satisfy these conditions since

. 2. 49
£<—<1
7 S 121 a

In our first triples 3, 5, 8,

223
Developing Mathematical Thinking

A sore
64
so the condition is violated and indeed the boxes were not in order of increasing
volume.
There are many other questions to explore. How can we predict which boxes
are ‘dangerous’, i.e. difficult to arrange in order by eye? When is Vc, the volume
of box C, equal to Vp, the volume of box D? What about Vp and Vg? If Ve =
Vp, then a*c =ab? and for Vy = Vg, abc =b°. So boxes C and D, (and also
F and G) are equal in volume when -.i.e., when b is the geometric mean of

a and c. If also a+b =c, then c is divided in the golden ratio. Note that in the

case of lengths 3, 5 and 8 used in our examples, a + b =c and ;isvery close to

. When we choose our lengths from the Fibonacci series, we will always get

these boxes close together in volume, and the closeness will improve as we go
on in the series. Other problems which can be investigated are the conditions
on the surface areas, and the sums of the edge lengths.
One could calculate the ratios of the volumes of neighbouring boxes arranged
in a different order. Would it help for analysis to use a,a+d,,a+d, with
d, <d,, instead of a, b and c as the lengths of the edges? Using this notation
certainly provides much practice in multiplying and dividing algebraic expressions.
There are a variety of other topics which connect naturally with this problem.
1 Colouring problems. How many ways can one colour the open box and the
closed box? What is the connection between these two results? Explore this
problem for different numbers of colours (see Gardner, M., ‘New Mathematical
Diversions’, Scientific American for further discussion of the colouring problem).
2 Problems relating to the surface area of the boxes.
3 Questions relating to the number of square and rectangular faces the boxes
have for specific and general cases.
4 How does the condition on neighbouring volumes generalise to 4 or more
edges?
5 What problems can you generate if you become aware of the fact that a, b, c
may or may not be relatively prime?
6 How many different tetrehedra can one make sre any of three different
lengths? Four different lengths [.. .]
[This problem] is not as easy as it looks and the reader is invited to try it! You
may want to make the assumption that it is possible to make triangles from all
combinations.)
Having started with a concrete activity of building boxes, a mathematically
rich activity for young children, we ended up with problems challenging even
to high school students. Investigating a situation is one way to develop curriculum
materials and we did just that while writing this material for the Israel Ministry

224
 Sulture, ce packsade Ans about ae and other 4
we decided to investigate rectangular boxes that were not necessarily —

"References
ing Bassetti, F., Ruchlis, H. and Malament, D., Maths Projects: Polyhedral Shapes eel
Book Lab New York. 5.
Mold, J., Solid Models, Cambridge University Press.
Fielker, D., Cubes, Cambridge University Press.
Walter, M., Boxes, Squares and other Things: A Teacher’s Guide for a Unit in
Informal Geometry, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
c Washington, D.C. A
F: _ Walter, M. and Brown, S. T., ‘What if not’ and ‘What if not: An Exploration
i: and Second Illustration’, Mathematical Teaching, nos 46 & 51. We did not
x follow this technique here but it led us to the idea of using rectangles and
| tetrahedra. 5
3 Wenninger, M., Polyhedra Models sags the Classroom, National Council of
. _ Teachers of Mathematics.
Fr.

ea
Oe

5
ad
ie

} =

s
f

he. ie. Sy per a

he Se eo eee
23 Problem-solving in the primary
school
Christine Taylor

Source: Mathematics Teaching, vol. 70, pp. 8—13,.March 1975.

The scope of problem-solving activities is as wide as one wishes to make it.

‘Problems’ have had many connotations in the past, developing from the large,
complicated calculation type, which was supposed to develop the mind, through
the ‘practical’ and) ‘realistic’ phases, where problems involved ‘everyday situa-
tions’ such as areas of netball pitches, while the types of activities remained the
same, to a wider interpretation of ‘problems’ since 1960. As well as verbal
problems, they now involve a wide variety of environmental situations, may use
simple materials or structural apparatus, and cover shape and measures as well as
number.
In a study conducted in the autumn of 1973 at Nottingham College of
Education, I was interested in how children’s mathematical reasoning could be
developed in problem-solving situations using simple materials. I found that this
could best be studied by considering individual responses, and therefore I taught
only a small group of 8 year olds in a variety of situations.
Inherent in each of the situations produced was more than one problem. The
child’s first task, therefore, was to find a problem and then, I hoped, produce a
solution. This type of situation requires a certain degree of adaptability from
both sides. The child needs to take an open, critical look at the situation.
However, the problem on which the child focuses may not be known to the
teacher, or may not have been the one that he wanted to be considered. Does
the teacher then redirect the child, or let him consider the problem at hand? I
felt that as I had presented a relatively open situation, the child should tackle
the problem that he had found.
This approach provided some interesting work. In the ‘polyominoes’ situa-
tion, children were asked to make given polyominoes from unit squares. I was
particularly interested in how they classified polyominoes as ‘the same’. In
discussing ‘sameness’ the children produced many different problems which were
followed up. For example, in trying to describe some of the polyominoes, the
children focused on the number of sides of a shape. They pointed out that for
any polyomino the minimum number of sides was four (by putting the squares

226
 ory
BR
oe Py ee ey ova Ret Ee
a Ris Problem aolvinesin the primary school
ina straight titi): The maximum number of sides of a given polyomino and the
different number of sides possible were considered, but Gary was particularly in-
terested in the effect of adding one square to a tetromino.
Gary: When you add a square you lose a side.
Me: But how many sides do you add?
Gary: Three. But not always. If you put it in some places, it just reduces
the number of sides, like if you put one there.

It just fits in with the lines already there.

This aspect of the problem was extended when the children considered which
pentominoes could make open boxes’.

Sara: They [the pentominoes] have to have a lot of sides ... If the
squares are all together you can’t fold them up.

Gary: Mine have all got lots of sides.

Although the children did not produce formal conclusions on numbers of sides
of polyominoes, it can be seen that their reasoning is sophisticated for 8 year
olds, and that the problems were worthy of pursuit. However, the difficulty in
this approach is that the child may focus on a particular aspect of a situation
which leads to trivial work, or else is beyond his present capacity. For example,
at the beginning of the sessions on polyominoes, the children tended to join the
squares by the points or by part-sides rather than by complete edges [. . .] This
type of join meant that there was a large increase in the number of polyominoes
produced. As I was interested in classifications, not the maximum number of
shapes produced, I directed the children towards a conventional join after the
following conversation.
Gary: I can’t get them perfect. There are a lot aren’t there? [trominoes]
Sara: Those aren’t real shapes.
Gary: Well, the squares touch each other.
Me: What is your rule for joining squares, Sara?
Sara: I use a side.
Me: Would it make it easier if you joined all your squares by whole
sides?
Gary. Yes.

227
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

Me: Well, we’ll look at all the shapes made when we join squares by
sides, not points. Is that all right, Gary? ;
Gary: Yes, I can get rid of these now. I’m not sure what to do with this.

It’s not joined by a point, but by half of each line. I don’t think it
is, but I’m not sure.

There followed a lengthy verbal explanation, illustrated by moving unit squares.

Had the definition of a polyomino remained open, the interesting activities that
followed would not, I feel, have been produced.
Another situation used Cuisenaire rods. The children were asked to make
trains, with no specific number of carriages, to fit exactly into a given station.
For example, ‘What trains are the same length as the yellow station (rod)?’ I was
interested in each child’s classification of ‘train’ and in his strategy for making all
' the trains. Did he classify rods in different orders as the same train? Did he start
with the next largest rod to the station and systematically work down? When
presented with the situation, children tended to consider the number of trains
for each station and the sequence obtained by considering successive stations.
For example, one can make 3 different trains for a light green station; light
green, 1 red and 1 white, 3 whites. The sequence for the first four stations is 1,
OO:
As the children had not focused on the various trains involved in each station
they did not obtain them all, and therefore the sequences produced showed no
pattern. If a situation is too complex for a child to cope with, it seems that he
will tend to act by trial and error rether than through logic. It seemed necessary,
therefore, to impose restrictions on the situation.
As there is only a certain probability that a child will focus on a suitable
problem, it would seem that the teacher may need to intervene and so needs to
view himself as a director rather than as part of an audience. However, the
teacher does not need to produce rigid situations for which there is only one
approach. In problem-solving situations children should be developing their
own strategies, to produce adaptability.
In my study I was particularly interested in any development of reasoning, as
theorists, such as Piaget, do not really consider what may help a child into the
next ‘stage’. The children I worked with found it difficult to cope with open-
ended situations. Their actions were punctuated with ‘Is this what you do’, ‘Is
this right?’, tending to think that there was only one problem and similarly only
one approach and one correct answer. This limited view of mathematics meant
that, initially, the children needed to be well directed and encouraged in their
activities. However, the changes in their responses during the course of the study
led me to the conclusion that the effect of ‘teacher expectation’ is even greater
than I had imagined.

228

a
 hs » at: 4a 2. eee eh thy le) are Oe 2 |
ey ts side Sen
a > m Areal) saat
‘ erty,
4 if 5p

sii . " Pt: Nee Problem-solving in the primary school

_ During the early stages the children tended to produce ‘answers’ to a
problem, without explanations for the derivations. For example, in the
Cuisenaire situation I asked: ‘Have you got all the trains for that station?’ .
Sara: Yes.
Me: How do you know?
Sara: I just have.
In work with Indian cards, the children had to find out which attribute I was
thinking of. Their first attempts suggested that they were inexperienced at, or in-
capable of, reasoning, and our conversations were of the following format.
Karl: I bet it’s the name.
Colin: No, it’s got to be the colour of feathers; it’s got to be.

After this initial work, I was undecided as to my next step. Would further
examples with intensive questioning produce a study of ‘non-answers’ or, even
worse, dampen the children’s inquisitiveness? There was only one way to find
out! In my initial work I pressed hard for reasons, consistantly asking ‘why?’
After only a couple of sessions, their responses tended to anticipate this
question, although their reasons were obviously limited by their abilities and ex-
periences. On reflection it seems that the children were at a stage where reasons
were unimportant to them. However, development came slowly through a series
of partial insights until they came to realise the need to support any hypothesis
made and to use counter examples.
For example, the Cuisenaire trains situation was the first one attempted. Gary
checked his trains. When asked what he was doing he replied ‘trying to get it
right’, referring to a sequence that he had produced. His counter-example was
seen as unhelpful to him as it disrupted his pattern. In a later problem, on find-
ing the number of different ways of getting up stairs, Gary said ‘Oh, I might have
found a rule.’ Although he stated it, he added that we would ‘have to wait and
see’ if it applied to the next step, as he could not think of a reason for it.
As well as looking for reasons and being tentative about hypotheses, Gary
soon realised the value of counter examples, and the need for consistency.
Gary: This might go kafoo. It'll go wrong. .
Sara: I think I’ve got a pattern. 1,2, 3,5, 7, 10, 14. It goes up two there,
two there, three there, four there.
Gary: Another pattern that’s gone kafoo. It’s usually my patterns that do
that!
Such rapid development was not unusual. I was interested to see how children
developed their powers of logic when they were constantly confronted in the
classroom by the need for reasons. The following extracts are intended to illus-
trate the type of results obtained from this approach.
In making ‘square numbers’ by building onto the sides of a square with unit
squares, two children obtained the series 1 + 3+5+7+... Gary expected this
pattern to continue, and tried to explain why.
Gary: You add one to every side.

Dae
Developing Mathematical Thinking

Me: How? Can you explain?

Gary: I’ll make some. By adding that one you also add one to the other
side as well, and the same with the other square.
Gary referred to his square and pointed to the arrowed unit squares.

After further experience, he improved his rather limited explanations of why

you only ‘add on those two which join’.

Gary: The next square’s one bigger; you widen it. So you have to add
more.
Me: Good; but why have you got to add two more than the time
before?
Gary: Ive told you; to fill in the corners.
Me: Yes, but why are all the other squares that you add equal to the
number before?
Gary: Well, it’s a kind of optical illusion.
Me: _Isit?
Gary: It looks as if it wouldn’t be. If they’re placed on top of each other
you'll find that they’re the same.
After a few manipulations Gary produced this.

Gary: See, you push them up one from that corner onwards.
Me: So, you know that you have the same number there and then you
add one to each end? (Help with verbal description).
Gary: Yes.
Me: Do you think that will always be so?
Gary: Yes.
Gary readily generalised and confidently used his rule. I felt that this was an
adequate explanation at this stage. (No college student produced a better

230

itic
x:
 Sew ity.»
Mar ervei eis ine
2 ee
Ea ee we 7% Se
ata ee al dm rey,
arate yee ek eh G2 4 :
en:

Problem-solving in the primary school

response!) It would seem that a teacher needs to weigh up the sophistication of

proof against the highest level for a child at a given stage and the time which
could be used for other pursuits.
On the other hand, Sara continued to build squares until she obtained 1 + 1 +
5 +...+19+21+23 +25. She could not see that a pattern existed, but could
not accept that it would continue as she could not give an adequate explanation
for it. This contrasted with her original behaviour, when she generalised as soon
as possible. If I had wanted to use this series in context for further work, I
would have to have produced a satisfactory explanation of it, at Sara’s level. It
would seem that once teachers have induced an enquiring attitude, they can no
longer expect children to accept passively, without explanation, ‘laws’, ‘rules’ or
‘tricks of the trade’.
Through discussions on the squares situation, Gary considered the total
number of unit squares in a given square. Although he had not met square num- —
bers before, he readily generalised that the total was equal to the square of the
length of a side as it was ‘the number of rows, times the number of columns,
which is the same’. I hypothesised that this readiness was due to the general
development of understanding through working with the situation. Gary was
particularly interested in how many unit squares Sara had used.

Gary: It’s fifteen by fifteen.

Me: Can you work that out?
Gary: No, I haven’t gone higher than nine. (He referred to his tables.) ’m
hopeless.
Me: Can you think of another way to do it?
Gary: Yes, the long way.
Me: What’s that?
Gary: Count!
Me: Count them all! There must be an easier way. Could you split the
big square up so that you could work out part of the square, then
another part, instead of counting them all?
Gary: Well, I might have a way. Say it’s 14 to start with. Divide by 2 and
at's 7:
Me: Why?
Gary: Well, just half it. Now do seven fifteens.
Me: Can you do that?
Gary: No!
Me: Can you split it up again?
Gary: No, you keep losing a row. 15 to 14 you lose a row. 7 to 6 you lose
another row. Then half of six is three. Three fifteens, that’s a bit
easier.
It would seem that Gary’s manipulative experiences have helped him to discuss
the problem abstractly. He added up three lots of 15.
15
15
15
45

231
 Developing Mathematical Thinking
Gary: 45. Oh yes, 45.
_ (He seemed to have lost the trend for a moment. I hint. . .)
Me: How many 3sare there in 15?
Gary: Oh, it will work out now! Four threes; no, five threes.
(He does a ‘calculation).
Me: Can you say what you have done?
Gary: You get three fifteens, that makes forty-five. Then there’s five
forty-fives .. . two hundred and twenty-five!!
Although Gary apparently found out the relationship between the numbers by
accident, he was able to adapt his method to further problems and enthusi-
astically calculated 14 X 14. He then considered 19 X 19.
Gary: Oh, 19 isn’t an even split-up. Nothing makes 19.
Me: Is there another way you can split it up? (I was thinking of tens
and units.)
Gary: You could do twenty and take some away, but I don’t know how
many to take away.
Gary knew that he had to take away two sides, but until he manually reduced a
20 X 20 to a 19 X 19, he forgot that a corner square needed to be taken away
too. This meant that 39 squares were removed in all. Using his ‘splitting’
method, Gary calculated 20 X 20 and then subtracted 39.
A need to do a certain calculation led Gary to an introduction to long multi-
plication, which could have been followed up to lead to the traditional splitting
into tens and units. I felt that my occasional intrusion, rather than an introduc-
tion to formal calculations, aided Gary’s understanding and feel that his
enthusiasm towards the calculations is particularly worth noting, considering
that his initial comment on the subject was ‘I’m hopeless’.
Thus I feel that attitude and expectation were strong influential factors in my
results. It would seem that children can develop through the expectations pre-
sented by the teacher. Not only did the children in my own study develop their
_hypothesising and reasoning, but the encouragement to look for reasons seemed
to produce a more logical, or systematic, approach to a situation. For example. iv
Pr

when asked to make pentominoes, Sara added one square to each side of a tetro-
mino and then compared the pentominoes to eliminate duplicates.
It is obvious, however, that expectation alone cannot account for the results.
Other factors which seemed to affect problem-solving included the type of
situation presented, the recording materials provided and whether the situation
involved an element of competition.
As Piaget has stressed, children of this age find it difficult to work with ab-
stract situations. Although I was able to obtain some success with the children in
that area, I found that concrete situations motivated all children, whereas ab-
stract ones created unexpected difficulties, as illustrated below. In one session, I
presented a group of four children with squared paper, in anticipation of a con-
sideration of routes on a grid. On reflection, an introduction using plain paper,
or through a treasure island story, would have been more reasonable. However,
on this occasion I jumped in at the deep end, explaining that each line was a road
and that a town could be built at any cross-road, and faced the consequences!

232
ay, pat fa Pr Sree Omg. eae ~ oh og a aS » (2 &whe ‘tL At oe
eae , Mae

Problem-solving in the primary school

The first problem arose when two children considered the road to run
between two parallel lines, but that was only the beginning!

Me: Now, I want you to describe how you would get from one town to
another town.
Colin: Posts, sign-posts.
Me: Pretend that someone knows where the towns are, but they don’t
know how to get from one town or the other, using the road that
you have drawn. Is there any way that we can tell them?
Susan: You could post it.

‘It’ referred to the directions, and this led to further consideration of the
practical problem of letting the person know, with an argument taking the fore-
front about the phone being more reliable than the post, as a letter can get lost.
Me: _ If I want to know how to get from the one town to the other, what
would you do?
Colin: I ain’t telling °em. Let ’em find out for themselves!

Colin later had a change of heart and the children produced grid references
without any further direction. However, a less abstract and more motivating
introduction may have avoided such confrontations.
At the start of my study, I tended to ask the children to write everything
down. It seems that teachers have a need for pieces of children’s work to
illustrate results! [. . .]
This insistence on recording led to irrelevant problems. For example, if one is
interested in types of classification, skills such as symbolism need not be
involved. In one situation a child could make triangles on a geoboard and could
draw triangles on dotted or plain paper but she could not transfer one to the
other. Although I was interested in her classification of ‘the same triangle’, I
tried to insist that she made triangles on the geoboard and recorded them on
paper, an unnecessary factor for this part of my study. While the child struggled
with her problems of recording I could not study her classificatory skills.
As my ideas developed, recording was treated as an ‘extra’, something which
could be used if required. I found that the children tended to be wary of
symbolism. However, once needed, it was readily used and developed, beginning
with a direct representation of the situation and progressing to more abstract
symbols. Recording is not necessarily an aid to the development of reasoning in
the preliminary stages, but at a certain stage it is useful and, at that point, a child
often adopts it. For example, when Gary needed to sort out the confusion of
triangles placed on top of one another on the geoboard, he decided that Sara’s
idea of representing triangles on dotted paper should be used. However, when
making polyominoes, symbolism was a slower process.
Me: Would it help to draw them? Remember that I want you to find all
the different shapes.
Gary: Yes.
However, Gary did not use the squares on the paper to draw the shapes. I had
assumed a symbolic use for the paper when providing it, but Gary used it as he

229
eee Ree, eS 2 ie, Ra a
ee IE, ois a rie
&

Developing Mathematical Thinking — ae SY ¢ The pg. Teg eh ome eee

would plain paper. I did not point out this difference, but Sara did. Gary did not.
seem to understand her and so ignored her. However later in the session he said,
‘Tll use the squares on the paper. I’m getting confused. I’ll use one square to
one. I can see them more easily.’ Gary also adopted this symbolism when build-
ing squares from unit squares. On spotting squared paper he commented, “That’s
what I need. Now it’s much easier.’ It would seem that if symbolism is produced
through the children’s work, it is used meaningfully. I found that any imposed
symbolism was difficult to use, without a great deal of practice in interpretation
before commencing with the problem, without hindering reasoning.
Although I was interested in individual responses, I found group work
particularly worthwhile. In the situations that the primary teacher wishes to
present, the main advantage of the group situation seem to be that some
individuals have more ideas than others and that any individual idea receives an
evaluation which the individual working alone might not have given it. [.. .]
Groups are probably more effective when there is a complicated problem-
solving situation, assuming that the children cooperate and coordinate their
effort to minimise individual frustration. This depends upon the composition of
the group. It would seem that a teacher needs to be observant of individual
reactions to situations as the organisation of a group may affect motivation or
anxiety. For example, I found that the lower ability children were helped to
clarify their own thoughts by other children giving explanations in their own
language. Alternatively, some situations produced a competitive element, with
comments on classification of “the same” including “We’re right, not them, ain’t
we?’ and ‘You must be thick’, re-emphasising the ‘only one right answer’
_ attitude. Competition of the ‘I’ve got more than you’ sort had an obvious detri-
mental effect on one child; she began to tremble, bite her nails and worked well
below normal ‘capacity’.
In many situations, group work produced more conversation and participa-
tion, and ‘better reasoning’ seemed to take place. However, I could not judge
whether this increased performance was due to the group situation alone or due
to practice in the skills required for problem solving. It is probable, though, that
better results were produced by diplomatic steering of arguments into discus-
sions. It seems preferential to see children working together as a group to
produce a solution, rather than competing against one another.
Thus it would seem that children’s mathematical reasoning is affected by a
variety of extraneous factors. However, I feel that if there is one factor which
outweighs the others in effect, it is the expectation of the teacher. The develop-
ments in reasoning of the children in my study can best be explained through
their reactions towards my attitude to problem-solving situations. At the end of
one session a child looked me steadily in the eyes and declared ‘You’re mad on
reasons.’ To me, that is what mathematics is all about.

234
mh: ee AG ae
y Pe 2 bee ae ae
Pires.
Vig sare bagi’
p
vo
b

24 Teaching children to be
mathematicians versus teaching
about mathematics
Seymour Papert
Source: International Journal of Mathematics Education in
Science and Technology vol. 3, pp. 249—262, (abridged) 1972.

Summary
The important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathe-
matics class and that of a mathematician is not in the subject matter (old
fashioned numbers versus groups or categories or whatever) but in the fact that
the mathematician is creatively engaged in the pursuit of a personally meaningful
project. In this respect a child’s work in an art class is often close to that of a
grown-up artist. The paper presents the results of some mathematical research
guided by the goal of producing mathematical concepts and topics to close this
gap. The prime example used here is ‘turtle geometry’, which is concerned with
programming a moving point to generate geometric forms. By embodying the
moving points as a ‘cybernetic turtle’ controlled by an actual computer, the con-
structive aspects of the theory come out sufficiently to capture the minds and
imaginations of almost all the elementary school children with whom we
have worked — including some at the lowest levels of previous mathematical
performance.

Introduction

Being a mathematician is no more definable as ‘knowing’ a set of mathematical

facts than being a poet is definable as knowing a set of linguistic facts. Some
modern mathematical education reformers will give this statement a too easy
assent with the comment: ‘Yes, they must understand, not merely know’. But
this misses the capital point that being a mathematician, again like being a poet,
or a composer or an engineer, means doing, rather than knowing or understand-
ing. This paper is an attempt. to explore some ways in which one might be able
to put children in a better position to do mathematics rather than merely to
learn about it.
The plan of the essay is to develop some examples of new kinds of mathe-
matical activity for children, and then to discuss the general issues alluded to in
the preceding paragraph. Without the examples, abstract statements about

235
Developing Mathematical Thinking
‘doing’, ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’ mathematics cannot be expected to have —
more than a suggestive meaning. On the other hand the description of the
examples will be easier to follow if the reader has a prior idea of their intention. -
And so the author will first sketch, very impressionistically, his position on some
of the major issues. In doing so he will exploit the dialectical device employed in
the previous paragraph to obtain a little more precision of statement by ex-
plicitly excluding the most likely misinterpretation.
It is generally assumed in our society that every child should, and can, have
experience of creative work in language and plastic arts. It is equally generally
assumed that very few people can work creatively in mathematics. The author
believes that there has been an unwitting conspiracy of psychologists and
mathematicians in maintaining this assumption. The psychologists contribute it
out of genuine ignorance of what creative mathematical work might be like. The
mathematicians, very often, do so out of elitism, in the form of a deep convic-
tion that mathematical creativity is the privilege of a tiny minority.
Here again, if we want any clarity, it is necessary to ward off a too easy,
superficial assent from mathematical education reformers who say, ‘Yes, that’s
why we must use the method of discovery’. For when ‘discovery’ means
discovery this is wonderful, but in reality ‘discovery’ usually means something
akin to the following fantasy about a poetry class; the discovery method teacher
has perfected a series of questions that lead the class to discover the line ‘Mary
had a little lamb’. The author’s point is not that this would be good or bad but —
that no one would confuse it with creative work in poetry.
Is it possible for children to do creative mathematics (that is to say: “bei
mathematics) at all stages of their scholastic (and even adult!) lives? The author
will argue that the answer is: yes, but a great deal of creative mathematical work
by adult mathematicians is necessary to make it possible. The reason for the
qualification is that the traditional branches of mathematics do not provide the
most fertile ground for the easy, prolific growth of mathematical traits of mind.
We may have to develop quite new branches of mathematics with the special
property that they allow beginners more space to romp creatively, than does
number theory or modernistic algebra. In the following pages will be found some
specific examples which it would be pretentious to call ‘new pedagogical
oriented branches of mathematics’ but which will suggest to cooperative readers
what this phrase could mean.
Obstreperous readers will have no trouble finding objections. Mathematical
elitists will say: ‘How dare you bring these trivia to disturb our contemplation
of the true mathematical structures’. Practical people will say: ‘Romping?
Romping? Who needs it? What about practical skills in arithmetic?’
The snob and the anti-snob are expressing the same objection in different
words. Let me paraphrase it. “Traditional schools have found mathematics hard
to teach to so-called average children. Someone brings along a new set of activi-
ties, which seem to be fun and easy to learn. He declares them to be mathe-
matics, but this does not turn them into solutions to any of the hard problems
facing the world of mathematical education.’

236
‘= ne... eS

Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics

This argument raises serious issues, from which the author will single out a
question which he will ask in a number of different forms:

In becoming a mathematician does one learn something other and more

general than the specific content of particular mathematical topics? Is
there such a thing as a ‘mathematical way of thinking’? Can this be learned
and taught? Once one has acquired it, does it then become quite easy to
learn particular topics — like the ones that obsess our elitist and practical
critics?
Psychologists sometimes react by saying, ‘Oh, you mean the transfer problem’.
But the author does not mean anything analogous to experiments on whether
students who were taught algebra last year automatically learn geometry more
easily than students who spent last year doing gymnastics. He is asking whether
one can identify and teach (or foster the growth of) something other than
algebra or geometry, which, once learned will make it easy to learn algebra and
geometry. No doubt, this other thing (let us call it the MWOT) can only be
taught by using particular topics as vehicles. But the ‘transfer’ experiment is pro-
foundly changed if the question is whether one can use algebra as a vehicle for
deliberately teaching transferable general concepts and skills. The conjecture
underlying this essay is a very qualified affirmative answer to this question. Yes,
one can use algebra as a vehicle for initiating students to the mathematical way
of thinking. But, to do so effectively one should first identify as far as possible
components of the general intellectual skills one is trying to teach; and when this
is done it will appear that algebra (in any traditional sense) is not a particularly
good vehicle.
The alternative choices of vehicle described below all involve using com-
puters, but in a way that is very different from the usual suggestions of using
them either as ‘teaching machines’ or as ‘super slide-rules’. In our ideal of a
school mathematical laboratory the computer is used as a means to control
physical processes in order to achieve definite goals — for example as part of an
auto-pilot system to fly model airplanes, or as the ‘nervous system’ of a model
animal with balancing reflexes, walking ability, simple visual ability and so on.
To achieve these goals, mathematical principles are needed; conversely, in this
context, mathematical principles become sources of power, thereby acquiring
meaning for large categories of students who fail to see any point or pleasure in
bookish mathematics and who, under prevailing school conditions, simply drop
out by labelling themselves ‘not mathematically minded’.
The too easy acceptance of this takes the form: ‘Yes, applications are moti-
vating’. But ‘motivation’ fails to distinguish alienated work for a material or
social reward from a true personal involvement. To develop this point the author
needs to separate a number of aspects of the way the child relates to his work.
A simple, and important one, is the time scale. A child interested in flying
model airplanes under computer control will work at this project over a long
period. He will have time to try different approaches to sub-problems. He will
have time to talk about it, to establish a common language with a collaborator or
an instructor, to relate it to other interests and problems. This project-oriented

23
 Ae .. .
we

Developing Mathematical Thinking

*

approach contrasts with the problem approach of most mathematics teaching: a

bad feature of the typical problem is that the child does not stay with it long
enough to benefit much from success or from failure.
Along with time scale goes structure. A project is long enough to have recog-
nisable phases — such as planning, choosing a strategy of attempting a very
simple case first, finding the simple solution, debugging it and so on. And if the
time scale is long enough and the structures clear enough, the child can develop a
vocabulary for articulate discussion of the process of working towards his goals.
The author believes in articulate discussion (in monologue or dialogue) of
how one solves problems, of why one fails that one, of what gaps or deformations
exist in one’s knowledge and of what could be done about it. The author will
defend this belief against two quite distinct objections. One objection says: “it is
impossible to verbalise; problems are solved by intuitive acts of insight and these
cannot be articulated’. The other objection says: ‘it is bad to verbalise;
remember the centipede who was paralysed when the toad asked which leg came
after which’. [.. .]
A fundamental problem for the theory of mathematical education is to
identify and name the concepts needed to enable the beginner to discuss his
mathematical thinking in a clear articulate way. And when we know such con-
cepts we may want to seek out (or invent!) areas of mathematical work which
examplify these concepts particularly well. The next section of this paper will
describe a new piece of mathematics with the property that it allows clear dis-
cussion and simple models of heuristics that are foggy and confusing for begin-
ners when presented in the context of more traditional elementary mathematics.

Turtle geometry: a piece of learnable and lovable mathematics

The physical context for the following discussion is a quintuple consisting of a
child, a teletype machine, a computer, a large flat surface and an apparatus i

called a turtle. A turtle is a cybernetic toy capable of moving forward or back in

a particular direction (relative to itself) and of rotating about its central axis. It
has a pen, which can be in two states called PENUP and PENDOWN. The turtle
is made to act by typing commands whose effect is illustrated in figure 1.
At any time the turtle is at a particular place and facing in a particular direc-
tion. The place and direction together are the turtle’s geometric state. Figure 1
shows the turtle in a field, used here only to give the reader a frame of reference.

ie
FORWARD 150
The triangular picture D The turtle advancea
shows the direction 150 units in its new
direction

FORWARD 50 LEFT 135

B The turtle advanced E The turtle rotated left 135°
50 units in the direction (Produces no visible effect,
it was facing But the next FORWARD
PENDOWN instruction will leave a

Cc
LEFT 90 FORWARD 70 “@ce)
The turtle’s position F The effect of PENDOWN
remained fixed. It rotated is to put the turtle in a state
90° to the left. So its to leave a trace: the pen
direction changed draws on the ground
Figure 1 Turtle language
238
 Tire Coie SE SR 1 ~
res
. ~

Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics

_ Direct Commands
The following commands will cause the turtle to draw figure 2.

TO PEACE
PENDOWN
FORWARD 100
RIGHT 60
FORWARD 100
BACK 100
LEFT 120 PEACE
FORWARD 100
END
Figure 2 A turtle procedure and the resulting diagram
Defining a procedure
The computer is assumed to accept the language LOGO (which we have deve-
loped expressly for the purpose of teaching children, not programming but
Pee
Sone
a
ee
a
ee)
ee
mathematics). The LOGO idiom for asserting the fact that we are about to
define a procedure is illustrated by the following example. We first decide on a
name for the procedure. Suppose we choose ‘PEACE’. Then we type:
TO PEACE
1 FORWARD 100
2 RIGHT 60 These are directions telling the computer how to
3 FORWARD 100 PEACE. The word ‘TO’ informs the computer that
4 BACK 100 the next word, ‘PEACE’, is being defined and that
5 LEFT 120 the numbered lines constitute its definition
6 FORWARD 100
END
The turtle does not move while we are typing this. The word ‘TO’ and the line
numbers indicated that we were not telling it to go forward and so on; rather we
were telling it how to execute the new command. When we have indicated by
the word ‘END’ that our definition is complete the machine echoes back:

PEACE DEFINED

and now if we type

PENDOWN
PEACE

the turtle will carry out the commands and draw figure 2. Were we to omit the
command ‘PENDOWN’ it would go through the motions of drawing it without
leaving a visible trace.
The peace sign in figure 2 lacks a circle. How can we describe a circle in turtle
language?
An idea that easily presents itself to mathematicians is: let the turtle take a
tiny step forward, then turn a tiny amount and keep doing this. This might not
quite produce a circle, but it is a good first plan, so let us begin to work on it. So

239
 »Aaa

Developing Mathematical Thinking

we define a procedure:

TO CIRCUS
1 FORWARD5
2 RIGHT 2
3 CIRCUS
END

Notice two features

1 The procedure refers to itself in line 3. This looks circular (though not in the
sense we require) but really is not. The effect is merely to set up a never-ending
process by getting the computer into the tight spot you would be in if you were
the kind of person who cannot fail to keep a promise and you had been tricked
into saying, ‘I promise to repeat the sentence I just said’.
2 We selected the numbers 5 and 7 because they seemed small, but without a
firm idea of what would happen. However, an advantage of having a computer is
that we can try our procedure to see what it does. If an undesirable effect
follows we can always debug it; in this case, perhaps, by choosing different
numbers.
[... It would of course be a little tedious to have to keep typing the
complete procedure just because we wanted to change one or two numbers. It
would be much more convenient to be able to include in our procedures more
general instructions such as ‘Take a step forward’ ‘Turn right through an angle’
and then type in the step size and angle we required whenever we wanted the
turtle to carry out the procedure. In this way we could experiment with
different step and angle sizes just by typing in different pairs of numbers. The
next example shows how we make procedures with such ‘inputs’.]
The words on the title line preceded by ‘:’ are names of the inputs, rather like
the xs in school algebra.) In the fifth grade class we read :VUMBER as dots
NUMBER or as the thing of ‘NUMBER’, emphasising that what is being dis-
cussed is not the word ‘NUMBER’ but a thing of which this word is the name.
[The following procedure, POLY has two inputs, STEP and ANGLE. Other-
wise it is the same as the CIRCUS procedure]

TO POLY :STEP :ANGLE

1 FORWARD :STEP
2 LEFT :ANGLE
3 POLY :STEP :ANGLE
END

This procedure generates a rather wonderful collection of pictures as we give it

different inputs.
[... Suppose] we change the last line of POLY. We also change the title,
though we do not need to do so.

240
 ; Pe
f
ee _
ye, ES
ae, cee OC
St
reke"S

_ Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics —

Old procedure New procedure :

TO POLY :STEP :ANGLE TO POLYSPI :STEP :ANGLE
1 FORWARD :STEP 1 FORWARD :STEP
2 LEFT :ANGLE 2 LEFT :ANGLE
3 POLY :STEP :ANGLE 3 POLYSPI :STEP+20 :ANGLE
END END

The effect of POLYSPI is shown in figure 3. [Each step is 20 units longer than
the previous one]

Figure 3 POLYSPI 5 90 or squiral

We have seen we can use POLY to draw a circle. Can we now use it to draw our
PEACE sign? We could, but will do better to make a procedure, here called ARC
whose effect will be to draw any circular segment given the diameter and the
angle to be drawn as in figure 4. The procedure is as follows where in line 2 a
special constant called ‘PIE’ is used and the asterisk sign is used for multiplica-
tion. (Do not assume that :PIE is what its name suggests.)

TO ARC :DIAM :SECTOR

1 IF :SECTOR-0 STOP
2 FORWARD : PIE :DIAM
3 RIGHT1
4 ARC :DIAM :SECTOR-1
END

We can now make a procedure using the old procedure PEACE as a sub-
procedure:

TO SUPERPEACE
1 ARC 200 360
2 RIGHT 90
3 PEACE
END SUPERPEACE
Figure 4 A better peace sign using the old one as sub-procedure
Better yet we could rewrite PEACE to have inputs. For example:

241
 De ane

Developing Mathematical Thinking

TO PEACE :SIZE
FORWARD :SIZE
RIGHT 60
FORWARD :SIZE
BACK :SIZE
LEFT 120
FORWARD :SIZE
=
WNRIGHT 90
NQoh
8 ARC 2 :SIZE 360

Then peace signs of different sizes can be made by the commands:

PEACE 100
PEACE 20
and so on.
he]

_ Creativity? Mathematics?
In a class run by members of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory we have
taught this kind of geometry to fifth graders, some of whom were in the lowest
categories of performance in ‘mathematics’. Their attitude towards mathematics
as normally taught was well expressed by a fifth-grade girl who said firmly,
‘There ain’t nothing fun in maths!’ She did not classify working with the com-
puter as mathematics, and we saw no reason to disabuse her. There will be time
for her to discover that what she is learning to do in an exciting and personal
way will elucidate those strange rituals she meets in the mathematics class.
Typical activities in early stages of work with children of this age is exploring
the behaviour of the procedure POLY by giving it different inputs. There is in-
evitable challenge — and competition — in producing beautiful or spectacular, or
just different, effects. One gets ahead in the game by discovering a new phenom-
enon and by finding out what classes of angles will produce it.
The real excitement comes when one becomes courageous enough to change
the procedure itself. For example making the change to POLYSPI occurs to
some children and, in our class, led to a great deal of excitement around the
truly spontaneous discovery of the figure now called a squiral (figure 3). (Note:
By spontaneous the author means, amongst other things, to exclude the situation
of the discovery teacher standing in front of the class soliciting pseudo-randomly
generated suggestions. The squiral was found by this step — indeed once a few
have done so it becomes derivative for the others. Nevertheless, we might en-
courage them to explore inputs to POLYSPI. There is room here for the
discovery of more phenomena. For example, taking :ANGLE as 120 produces a
neat triangular spiral. But 123 produces a different phenomena (as shown in
figure 5).

242
 ovo ot BS eee ee ae »

pa.‘ pea ee Ps, oe ea oN oF

; ‘ ba q va = ral ) ak Md :

VS
ee
r a zs
Pa eaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics

POLYSPI 5 120 POLYSPI 5 123

Figure 5 Exploring some spiral effects

& @
What else produces similar effects? (see figure 6)

POLYSPI 5 121 POLYSPI 5 93

Figure 6 Understanding figure 5 better by exploring two related effects

The possibilities for original minor discoveries are great. One girl became excited
for the first time about mathematics by realizing how easy it was to make a
program for figure 7 by:
1 observing herself draw a similar figure,
2 naming the elements of her figure — ‘BIG’ and ‘SMALL’ — so that she could
talk about them and so describe what she was doing,
3 describing it in LOGO.
TO GROWSHRINK :BIG :SMALL
1 FORWARD :BIG
2 RIGHT 90
3 FORWARD : SMALL
4 RIGHT 90
5 GROWSHRINK :BIG 10 : SMALL + 10
END
Figure 7 Another direction of generalisation of POLY. This figure shows the
intention of the child who wrote the procedure GROWSHRINK

The possibilities are endless. These are small discoveries. But perhaps one is
already closer to mathematics in doing this than in learning new formal manipu-
lations, transforming bases, intersecting sets and drifting through misty lessons
on the difference between fractions, rationals and equivalence classes of pairs of

243
 he - ~ Ary tae eee. Na Se A IE ee OE oe aa, Oe he olen ee
the ¢ q vi , a - * ¢ ay Dast 4 K A) x eee
. bee ‘ SARS
oe i
F
ay
7 :
7 Sa
sare Z
: or
ates sy a
Developing Mathematical Thinking

integers. Perhaps learning to make small discoveries puts one more surely on a
path to making big ones than does faultlessly learning any number of sound
algebraic concepts.

What are the primitive concepts of mathematics?

ea |
It is sometimes said that in teaching mathematics we should emphasise the
process of mathematisation. The author says: ‘Excellent!’ But on condition that
the child should have the experience of mathematising for himself. Otherwise
the word ‘mathematising’ is just one more scholastic term. The thrust of the ex-
plorations which have been described is to allow the child to have living experi-
ences of mathematising as an introduction to mathematics. We have seen how he
mathematises [...] a squiral, his own behaviour in drawing a GROWSHRINK,
[...] and so on. When mathematising familiar processes is a fluent, natural and
enjoyable activity, then is the time to talk about mathematising mathematical
structures, as in a good pure course on modern algebra.
But what are the ingredients of the process of mathematising? Is it possible to
formulate and teach knowledge about how one is to tackle, for example, the
problem of setting up a mathematical representation of an object such as the
hearts and flowers we discussed earlier?
Our answer is very definitely affirmative, especially in the context of the kind
of work described above. Consider, for example, how we would teach children
to go about problems like drawing a heart. First step we say: if you cannot solve
- the problem as it stands, try simplifying it; if you cannot find a complete solu-
tion, find a partial one. No doubt everyone gives similar advice. The difference is
that in this context the advice is concrete enough to be followed by children
who seem quite impervious to the usual mathematics.
A simplification of the heart problem is to settle, as a first approximation, on
a triangle; which we then consider to be a very primitive heart.
TO TRI
1 FORWARD 100
2 RIGHT 120
3 FORWARD 100
4 RIGHT 120
5 FORWARD 100
END
Now that we have this construction firmly in hand we can allow ourselves to
modify it so as to make it a better heart. The obvious plan is to replace the
horizontal line by a structure line. So we write a procedure to make this. First
choose it a name, say ‘TOP’, then write:

TO TOP :SIZE
1 ARC :SIZE/2 180
2 RIGHT 180 Ones:
3 ARC :SIZE/2180 TOP
END

244
 pee wea1) ey AE eae Re, Sar eS 2 Se ,
at A keh sg , lig “ i oar ; st aa
pei ‘ nis
e Soke Seen og See 4%
Teaching children to be mathematisee oY dpiets a :
cians versus teaching about mathemat :
ics

Replacing
line 1in TO TRI by TOP we get:
TO TRI
1 TOP 100
2 RIGHT 120
etc.
HEART WITH BUG

The effect is as shown! Is this a failure? We might have so classified it (and our-
selves!) if we did not have another heuristic concept: BUGS and DEBUGGING.
Our procedure did not fail. It has a perfectly intelligible bug. To find the bug we
follow the procedure through in a very FORMAL way. (Formal is another
concept we try to teach.) We soon find that the trouble is in line 2. Also we can
see why. Replacing line 1 by TOP did what we wanted, but it also produced a
SIDE-EFFECT. (Another important concept.) It left the turtle facing in a
different direction. Correcting it is a mere matter of changing line 2 to RIGHT
30. And then we can go on to make the fully curved heart. Unless we decide that
a straight-sided one is good for our purposes (see figure 8).

(a) (b)
Figure 8 (a) Straight-sided heart; (b) Curved heart
Our image of teaching mathematics concentrates on teaching concepts and
terminology to enable children to be articulate about the process of developing a
mathematical analysis. Part of doing so is studying good models (such as the
heart anecdote) and getting a lot of practice in describing one’s own attempts at
following the pattern of the model in other problems. It seems quite paradoxical
that in developing mathematical curricula, whole conferences of superb mathe-
maticians are devoted to discussing the appropriate language for expressing the
formal part of mathematics, while the individual teacher or writer of textbooks
is left to decide how (and even whether) to deal with heuristic concepts.
In summary, we have advanced three central theses:
1 The non-formal mathematical primitives are neglected in most discussions of
mathematical curricula.
2 That the choice of content material, especially for the early years, should be
made primarily as a function of its suitability for developing heuristic concepts.
3 Computational mathematics, in the sense illustrated by turtle geometry, has
strong advantages in this respect over ‘classical’ topics.

245
 Introduction

The four chapters in this final section are all written by practising teachers, all of
whom have worked closely with the Developing Mathematical Thinking course
team. Each article describes the different experiences that these teachers have
had in trying to develop mathematical thinking in their pupils by using the do,
talk and record approach (DTR) described at the beginning of this book.
One of them, Bob Vertes, writing in a secondary school context, summarises
the philosophy underlying this approach particularly well. ‘Children have to be
prepared to.
think for themselves — form their own opinions, follow their own logic,
not be afraid to communicate their thinking for fear it may be wrong;
accept that wrong answers can also be helpful;
listen to their peers for comments in their own words(....... )
WN question their peers’ ideas (or any unsupported statements of mine) asking
Ah

_ for justification, example, or proof.’

This philosophy permeates everything that these four articles have to say.
The DTR approach is essentially a means of applying these principles to the
mathematics classroom. It is often the case that they are applied elsewhere, and
recognised as highly desirable, but mathematics is seen as somehow different.
You will notice that the first of the chapters, written by Janette Warden, draws
most of its examples from other areas of curriculum. She describes a way of
working with children that will be familiar to many teachers — her strategy
for organising topic work for National Children’s Book Week, or for setting up
debates, will ring many a bell. She herself had not found it easy to extend tnis
into the children’s mathematics. How does one get children to think for them-
selves about how numbers combine and to argue amicably with each other about
their conclusions? And how does one get them to investigate geometric patterns
and explain what they have found out to each other, while still being receptive
to constructive comment? Yet if only one could, the benefits would be incal-
culable. If you want to understand something really well there is nothing like
having to explain your thinking to someone else. If the listeners then question
what is being said, and continue to do so until they understand too, then both
explainer and listeners derive great benefit from the activity.
These articles describe many situations where the teacher felt that this really
had happened. For example Deryn Harvey and Carole Senior include an account

246
 Section 5: Introduction
of a group of children grappling with division. At the point described they were
working on 72 + 6, a problem which they understood as finding ott how many
objects each of 6 people could have if 72 of the objects were shared equally
between them. The children had collected 72 counters. Previous experience of
dealing the counters out, like so many cards, had led them to accelerate the
process somewhat, and this particular group were dealing them out three at a
time instead of singly. All of the group understood this process: they had done it
and talked about what they were doing until they were all convinced. They had
recorded their actions in their own individual ways. But then one child, Stephen,
proclaimed that he had a much quicker way. He maintained that you could give
them 10 each, that there would be 12 left over, and that this would mean that
each person could have 2 more. He convinced the rest of his group, and
eventually the whole class, that you could solve such problems in this simple
way. That Stephen was expected to explain his method to the satisfaction of his
peers benefited all of them.
The 64000 dollar question, though, is how one can actually make this kind
of interchange happen without the classroom degenerating into complete chaos.
In addition, how does one find the time to ensure that every child participates?
All these teachers lay great stress on the need to train children if this approach is
to be effective, and all describe, in their different ways, how they set about such
training. The secret lies in the five points quoted earlier. When children try to
think for themselves, and then discuss their thinking with each other, they can
do a great deal of teaching for themselves to everybody’s benefit: the teacher
then does have the time to give help where it is really needed. The self-discipline
associated with such relatively independent working is considerable, and children
need time and help with this. That it can be done is evidenced by the following
chapters, and that it is professionally rewarding is clear from the enthusiasm
these teachers convey.
The first two chapters are both to do with primary-school children. One was
written by Jeannette Warden, who was using these methods more or less on her
own. By way of a contrast, the second comes from two teachers working in a
school where DTR is standard practice. The second two chapters relate to older
children in a comprehensive school, the first of these being written by the head
of the mathematics department, Bob Vertes, and the second by a member of
that department, Sandy Carter.

247
 25 Making space for doing and talking
with groups in a primary classroom
Janette Warden
Source: specially written for this volume

Introduction
I believe that by training children to think for themselves; to show initiative; to
gain confidence; to be helpful and show tolerance towards others and to be self-
assessing I am making them self-disciplined which in turn will enable them to
reach their full potential in the learning situation. In order for these traits to
develop it was necessary for me first to create a certain atmosphere in the
classroom.
In this article I will show that creating this atmosphere involved making
_ various disciplines to the children very clear from the moment they came in,
and, then becoming more flexible as self-discipline developed; at which point
it was possible to hand over to them. I shall show that these fundamental dis-
ciplines created for me the time to talk and listen.
I shall begin by describing how I made these disciplines clear during the
‘settling in’ period. It involved four areas:
1 discussion skills,
2. self-control,
3 ability to think for oneself,
4 self assessment.

I would like to look first of all at discussion skills.

Discussion skills

Through these I am trying to train children to use language to enable them to

develop and organise their thinking. The majority of children I have taught have
been ready and willing to talk, and I have found myself saying, on a number of
occasions, “You have too much to say’. It is not, therefore, just talking, but
knowing when to talk and when to listen.
I start this training the moment I first meet a new class. Invariably I find that
one of the first things that happens is that one child speaks to another while I

248
 Rn ae aw ee BI ee a EM
ag euey ‘ae

_ Making space for doing and talking with groups in a primary classroom

am speaking to the class. I either ask the child to repeat what I have just said,
in order to point out that they should have been listening, or, Fsimply state
that nobody talks while I am talking. I am in effect introducing the idea of
really listening to someone who is talking. Very early on in this ‘settling in’
period I leave time for the children to ask questions or to add their views on
what has already been said. I ask them things like: ‘What do you feel about
what has just been said? Would you like to add anything?’ During this period
I emphasise that we all listen to the child who is speaking.
I then follow with the teacher talking — instructing or suggesting and the
children listening. The next stage is when I let the children talk while I listen.
It is this stage I often find difficult. Recently I asked a new class what they
thought about a particular topic that had been suggested and was confronted
with a mass of blank faces accompanying a very long silence. It appeared that
the children had never been asked for their views before and were completely
at a loss as to know what I required of them. I needed a lot of patience.
I found I had to say things like; ‘Well, what sort of things would you be
interested in yourselves? What would you like to see happening? What would
you do to make this project a success?’ I also had to give them time to marshal
their thoughts and there was silence for a while before they eventually got
going. Within two or three weeks this class was able to cope much more readily
with discussions like this at group level.
I have also had to deal with the opposite reaction with another class. Here it
seemed as though everyone wanted to say something. I had to stop them and
explain that if everyone called out at once we would not be able to hear each
other property. We all agreed that the best way was for those who wanted to
say something to put their hands up. In those early stages the children did not
listen to each other, but merely waited for their turn to speak. After a while
I began to intervene by following up something a child had said with questions
like ‘Do you think Jean has a good idea? Do you agree with what Peter has just
said?’ followed always by a ‘Why?’
The final stage usually comes much later with children talking and listening
to each other, either with the teacher present, or, in group planning without the
teacher. I shall give examples of these later on.
Before the children will give each other their full attention when engaged in
group discussion I find that I have to get across that every member of the class
is entitled to my full attention when they are reading to me; being helped by me;
or simply talking to me. On a number of occasions, with a new class, whilst, say,
hearing a child read another child has come to ask a question, or, for help, and
interrupts, I stop and tell the child not to interrupt but to wait. Afterwards I
explain that it is not easy to listen to two people at the same time, and, that if
we are listening properly we want to give our full attention to what is being
said to us.
During these ‘settling in’ days, whilst I am still working with the class as a
group or with individual children, in order to help the children gain confidence
in their own judgements and ideas I constantly ask questions such as ‘Well what

249
 hoe eS 1 E vo" Pa sO eeeee Oe!) ee e
a c ret ?

Deiclouing Mathemotteal. Thinking

do you think?’ or ‘Can you explain to me how you did this?” ee on when 2:
group work is more established I still ask these questions. They really help them
to start thinking for themselves, often for the first time! I would now like to
look at how this develops.
The class of 9 to 10 year olds already referred to as being completely at a loss
initially were particularly responsive to my methods and quite early on in the
autumn term I asked for their help with the organisation of National Children’s
Book Week. The first question I asked was ‘How can we make it successful?’
This was the most difficult part and produced some very long silences. The
children finally decided to concentrate on three main areas. At this level of
discussion, that is, with a whole class, I always get the children to sit either in a
circle or move to the front of the classroom so that we can look at who is
talking and hear each other. The children decided that they would like to work
in groups and the following is an extract of the conversation between myself
and the class.
Me - : How can we organise it?
Children : Everyone can choose their own interest.
Me : How shall we do that?
Children : Children are asked to put up their hands when you callout each
one.
(This was done)
Me : Where will each group work?
(At this point some of the children started counting in order to see
where groups fitted into the existing arrangement of classroom
furniture. I like to arrange the furniture so that I have room for
group discussions or for practical sessions. Arrangements are
changed according to the needs of the children.)
Children : We could work out by numbers.
(This was done.) ;
Children _: I think we should have leaders.
Me : What for?
Children : To look after work for the group.
Help members of the group with what they have to do.
To have meetings with you.
We then moved from class planning to group planning. This meant, of course,
that I was not on hand to discuss with every group. In fact a great deal of my
time was spent in ‘listening in’.
One group had decided to plan a competition, giving each year group a
subject. As the children worked I found that they were asking themselves
questions like “How are the entries going to be judged?’ A list was drawn up
which included points such as handwriting, spelling, and so on. (I provided the
word criteria). This was most interesting for when the entries arrived I found
that a lot had been discarded on the grounds that ‘they weren’t any good’. Here
I intervened and pointed out that they had agreed upon criteria which they

250
..
>
_ Making space for doing and talking with groupsin a primary classroom
were now ignoring. They then agreed that each entry should be judged indi-
vidually. It is not possible here to give further detailed examples-of class and
group planning but reflecting on my actions it showed me how important it is
to know when to ask questions and what questions to ask thereby giving the
children a ‘lead’ but not providing an answer or solution.
When working in groups which are occupied with different activities I ask
each group to show their results in some way, and, to write a report which they
can read to the rest of the class. Incidentally, this also means that I can bring
the basic skills of reading and writing into my maths and science lessons. One
area covered with this particular class was different types of sugar. Over a period
of a week various types of sugar were collected together. At the beginning of
one morning the children were placed in groups. (I worked with groups of
mixed ability). Each group was given a task written on a sheet of paper, such as
‘compare the various types of sugar using a microscope’, or ‘how quickly does
each type of sugar dissolve? Do some dissolve more quickly than others?’ There
were six groups altogether. They were asked to have ready, by the end of the
morning the results of their experiments in the form of charts, graphs, etc. and
a report. After lunch each group gave their report at the end of which the
children were encouraged to ask questions or to make any other comments.
Discussion skills of listening and talking were vital here. The children had come
a long way with developing them and the sessions went well.
This was designed to provoke the children into discussing how they could
measure such things as the rate of dissolving.
I shall give one more example which showed me that specific discussion
skills had been developed and were being used by the children. It concerns a
series of debates held, with a class of 9 to 10 year olds in the summer term
of the second year with me. As so often happens, something occurred which
we felt we would like to discuss. I suggested that we had a debate, and gave a
general outline as to how these operated. A title and a date for the debate was
fixed. These were written up on a large sheet of paper and put up on the wall.
Underneath was a sheet for volunteers to write up their names for chairman
and speakers for and against. The children elected a chairman, I then had
a ‘teach-in’ for these children explaining the procedure and they were given
about a fortnight to prepare their speeches. During the lunch hour before the
debate, which was always held first thing in the afternoon, the main partici-
pants arranged the furniture of the room. From the beginning I always sat in
the audience and did not speak until the debate was thrown open. Here I tried
to set an example of listening so that I could ask thought-provoking questions.
I found that the children quickly accepted the fact that I was one of the
audience, and, that I had opinions of my own which did not necessarily agree
with theirs. I always voted last and they soon gave up trying to discover which
way I was going to vote. These kinds of actions all contributed to the children
learning to think for themselves. In maths classes I do the same thing by Jisten-
ing in to their group discussions. To begin with as I joined a group they would
all stop and wait for me to ‘cast my vote!’ I had to say ‘Don’t stop. I’ve not

251
 SE EW es
Developing Mathematical Thinking — ,
come to tell” you what to do, I’ve come to listen and ask quesauas but ey ,
soon got the idea.
‘In developing discussion skills I find it very important to become a member .
of the audience or group. The children seem to find it much easier to discuss
what they are doing, or, to make suggestions in this more relaxed atmosphere
. one in which people can ‘never find me’ because I am usually sharing a
child’s chair and joining in with the work of a group, either listening, or
teaching.
I have found that a great deal of time is required to create this atmosphere
and build up children’s confidence to work in this way. I have also found that
work of this nature not only requires discussion skills, but skills of another
kind which I shall now consider under self-control.

Self-control
I believe-that the children must have self-control as part of their self discipline.
There is nothing worse than being constantly interrupted by children or a
group that is playing around. I think there are two main points to consider, first
the children’s behaviour and their attitude to their work, and, second their
attitude towards others.
I consider that the children have reached self-control when I can leave the
classroom, or, a visitor can enter the classroom to talk to me, and the good
working atmosphere does not change. If there was chaos whenever my back was
turned then there would be little point in trying to work in the way I do for
- I would never be free to work or discuss with children. Occasionally the good
working atmosphere is disturbed and I then tell the children that I do not want
to be a policeman, but a teacher here to help them. This may not give the
police the best image, but the children get the message.
~The other point that remains under this heading of self-control is the
children’s attitude towards others. Working at this helps to create the right work-
ing atmosphere. I want the children to help others, show tolerance and give
credit where it is due. ‘Helping others’ is a means of saving time and teaching
effort. It cuts down the number of times I have to repeat myself, which is vital
if I want to talk to a child or group and really tune-in to what they are doing
and saying. When a child, who has been absent, has missed something new
which I have taught, I usually ask another child in the group to ‘help-out’
by doing the teaching. Far from getting a child to do any job, I believe that
the child who is doing the teaching or explaining is being given a chance to
clarify his own thinking on the subject by having to show someone else. I
always check up though, usually through discussion, to find out whether the
main points have come across. I often find that the child who has been away
responds very readily to this method and this may be because it makes them
feel less conspicuous. It leaves me, of course, free to continue working with
_ the rest of the class or with other groups whether discussing or teaching.
Another way I use ‘helping others’ is when a child comes and says ‘I’m stuck

252
 Making space for doing and talking with groups in a primary classroom
sat
BE
Miss.’ I usually say ‘Have you asked your next-door neighbour or someone else
in your group?’ I find that this either solves the problem, that is, someone else
can help, or else it reveals a larger problem. Larger in the sense that more than
one child is stuck and I can then help a group together rather than a series of
individual children. In both cases I have saved time, and, in the first one or more
of the children will have been clarifying their thinking through their use of
language.
I also find that this ‘helping others’ atmosphere is very useful when a new
child enters the class in the middle of a term just when everyone has settled
down. A new child has so much to cope with and the more helpers there are
the better.
I think tolerance and understanding the needs of others rather than simply
putting up with them, is part of helping others. It is certainly an important
part of learning to work and live together. I am thinking mainly about the
tolerance needed when working with other people who may have different
ideas from our own, or simply need more time. I have found that children
can be very impatient with each other and are very quick to ridicule an idea
which is not their own. I think this is where the listening skills are important
and I have to take the lead. I find that I usually say ‘Well, we have listened to
your idea now we will listen to what Mary has to say and then decide together
what we think about it.’ In creating a tolerant atmosphere like this I have to be
careful about my own reactions to the children’s suggestions. Phrases such as
‘you stupid boy’ or ‘what a stupid thing to say’ cannot be part of my vocabulary.
I come down very hard on children who use words like these.
Although we are concerned here with training children to work indepen-
dently, I think a good sign of whether we are on the right lines is when the very
poor readers in the class are not afraid or, as with my last class, cannot wait to
volunteer, to read out loud in front of the class. I always feel that when this
happens the children are gaining confidence and they are not afraid that some-
one will laugh at them. In my experience I have found that children will laugh
readily at the poor readers, or those who make mistakes. This is something
I jump on immediately it happens, with a very firm rebuke, and the children
soon learn that it is not acceptable.
This attitude leads on to the giving ‘credit where it is due’. I have found that
once the children have gained confidence I can discuss with them their strengths
and weaknesses first on their own and later within the groups. They are then
more able to recognise when they or someone else has achieved a piece of work
above their usual standard. We all like praise for a job well done, and we have all
seen what a difference it can make to a child. However, I think the praise is
even more important to the child when it is coming not just from me, but from
the peer group as well. I often turn to the group and ask ‘What do you feel
about the way John read that?’

Ability to think for oneself

In the type of classroom I try to create it is essential that children learn to think

253
 eltte aks heed Rs rg Sey gay ys Retest) si
eee)‘ies |
oeee Se aeI Wiad leat yee ¢eee
SPE RE
xd itr
aeeee
Developing Mathematical Thinking = sti iti‘
for themselves. This is the third of the four areas I mentioned at the beginning
of this article. Unless they do this I am going to be bogged down with questions
like ‘What shall I do now? Where shall I put this?’ and be unable to carry out my —
main role which is to teach and guide through listening and talking.
A large part of this thinking for oneself will be to do with organisation.
Where school policy either encourages or insists upon methods which aim to
get children to do the thinking, guidelines regarding organisation will be
necessary. So what kind of organisation am I talking about? I think one part is
concerned with the physical organisation. The room has to be a working unit
within which the children can have the freedom of movement they require, in
order to carry out the type of activities which I have been describing. Initially
I had to create this working unit, but found that, as the children gained more
self-discipline, they sorted out for themselves where their group would be
based. Eventually they moved furniture temporarily to fit a need and put it
back when they had finished without bothering me except to ask permission
to do it- This was considered a basic courtesy and of course warned us about
what was happening.
Another aspect of organisation is the storage and use of materials and equip-
ment. I teach the children to be responsible for getting out and putting away
their own equipment. I make sure that it is accesible to them and that it has a
home. I find that the use and collection of materials such as paper, crayons,
and so on by the children needs careful training to begin with, but my aim is
that the children should be able to collect what they need when they need it.
This again leaves me free to get on with the job of talking and listening and it
_ is certainly worth the initial time and trouble of training the children.
As I have already said, I am initially responsible for the organisation of
the classroom, but I believe that by encouraging the children to make sug-
gestions for ‘a better place to sort the crayons’ or ‘where we can display the
_ models?’ I am continually helping them to think for themselves.
I think a further aspect of organisation concerns helping the children to
answer questions like ‘What shall I do next?’ or ‘I’ve finished what shall I do
now?’ for themselves. Again in the initial stages I am very much in control of
the situation.
During my ‘settling in’ period I always write up either on the board or ona
sheet of kitchen paper what the children can do when they have finished their
work. I also use this procedure for a ‘free-choice’ session. I find that it gets
the children used to reading instructions and gives them the idea of self-
checking. I have always had workcards of various types available, but I have
found that not all children want to do these. As time goes on, the children need
these directions less and less and they organise themselves in various ways. At
the end of one lesson, among other things, I had two children working at the
sink on a set of cards about capacity; two working on a crossword puzzle; four
doing their sewing, and many others finishing off various pieces of work. I think
that these times, when children can choose for themselves, are very important.
Choosing wisely in situations like this is, I believe, helping them to gain

254
 een oSae Les ag Silovi ISS
TL yon a aig A ; eee
: . rf Making. space ‘for doing aha1 talking with pratips in a primary classroom

confidence in trying out ideas of their own, and when working with others
they are using language which in turn is developing their thinking skills.
I do not think it is necessary for me, to go into further examples of the
children learning to think for themselves. The examples I have given already
show that children can be actively engaged in doing just that. A bonus is all the
extra time it gives me to work with them in small groups.

Self-assessment
The final part of what I consider to be involved self-discipline is self-assessment.
In some ways I have already looked at this when I talked about children be-
coming more aware of their own strengths and weaknesses. Very young children
are often asked to ‘talk about’ their pictures while the teacher listens or asks
questions. I like to carry this much further and ask the children what they think
about their own work. In mathematics, questions such as ‘Is that right?’ fol-
lowed by ‘How do you know?’ or ‘How can you find out?’ are very important.
Even more important is getting them to reflect on the way in which they got
their answers. I often suggest ‘Let’s go back and explain how you got this
answer to be sure that you are happy with it.’ I do this with right as well as
wrong answers. Asking children to explain how they arrived at an answer is,
I find, a useful method of discovering whether they really understand what
they are doing. It also gives them the opportunity of putting their thoughts
into words. Gradually the children gain confidence in language skills and I
can have proper constructive discussions. They begin to develop a sense of
honesty about their work and in the long run I find that I can use this to make
more time for me by getting the children to correct some of their own work.
In developing mathematical thinking through the use of language I am con-
cerned not with ‘right answers’, but how the children got the answers. It follows,
therefore, that a correct or incorrect answer is relatively unimportant and I
can see no reason why, when the children are operating at the practice stage, —
they should not mark their own work.
I have now dealt with the four parts that I consider to be a part of the self-
discipline of children and what I do to train them to become self-disciplined.I
have also indicated how the investment of time and effort doing this eventually
pays handsome dividends in creating more time for me to work with children
in small groups and even on an invididual basis. Now I must talk about some-
thing which affects all of this and that is flexibility regarding organisation and
learning.

Flexibility of organisation and learning

I have found that the more self-disciplined the children become, the more
flexible I have to become. I should like to give some examples of what I mean.
I have already discussed the organisation of furniture in the classroom and
said that I like the children to become involved in this. At the end of their
first year, a class I had had for two years asked if they could plan the classroom

255
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

for the following autumn term. Their ideas were very different from mine
and I did not find it easy to ‘hand over’, but in fact we ended up with an un-
usual, but satisfactory working unit. ; .
The same class took over after a television programme. I had carefully planned
follow-up work for the programme which had been on road accidents. The
children wanted to talk about the accidents in school and some of the dangerous
things people did — like climbing drain pipes. We ended up working on a math-
ematical survey about the number of accidents in school; holding a ‘prevent an
accident week’; and issuing every child in the school with a leaflet, written by
four of the boys, on ‘how to prevent accidents in school’. The whole activity
was far more exciting than anything I had planned. I realised that I had set
standards in the ‘settling in’ period from which children had gained enough
self-discipline to perceive their own learning interests. I was confident by this
time that they could contribute towards their own learning experience.
I think being flexible is knowing when to let go and how to let go. The
more I work in this way the easier I find it to judge when the children are
ready. It has to be said, however, that the flexibility must work in both ways
as I shall now show.
The class I worked with on National Children’s Book Week had only been
operating at group level for about half a term. On one afternoon, when the noise
level had been getting higher than I normally tolerate, there was an outburst of
angry shouts from one group. Without any hesitation I pulled the whole situation
back under my control with ‘That’s it, that’s enough. Pack everything away and
sit down.’ This was done in silence which gave us all time to calm down. A
quarter of an hour later we talked about what had happened and why it had
happened. The reasons we gave each other are not relevant here, but what is
important is that the children had been trying out their own self-discipline
which had broken down. I had to be ready to go right back to the beginning,
by putting myself in complete control. From here I had to put the pieces back
together again and restore the children’s confidence by assuring them that they
‘could do it’.

Classroom policy
So far I have explained how I try to organise my classroom to make time for
me to work with individual children or groups of children. This is not something
that can be achieved overnight, so I think it is very important to have a con-
sistent policy across all classes in a school. Without such a policy it takes a long
time to establish the groundwork and when you have established it, unless you
can take the children through to the end of their primary-school days, they
will experience many problems in the future.
The class which I had so carefully trained for two years, where the respect
was mutual, where we talked openly about the things that concerned us, were
suddenly with another teacher whose policy was different to mine. I felt that
two years work had been wasted and I think that they felt that what they had

256
 ore. Had ‘there been apolii
on the existing strengths. ~
- continued to work in the way I have described and nee
d that thefollow-on" problems only seem to occur when you have had the
children for more than a year. The ‘settling in’ problems however, never lessen -
eventually lead to the teacher’s frustration. I am sure that they would —
n with a policy and again you could then build on strengths which are
eady there. I have no doubt that this exciting way of teaching enables
children to reach their full potential and provides the teacher with the greatest
eta ch
 tues

26 Training middle-school children to

do, talk and record
Deryn Harvey and Carole Senior

Source: specially written for this volume

h
<<KXKKKK<KKKXKK§KKCKK§XKK§XK&K§KXK§KK#{KCK§K&K&KKK#K&KK#K&KKKXSS

This chapter is constructed in question and answer format and is based on the
discussions we had with members of the Developing Mathematical Thinking
course team.

How did you both become interested in looking closely at your teaching methods
and become involved with the Open University?
To answer this we really have to look back over the last five years’ history of the
school in which we’re both teaching. The process of formulating a maths policy,
in our present school began long before Carole and I appeared on the scene.
_ We’re just one part of an ongoing series of mathematical developments. Delving
into the annals of the school we found that staff and head alike felt that there
was a need to look into the teaching of maths in the 8 to 12 years age range
middle school in which they found themselves. ;
With the aid of outside bodies the staff directed much of their energy into
maths discussions, maths courses and practical workshops for the staff as a
whole. The parents didn’t escape either. With the full support of the head
parents’ meetings and workshops were held to help explain the developing maths
policy of the school.
Some of the staff, who are still with us and won’t mind at all my saying this,
were strongly against the concept of do, talk and record. Perhaps this short
example sums up the past and now present attitude towards maths. These
teachers are an essential part of the first-year team, a team whose teaching is
now geared wholly to setting up the pre-conditions for do, talk and record to
work for the children’s time at our school.
‘Fran: At first I had reservations. I thought, at the time, that this method
might have advantages for the less able children but felt that for more able
children too long spent on practical aspects of maths, without relating it
back to maths they were used to doing, and methods they might meet in
the high schools, might confuse them. I now feel that this system helps
them more for any approach they might meet later. The main “plus”,
though, is how much the children themselves enjoy it.’

258
 fe 5a _ Training middle-school children to do, talk nee record

‘Margaret: At first I was very sceptical, now I’m completely won over. One
child in my class last year, Stephen, claimed he had “done hundreds tens
and units” already. During the course of a practical lesson in my classroom
on this subject, his face lit up and he said “Oh! I never realised that one
ten was equal to ten units” in a blinding flash of revelation. I have never
complained about this method of maths teaching again.’

As a result of this process of looking at themselves, a ‘manual’ was produced by

the staff for the staff in the first-year team. The three first-year classes work to
this scheme. Newcomers to the team have help in the form of an experienced
teacher for two out of four hours per week.
Of invaluable use has been the extra pair of hands provided throughout the
school by a more than supportive head teacher. First year teach mixed ability
with help for each class for half of the week. I help the second-year classes twice
a week. The third and fourth year are set for maths, when the two classes are set
into three groups.
One of the outside agents referred to was Nick James, then advisory teacher
for maths in the London Borough of Ealing. He, it was who first suggested the
do, talk and record model as a basis for action in our classrooms, producing
papers to develop the idea (see James 1976 and 1977). He subsequently became
involved with the Open University, joining a course team (EM 235, Developing
Mathematical Thinking of which this book is a part). This course discusses do,
talk and record, showing how it can help develop mathematical thinking in
children. Secondly, I had worked alongside a head, keenly aware of do, talk and
record as a teaching method at a previous school where I had responsibility for
maths. So I had for some years been aware of my own changing attitude towards
maths, an attitude I hasten to add which could only be improved (an unfavour-
able legacy from my own school days). Carole would like it put on record that
maths was anything but her favourite subject at school too.
My arrival at the school two years ago coincided with the maturing of the
first-year scheme, and I was aware immediately of the questioning attitude of
the staff about their approach to maths, constantly aware that they should never
rest on decisions made five years ago. Aware that the maths curriculum should
be ongoing in its development, I was delighted to come into a school where
much of the hard work of converting to do, talk and record had been done.
This was the atmosphere into which Carole came a year ago. Carole’s teaching
in her previous school was also along the do, talk and record principle. However
she was doing ‘what came naturally’! She hadn’t actually stopped and given it
the formal title of do, talk and record. The Open University team opened her
eyes to the educational term they had given to her style of teaching. Carole took
over, mid-year, from a second-year teacher, who had set up over the previous
four terms a maths class well trained in the concept of do, talk and record.
Carole’s first maths class was a sea of children getting out apparatus, folders,
work cards and carefully explaining to their new teacher how they did maths!
Carole’s second class hasn’t had such an easy transition to a different teacher.
But more of that later.

259
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

In the light of the changes and development in our school the Open Univer- —
sity thought we might be able to provide some help in some of the video pro-
grammes associated with this course. Both Carole and I were involved with our
own pupils, in the subsequent filming. This question and answer session is an
offshoot from the many informal lunchtime discussions we both had with the
Open University team while they were filming at our school.
The answers to the questions which follow are our own thoughts and ex-
periences on our teaching of maths.

What do you have to do to get the children working independently and with con-
fidence?
First and foremost the children need confidence. A child who runs to the
teacher every few minutes is probably insecure in what they’re doing. To operate
do, talk and record, is hopeless if you’re forever tied up with children seeking
reassurance.
To begin with the ‘How did you do that?’ question usually elicits a defensive,
‘What’s wrong, what’s wrong?’ response from the child. Part of the training is to
get children used to us questioning like this and them replying without fear of
being wrong. I’m always aware of the need to attune my ears for a response
different from the preconceived one I might have been expecting. This is very
important.
Recently I had a fine example of my not listening properly to some of my
fourth years. I was mingling with the fourth-year class and for a few minutes had
had no opportunity to discuss their work with any group. Coming upon Kakel
and Steven and feeling a very strong urge to say something (!) I thought they
looked likely customers. They were involved in measuring the number of con-
tainers needed to fill a certain vessel. Steven using a meat-paste jar would count,
taking turns with Kakel who was using a yoghurt pot. The counting sequence
went something like this:
S : 86, 87, 88.
K : 92.
S :93, 94,95, 96.
K : 100, 104 and so on.

Jumping straight in with ‘What on earth are you doing counting like that, you’re
counting all wrong... and what’s more your containers aren’t even the same
size?’ Questions these might have been, but my tone was definitely one of ‘How
can you be so stupid?’ Fortunately past training and confidence building won
the day. Very calmly, the boys put me in my place and explained what must by
now be apparent to you. The yoghurt pot held four times the amount of water
that the meat pot did. This explained why Kakel added four onto the count. I
had interrupted them at a crucial stage in their project. However they were
recording as they went so not too much damage was done. I had to learn not to
make mistakes like that.
Confidence building also means doing away with pages upon pages of crosses
and ticks — an aspect dealt with later. There is one practical point about working

260
 Training middle-school children to do, talk and record —
independently. If on any day, I find I’ve not prepared the room properly, if the
scissors are missing or we’re short of paper, the children cannot work independ-
ently. I know I'll have that all too familiar queue of wails, ‘where’s this, where’s
that?’ guaranteed to irritate my none too placid nature! This seems so obvious,
yet it’s crucial for instilling independence in the children, freeing one from so
many administrative organisational tasks which interfere with my listening and
talking to children.

Won't this mean a lot more work for me?

First the bad news. Initially yes! We’ve both found it difficult to start do, talk
and record, with a class used for the past year or so to working quietly at their
desks. So you have to have your class ready to work on their own, without con-
stant attention from you. I can’t be all over the room at once, so training is
essential. We say ‘training’, making it sound rather like Barbara Woodhouse and
her dogs! Ethos is what we mean. It’s very important we’ve found.
Carole has found it hard work this year getting her class to respond to her
practical/discussion filled lessons, and has found the do, talk and record on a
class level rather than in groups a good way to get the class talking and listening
in the early days. Gradually the class-based activities and class discussions have
given way to group and individual work. However, we both think that doing and
talking with individuals and groups cannot wholly replace doing, talking and
recording with the whole class. Both class and group discussions have their place.
Initially it’s more work in the lesson time too (but the time goes very
quickly!). You are always looking for an opening to talk or listen to children.
You’re always treading carefully, but at the same time having to be aware of
what is going on all over the room. You cannot say, ‘now children let us work in
silence’ and so defeat the object of the lesson. But having talking children and a
mingling teacher is hard work. In the early days we found noise a great problem
-— but more of that one later.
Now the good news. Banished is that awful repetitive marking. Of course we
need to see their work but hopefully we are working alongside them and seeing
the fruits of their labours as we go along. The ‘marking’ is more interesting as it’s
words and figures. The child explains whilst we contribute and amend. Recently
this struck me very forcibly. My fourth years were working on capacity and
volume. Many of their observations would be impossible to mark in the isolation
of the staffroom. For instance they had to estimate the capacity of vessels
before they actually measured them. Then, having measured them they had to
graph the results. They were so pleased when they saw their estimates and actual
measurements beginning to coincide that, like the results of a game, they needed
to come and tell me. I then asked them if they thought they were getting a feel
for the units employed. Could they think of a reason why their graphs looked
the way they did? These were all facets that couldn’t be looked at in the ‘record
and then Ill mark it’ situation.
Once the system is set up for a topic or group of topics it is self-perpetuating.
It goes on daily with little need for preparation on your part. For example, to

261
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

enable the group working on measuring mass, length and capacity to work well, I
had to collect together necessary materials and work out assignments. This took
time but once done it needed no evening work for quite a while leaving me free
to concentrate on some other aspect of the curriculum. I also have had that
particular maths class for one and a-half years so the initial training period is well
passed. I thoroughly enjoy that class now!

What was it like creating a classroom atmosphere to start with?

We have already dealt more with the physical work involved with the do, talk
and record method of teaching, but there is also the mental strain of creating the
right ethos. Of course, once built up this ethos is a total thing, pervading the
whole of classroom life, — but it isn’t easy.
The class I am teaching now is full of very independent personalities, all eager
to have their say, but not that eager to listen to each other. This, therefore, had
to be one of the first priorities — training them to listen to each other, and to
me, and valuing each other’s contributions. I have had to stamp on sniggering
and verbal criticism of each other’s contributions, otherwise the tentative, less
confident children clam up and won’t attempt a contribution in a class or group
discussion. I am very hard on a child interfering with another childs’ work in any
lesson. I also try to encourage them to work independently of me and, as
mentioned elsewhere, only turn to me for help when they are really stuck, and
have tried everything they can think of.
As I said it isn’t easy. I get fed up with stressing the same attitudes over and
over again. I try to reason with the class when things go wrong, and we discuss
the rules that we have and the reasons why we have them — eliciting these
reasons from them rather than giving them to them as can ‘I say, therefore you
will do’ formula, although there are obviously times when I wonder whether the
reasoning is a waste of time and an ‘I say, you do’ attitude wouldn’t be quicker
and easier. I am trying to give them an attitude for the future though, one that is
independent and thought out by themselves. For the same reasons I don’t want
them thinking of me as the fount of all knowledge. I try to expose my weak-
nesses to them — both to show that I don’t know everything there is to know,
no one can, and that I am a human being with feelings, emotions and ‘off days’
too.

What level of noise do | tolerate?

Noise can be one of the greatest bugbears to the success of children doing, talk-
ing and recording their way through maths. We both remember being proba-
tioners and being over anxious about noise levels, always worried the head might
look through the door and see the children talking or even worse, playing. We
also recall not having a chance to get down to any teaching as we were constant-
ly stopping to admonish the class for being noisy.
To work the do, talk and record method you have got to accept from the
outset that there will be noise. I’ve yet to see successful do, talk and record done
in silence! Once you accept there will be noise you have to decide on a reasonable

262
‘he ;

4
-
s ioe Training middle-school children to do, talk and record
level. In our classrooms we can distinguish two types of noise which we and the
children refer to as ‘silly noise’ and ‘busy noise’. *
We are all aiming for ‘busy noise’. Instead of merely telling the children to be
quiet we find that by eliciting reasons from the children themselves we get far
more cooperation. They know from an early stage that we do, talk and Jisten.
They know that to talk and listen you can’t have shouting. If ever we need to
stop to remind everyone in the room of this, the conversation will always go
something like this:

Me: All stop for a moment and listen please. Why have we stopped?
Pupil: Because it’s too noisy.
Me: So why did I stop you?
Pupil: Because you can’t think and you can’t hear what Jillian is saying.
Me: As you continue could you make sure that you can hear what your
friends are saying? Carry on.

It may sound like some kind of catechism I know, but variations on this conver-
sation always reduce the noise level. We both try not to raise our voices when
speaking to individuals or the whole class. I try to make my voice serve as an
example to the children. If I shout at them then I can’t really complain if the
children have loud voices and shout at me too.
Finally, Carole has found that other areas of the curriculum can help here.
She has a strong tradition of drama with her classes and she feels that the very
necessary discipline of the drama and physical education lesson overlaps and
helps in maths. The use of ‘freeze’ as a command in drama and physical educa-
tion is Carole’s method of arresting the children’s attention when things get out
of hand in the early days. So why not she thought, use it in maths too? It
worked and gave her the opportunity to reason with the children about the noise
level in the class.

How do | measure their learning and progress?

We can’t tell anyone how best to monitor the progress of their own children.
Should this question really read ‘If I can’t see pages of right and wrong sums,
how do I know what the children have assimilated?’ So you are as worried as the
children are about pages of work and marks? In our classes, mark books do con-
tain marks as there are tables tests, number-bond questions and quick mental
arithmetic practice, especially in my streamed classes. However, the marks are
punctuated with comments and notes on the results of the practical oral tests I
like to give them. I am at present adapting and devising some of these. The tests
are taken in groups of up to four. The children use apparatus wherever necessary
and are asked to explain verbally what they are doing. Until recently, setting
pupils in the upper school for maths has been based on the results of written
tests. This year we have done this based on the practical tests I have described.
We have had fewer changes between the ability gaps than usual and the staff
involved feel that the children have been set more accurately than in the past.
One example illustrates for me the value of such tests when children have been
used to working with do, talk and record methods. At the start of the second

263
 A
: Ae PLP DEMIS de 8 Vacs, SO
3 ; od Pepe: CONS LyGene GNC ele eae ane ae
ihe 8 Dy eee LF ns \
‘ : / . - ca ER . ie > al hey Ta?
ae \) . ; weit. —*s> .
5 5 f iG

Developing Mathematical Thinking

~ year, one of the practical tests we were giving involved place value. Gary had had. >
to work very hard all his first year in a do, talk and record way to grasp this con-
cept and he had eventually reached the recording stage. Jeremy on the other
hand was a boy of average ability who had joined us after the first year and
missed out on the excellent grounding I think they get in the first year. He had a
great deal of difficulty with the place-value test and apparently had never
grasped the concept at all. By contrast, Gary, a poor reader with low motivation,
fared well and demonstrated that he knew what he was doing. Jeremy is now in
a very small remedial maths group regaining the practical do, talk, and record
groundwork which he needs before he can go on.
We are now working on a fuller range of tests. This way a child could be
tested orally on a variety of concepts and the testing can be done during lesson
time in an informal, non-threatening way. Another way of keeping a check on
progress is the reporting back sessions which we feel are integral to successful
maths teaching. At first the children may be hesitant, but once they are con-
fident of expressing themselves and giving their opinions in public, the reporting
back sessions are valuable to both pupils and teacher.
Finally progress and attainment cannot always be broken down into
quantified terms. We seem to be carrying around a fair amount in our heads. I
believe it is called professional judgement! Without our own opinions and assess-
ments in our heads we would all be lost.

This sounds fine for fourth years, but what about first and second years?
We would not say it was difficult to do, talk, and record with first years. After
all this is the way they have been working in the first school. In nursery and
reception classes the accepted way of teaching is do, talk and record, as the
children’s recording facilities are limited at the infant stage. In our first year (8
year olds) they are not so far removed from the practical work and accompany-
ing chat of the first school. So what’s new!?
I find with younger children, though, that my approach to the lesson is
different from the teaching of maths in the upper school. These lessons are more
formally structured. I have a recognisable beginning, middle and end. When I go
in I talk with the whole class making sure everybody knows what to do, and
stressing where they will find any necessary equipment. Then we have the work-
ing session, when they need constant direction and encouragement towards a-
balanced output between doing, talking and recording. Then there is the pulling
together for the end of the lesson, where the class and I discuss individual work
if necessary. Much of this time is used reiterating and rewarding behaviour im-
portant to the running of do, talk and record: things like training them to listen,
praising them for getting on in their groups and working things out ae and
only coming to me when they are really stuck.
By the time the children reach the third and fourth year, there is less need for
such a highly structured format. My third- and fourth-year classes come straight
in and start work, often without any word from me. This is of invaluable help
to me as I can waste no time getting in to listen to individuals or groups,

264
 / . Training middle-school children to do, talk and record

helping where necessary. Also, being the deputy head, I often have matters to
attend to. -
Sometimes we stop in the middle of a lesson for reminders on sorting out of
common problems, but I try to leave class discussion until the end of the day
when the children have launched straight into their work. What I am saying is
that it is possible to use this method with first years, but I do find that initially a
highly structured approach to an apparently informal teaching method is neces-
sary to maintain temper and sanity.
One final note here. It has been helpful to us in our school in having the
resources to put in a second teacher with the younger classes. To successfully
run our first-year programme as previously mentioned, the head drafts in a
second teacher for half the maths time in any week. It really is of enormous help
to have that assistance whilst doing the early training that seems so vital to
enabling do, talk and record work. This does not however mean that it is im-
possible io operate this way if such help is not forthcoming. It just takes a whole
lot longer.

Surely if |repeatedly have to tell children what | want them to do it defeats the
object of my do, talk and record lessons?
Having to tell children what to do can fall into two categories: 1 the actual
mathematical task you are setting and 2 where to find the apparatus or whatever
is required by the children. For example:
Category 1 My children had had a class discussion lesson on making solid shapes
out of sugar paper. During the next lesson they had tried to make their own
solid shapes with little or no prompting from me — experimentation was what
was required not success — failure didn’t matter at all. Lesson 3 went like this at
the beginning:
Me: _ Right, what were we all doing last lesson?
Class: Trying to make solid shapes, Miss.
Me: Did anyone succeed? Can you tell us about it, what you did, how
you did it?
Discussion followed from various children about what they did, how they did it,
what they did wrong, what they found out. After much discussion, category |
comes in.
Me: Right now, from what you have learned from each other and your
own experiments, I want you to try again and see what you can do
this time.

Then on to category 2.
Me: _ I’ve put more sugar paper out on the table at the back of the room.
You know where the scissors and glue are. Off you go.
I am then quite hard on children who haven’t listened and pestered me with
requests like ‘where’s the paper/glue/scissors, Miss?’. I point out that it wastes

265
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

my time to have to say things over and over again. This is what I mean by train-—
ing them to ‘listen’.
In both areas the telling is only an important element of the lesson while the
children are being ‘trained’ to work in this way. It is very possible that the ethos ;
and organisation in classrooms is such that very little ‘training’ like this is
required.
With regard to the practical apparatus, providing we’ve seen to it that the
things required are to hand, and the children know where they are, they can be
encouraged to help themselves in a responsible way, without having to refer to
us all the time. They must also be trained, though, to replace durables and tidy
up after themselves at the end of a lesson.

Surely children need the reassurance of a ‘page of ticks?’

A page of ticks means satisfaction for the child and often I suspect for the
teacher. Conversely a page of crosses can destroy confidence. A page with con-
structive criticism or written praise by the teacher provides satisfaction also. The
child may possibly be reassured by ticks, but surely their own conversation with
the teacher will also provide satisfaction, especially when the teacher is pointing
out how much of an explanation is perfect. In conversation, the children often
see their mistakes for themselves and this doubles their reward. Not only did the
teacher react with encouragement to the ‘right’ bits, but they also needed no-
body to point out the ‘wrong’ bits. They got all the way there by their own
thinking. We feel that this way the page of ticks is traded for a more lasting
satisfaction.
Edith Biggs, H.M. Staff Inspector (retired) first made me realise the import-
ance of never saying ‘That’s wrong’. I’ve learned a lot from Miss Biggs, because
I’ve never been afraid I was making a fool of myself. Whatever response I gave in
our many discussions she never made me feel I'd said something absurd or
wrong, just that an awful lot of it was right. She then gave either me the time to
check my statements and spot the gaps in my thinking for myself or showed me
something else that caused me to rethink my ideas later.
Let me tell you about Steven. I am sure he will remember how to do long
division longer than those only taught tricks and given ticks. The class (second
years) had been working for some time with bottle tops and counters to work
out division problems. They had reached the stage of recording and I was aiming
for the time when the children could abandon the apparatus and the ‘1 for you,
1 for him’ approach. They had been asked to do this division:

6[72
The children had been putting the total number of counters into a box and then
sharing them into the required sets. Most were at the stage of trying to cut down
their work by giving out more than 1 at a time. Steven’s group were giving them
out in threes.

266
 Training middle-school children to do, talk and record

oo | 3 3 3 3 3 3 —> | have taken 18 from

the box ”
oo} 3 3 3 3 3 3 —> | have taken 36 from
the box
oo | 3 3 3 3 3 3 —>—_| have taken 54 from the
the box
Gard xt! 3 3 3 3 3 —>—_ | have taken 72 from
the box
Bemeeenrete. 12) 90t2 12

So 72 shared between 6 is 12 each. Steven however found this far too long.
‘Miss’, he called out, ‘you don’t need all those tops and those long lines of
writing. It’s easier this way!’ 6[72 ‘I don’t need to give out small numbers,
that’s long. You can give them 10 each straight away. That uses 60 up. Then
you've got 12 left, so that’s 2 more. So they get 12 each altogether.’
After this he went straight onto 12[150 and numbers divided by 13, 14, 15
using the same principle. That way (the one I was aiming for) became known as
Steven’s method from then on and eventually we all adopted it.
Similarly David ‘discovered’ the formula for area of a triangle. The ‘Eureka’
principle made sure those two children never forgot their methods. Neither did
they need to bother with a page of ticks! That everyone else adopted their
‘method’ was reassurance enough. We call this the ‘big tick’ and find one ‘big
tick’ equals lots of smaller ones. We don’t have big crosses, at least not regarding
answers. Only when it comes to behaviour, then sometimes a reprimand is seen
as a very big cross. They always seem to be given for things like interrupting, not
listening and laughing at someone else’s effort to explain — all ethos-creating
issues.

What do | do when I/ots of children want my help at once?

This can happen at any time, with my method of maths teaching. Text-book
dominated lessons can just as easily give the teacher queues of children round
the desk waiting for an answer to questions like ‘what do we do here Miss?’ ‘I
don’t understand what they mean here, Miss?’
As we are building the child’s responsibility for its own work, it should
eventually cut down the number of questions, both about the work and the
organisation that children bother us with. We do see that this gets better as the
children get older and more used to working in this way. It is possible to develop
a child’s initiative, so that he/she will automatically try certain steps before run-
ning to the teacher for help. Practice in looking things up, trying things out for
themselves, asking each other, doing their own thinking, bears fruit not only in
maths but in all other areas of the curriculum. One can also use the ‘infectious
diseases’ idea, where children explain things to, and help out, other children.
Angela (fourth year) had just completed a graph showing her estimation of
the capacity of certain vessels as opposed to the actual capacity. I wasn’t able to
spend the time necessary at that particular moment so I suggested she showed it

267
Developing Mathematical Thinking — ee

to Karen who was also waiting. Then both of them were to come back later with
Karen’s opinion of Angela’s results together with any criticismand alterations
necessary to the graph. This way I was free to continue with Wayne and in fact
found time to go to the two girls myself.
Sometimes I find the queue inevitably somewhat longer than I’d like. Some
of my standard queue reducers are as follows:
1 Is there anybody who knows I can deal with them quickly — let me see you
first. This disposes with those going to the dentist, those who’ve lost their pencil
and those who feel sick!
2 Have you had your worked checked by someone else first?
3. If it’s book-based practice work they often need reminding that it should be
marked from answers kept around the room before showing me.
4 If it’s a problem several in the queue need sorting out I deal with that in a
sroup.
5 Desperation! when most of the class wants me I do the same as every other
teacher would and sit them all down or stop them in situ and address the whole
class. This gives me a necessary breathing space because I can’t stand the pressure
of virtually the whole class waiting in a queue.
As well as giving you space to talk to other children, it also shows that children’s
own ideas are to be respected, not just the teacher’s or a textbook’s. It also
teaches children to listen to each other. It is training again. In time, children
only seek any help when they really need it — valuable training for independence
in later life.

If I’m the only person in my school using these methods won't it ultimately be a
waste of time and effort?
I think anything which helps build a child’s confidence and independence is
worth doing. I feel I see the benefits even on a short-term basis, even if at times
the going seems hard. This doesn’t just apply to maths, but to all areas of the
curriculum as the methods involved in working this way generate a general ethos
which permeates the classroom. In fact its rather a chicken—egg, egg—chicken
situation, one needs a certain ethos in which to teach maths in this way but the
ethos creates the situation in which the maths can be taught in this way.
There is a possibility that you might influence your colleagues to work this
way too? If they see that this method works for you, that you enjoy working in
this way, and that the children enjoy it and benefit in a variety of ways, then
that’s the best possible recommendation. Even if you have little success in in-
fluencing your colleagues it is still worth it for the benefit it brings to the
children and the enjoyment you can get from it yourself. Just be prepared for
the hard but rewarding work involved in setting up the general classroom ethos.
This setting up period will take at least the first half of the first term, if not
longer.
In our school we are lucky. The support and encouragement of the head
enabled us all to change over to a do, talk and record way of working and now,

268
Bees
je oe Sy aN Training middle-school children to do, talk and record

as I said in the introduction, we have formulated a school policy in maths and

we all work to the same goals of getting the children to think for themselves. We
all expect similar levels of responsibility, initiative, and independence and we
train them right from the start to develop these qualities. Such training shows
them that we value these attributes in their behaviour.

Will the parents understand and appreciate this approach to the teaching of maths?

This is what our headmaster had to say when this question was posed.
‘We had outside advice from the Education Authority over several terms.
The advisory teacher in maths worked once a week with the teachers, who
wete sceptical to start with. Now they are convinced of the value of teach-
ing in a do, talk and record way.
At the end of the first year a parents evening was held. Children and
parents came in and worked together. It was made as informal as possible
(with tea and cakes). All went well and this led to the rewriting of our
approach to maths in the school. Parents seemed to accept what was being
done, although there were some who didn’t want to be involved, being
quite happy to let the school get on with it.’

Regular parent evenings like this have meant that parents do understand what we
are doing now.

What do the children get out of this?

We feel our children are now able to work independently when necessary. They
develop initiative. If I’m talking to a group or individual they know not to inter-
rupt and, rather than wait about for help they will often try to help themselves.
If a child waits by me for some period of time I know it’s probably because it’s
my help he needs. Even then making an aside from the group discussion I can
encourage the child to perhaps first seek help from a friend. Here I find it’s
essential to point out that the children do need to know where all materials are
kept and what they may or may not take.
How else do the children benefit? They are gaining in ability and confidence
in expressing themselves, an important across the curriculum point. They have
learnt how to talk to each other and most importantly to listen to each other as
well as to the teacher. After five years of do, talk and record in our school we
can certainly see the fruits of our labours. The third and fourth years have a
sound base on which to build the topic centred work of the upper school. But
we did have some hard, concerted training to do in those early terms.

Finally, do the kids enjoy it?

I will let the children answer this one for themselves.
Debra: I like making things with my fingers it helps me understand. I
make shapes at home. I use my brain.
Jayne: I like making things as well. In a book you might not under-
stand what they tell you, if you do it yourself you remember.

269
 Treinind middle-school children to do,

In the first school we used colour factor to help us do our 4

maths.
Sharon: I liked doing symmetry and making shapes. You didn’t tell us
exactly how to make the shapes, we had to try and make them
ourselves. Symmetry, I didn’t understand, I found a lot out with
that.
Mark: I don’t like working from books, I don’t like maths that much.
Some books are hard to understand. I like the different sort of — ‘
maths, when you find things out.
Stephen: I like Mrs Harvey’s maths because of the work that she gives us. .
When we did solid shapes she got me to come out to the board
and see if I could design a plan for a Toblerone box. First of all
I tried to make a square box, it didn’t work when I was gluing
it.
Deborah: I like maths. It’s not really maths though is it?
' (4th yr)
Karen: It’s good to do the things yourself. I didn’t really know about
(4th yr) kilograms and litres and measuring before. Now I can imagine it
myself.
Wayne: I like the mess you can make and no one shouts, well as long as
(4th yr) you clear it up.

References
James, C. N., ‘Mathematics from Middle Schools to High Schools, Part 1. An
approach to Mathematical Understanding and Development for Middle
Schools.’ Ealing Education Service, Ealing Teachers’ Centre Publication, 1976. |

James, C. N., ‘A series of Concept Development Papers:

Place Value ~

Addition in Hundreds, Tens, and Units

‘ Subtraction (Comparison and Take away)
Multiplication
= Division.’
APWNHN
Ealing Education Service, Ealing Teachers’ Centre Publication, 1977.
The Open University, EM 235 Developing Mathematical Thinking, The Open
University Press, 1982.

e
ee
Te
C

ae.
ee
eS
Se
ee
aL
ee

: 270 :
 27 Doing, talking and recording with a
whole class in a comprehensive
school
Bob Vertes
Source: specially written for this volume
DRAAKRKKKKKKKKKKKK
KKK KEK KKK EKER SS

Introduction

To set the scene: I am the head of a mathematics department in a 1100 pupil

mixed comprehensive, with some 10 years’ teaching experience behind me. Early
on in my teaching career I found myself able to try various techniques to over-
come the hurdle of lack of confidence in their ability, that many pupils put in
the path of their mathematical learning. I found it necessary to train pupils to
have certain attitudes and expectations within lessons, and quite a large change
in approach was called for, from them as from me, before the most conducive
atmosphere was created in the classroom.
Essentially I try to get the classroom run in what I imagine (without ex-
perience of it) is a ‘research team’ atmosphere. They need to accept me as the
one responsible for directing the activities, coordinating them, and evaluating
them in the final instance — but they also need to accept some views of their
own role not generally given pupils in the classroom. The following ten points
are a nearly complete summary of those.
They have to be prepared to:
1 Think for themselves — form their own opinions, follow their own logic.
2 Not be afraid to communicate their thinking for fear it may be wrong.
3 Accept that wrong answers can also be helpful.
4 Listen to their peers, for comments in their own words (which may well be
as useful as mine, and perhaps be all the clearer for being phrased in less formal
language).
5 Question their peers’ ideas (or any unsupported statements of mine) asking
for justification, example, or proof.
6 Accept that as well as the ‘simple’ problem to which we are bending our
minds, there may be side issues, or issues to lead us further, perhaps to general-
ised results.
7 Accept that some correct facts which seem to relate to the situation are not,
in fact, useful, that is, that on occasion there is a surfeit of information from

271
 Developing Mathematical Thinking

which we have to sieve the essentials to combine together to achieve a desired

end result.
8 Accept that some problems are open ended, that is, the methods adopted
for solution are what matter, and not the answers.
9 Accept that more than one method of solution may exist for a problem, and
that often these are equally valid.
10 Come to realise that once they understand something it is much easier to
recall it when necessary, especially in comparison to a rote formula. The dif-
ficulty here is, once you have reached a convincing result, to write reasons and
result in the formal language that is used in textbooks, examination papers, and
by ‘mathematicians’, and even to use symbolic language, standard notation, to
abbreviate this recording of process and results.

Introducing the class to the behaviour pattern observed

When I get a new class to teach, or when a new pupil arrives in my classroom,I
try to have a little chat to them about what my approach and expectations of
them are. I emphasise that when I am talking I expect them to listen to me, but I
contrast this by explaining that I shall want to hear them talking, thinking out
loud; that their fellow pupils will also be listening to them, and questioning and
further that they must listen to their friends’ comments, evaluate them and
question if they have any doubts. The only really effective way that this message
gets across is, in my experience, to start with an ‘investigation’. (I will write
more of that later) — but it is that approach that I generally use to introduce a
_ new topic or extension of material covered sometime previously. After a topic
has been introduced, during ‘practice session’ lessons, the pupils are still using
certain novel approaches: they will have been given the green light to talk among
themselves, in groups of 2 or 3 (so long as it is on relevant matter); to try each
question themselves, but compare answers, and, more important, method with
the others in their ‘team’; and (only) then to indicate if temporarily beaten by
a question.

The investigation method

A new second-year (12 year olds) class who have met coordinates before but
not equations of lines (though they had solved simple equations) were due to be
taught how to give a set of points an equation. They were given a grid, points (1,
3) and (4, 3). I suggested they drew up a table with 2 rows, marked x and y, and
about 5 columns.

es Bel
le 2a Bae
They were then told to find some other coordinates on the line through the two
points. (2, 3) (3, 3) arrive quickly, but they learnt not to stay between the two
given points necessarily, so we get, say, (6, 3).

pap!
 4 os Ce See tee ee FP a el yy Bes he dies a. ae 2 PS oe tal ttn
eS and
BG Kies clea! SOA, Sola al ate3
i EE ae lan ae a et Hee
ese Due 5 Me. . : ER RNG
\ f ay

_ Doing, talking and recording with a whole class in a comprehensive school

x [1{42/3[6
fey
As I took responses from the class, occasionally picking someone who does not
have their hand up, I was careful to praise any correct statement — but when I
received an answer I often waited, or asked ‘Agreed?’ so that if, for example,
‘someone says (3, 2) instead of (2, 3) I hope for a correcting response. This trains
them to listen to each other, and to increase their role as controlling their
learning, diminishing mine as the sole judge of accuracy. There are times when it
is just as well — I make mistakes too! It is my policy, though, to try to ‘let down
gently’ in case of error — so I will in the above instance say to the pupil, ‘Fine,
right point, but you got the x and y in the wrong order’, and often issue a
reminder to the whole class to beware of this error. This reduces the ‘guilt’ of
the pupils, and, I hope, lets them see that their error has not angered or dis-
tressed me, but in fact has been valuable as a caution to the class.
The pattern in the above table is easily and quickly identified, but the stages
are often as follows:
Pupil 1: They’re all three.
Teacher: What are?
Pupil 1: The numbers.
Teacher: All of them?
Pupil 1: The ones on the bottom line.
Teacher: What are the bottom line numbers?
Pupil 2: y numbers.
Teacher: So can you give me a rule? A statement that is true?
Pupil 2: The y numbers are all 3.
Teacher: Always 3? (pause). Look at your graphs!
Pupil 2: Yes
(I then write this statement on the board: ‘the y number is always 3”)
Teacher: Can anyone put this as an equation? A statement with an equals
sign in it?
Pupil3: y=3
Teacher: Fine. Any problems anyone?
Of further use in developing my approach is a later stage in the same topic when
a table has been reached like that below.

Me 2 Oe A
ess Aes: GT

A pupil asked a very pertinent question for which she was fulsomely praised,
as it gave the class some thinking to do, but made the later stages easier.
Pupil: Does it matter which x numbers we use?

This is an important question. It links up the fact that the result is not just
specific to the 2 points’ numbers which we started with, but can be generalised.
More than this, it has taught them a technique which can be applied to other
questions. It led to one girl putting the x numbers in order 1, 2,3, 4,5. Once I

273
‘Developing Mathematical Thinking

spot somebody recognising that patterns are going to make life easier, I will
praise, and draw the attention of the class, to this fact. I frequently tell them —
that the mathematics we learn is full of patterns and if only they can learn to use
them, or spot them when in use, their work becomes easier.
Solutions from the second ‘box’ referred to are listed, and equations ‘drawn
from them’. For example:
Words
x add 2isy
x is 2 less than y
y is 2 more than x
There’s a difference of 2
between x and y.
y take x gives 2
All the above will be clearly on the board. I accept all new solutions, we even
have a quick vote on the most popular (the vote is then derided as not being im-
portant really). An importance of taking all offers is in particular to build con-
fidence, which is what often holds back their progress; but also vital, in my e
e
opinion, is their appreciation that the process of seeking out patterns for them-
selves is what doing maths is all about. It is thinking mathematically. The fact
that this pattern is describable in words or symbols in a number of different, but
correct ways, is stressed by me, so that they begin to have faith in their own
logic, in their capacity to come up with the (or a) right answer; and in their
ability to ‘pull out’ a right answer from the data available.

Investigations
I do, as I have said, make a regular habit of emphasising whenever opportunity
arises, that mathematics is full of patterns such as shapes (common polygons,
tessellations, angle properties, symmetry, loci) and numbers (sequences, graphs,
pythagoras theorem). Many rules are visible occurring in different branches of
the subject. As an example, what I refer to as the ‘domino rule’ occurs:
1 in multiplying (cancelling fractions 4 X 2 = 2

2 in matrix multiplication i ) (:)= (:)

by 3 3 by 1 2 by 1
2by3
(must
match)

3 in ‘chain rule’ differentiation: dv y du — dv

du dm dm
4 in vectors (relative velocity) Vp = .VeE t+ EVp

and there are probably other instances: where the middle two items must match,

274
 : ee Ee ee,
ca tae RiP ht FONT eS
mee
Doing, talking and recording with a Whole class ina ROMER TREN PFN
'

ead the first andelast give the 2 components of the answer.

4 [2]x [2 Je] [4 Te]

The sorts of investigation with which I often start work with a new group, to get
them to see that they can be ‘doing maths’ without necessarily being able to
compartmentalise it in a subject or topic heading (like decimals, or fractions, or
* algebra) are for example:
=
z

The handshake problem

30 people in the class go to a party and everyone shakes hands once with every-
body else. How many handshakes were there altogether?

The anti magic square

Put the numbers | —9 in the grid so that in each of the eight directions you get a
different total. (Another variation on the rather often used magic square).

I won’t spoil your fun by giving you the answers, but suffice it to say neither is
as easy as it looks, though each is easy enough at first glance for most pupils to
be interested in willing to try it. I first incur the displeasure of some of the class
by telling them to work in a small group; I do not allow wild guesses unsup-
ported by evidence, preferring first to take any offers of how we could approach
the problem logically. The first one is straightforward if one first takes smaller
classes, that is small parties, then spots the pattern, puts it into a formula, and
(ideally) generalises, taking the specific case 30 after generalising. The real
problem is of course not ‘30’ but NV people at a party, and by the end of that
investigation most classes will, if my original 10 points were followed, have a
good idea of what is required of them. Since they can see the results, they
usually quickly acquiesce into that method of working.
Although the result of my ‘favourite’ investigation is a little awkward to
obtain using rigorous mathematical method, certainly too advanced for 15 year
olds, the point it makes is usually well taken:

PM by
ef ‘ Developing Mathematical Thinking

The circle areas problem

Oe no dots
one area
one dot
one area
two dots
two areas
3 dots
4 areas
4 dots
8 areas

q
j
34
5 dots 6 dots ; 3
16 areas How many areas will there be?

The answer is not 32, and for 7 dots, all connected up, the answer is not 64. This ee
ee

usually stumps most of those pupils who rush to plump for the ‘obvious’ answer. al
ta

By drawing, the correct answer can generally be obtained, but one or two
sections which are very small, or made up by 3 lines interactions virtually coinci- a

dent, are very easily overlooked.

Continuing sequences
It is worth mentioning, I feel, that the ‘method of differences’, which I use on
occasions when a technique for continuing sequences is required, can be a
simple, useful tool in investigations. It relies on looking at differences between
successive terms, and looking at successive lines of those until a line of constant
differences are obtained, from where we can build up to find the real term, then
the rest, and so on. For example:

a
a
“

1\ 3 6\ 10 15 21 [28]
—_

1st difference 2 KP RS ie ee 6 @) |
2nd difference 1 1 1

(the triangular numbers)

2 8 27
A RS Ne)
1st difference 7 19 37
Na oe
2nd difference 12 18

3rd difference 6 6

(the cubes of numbers)

276
 Sere ee LPse OV ae a eee RP Ee Toe s -
Sek 2 a eoBen
: Doing, talking and recording with a whole class in a comprehensive school

3 The above example

1 1 2 4 8 16/ [81] (For 7 dots/57)

0 1 2 (For 8 dots/99)
1 1

0 1
constant —> 1

A nice example of one which illustrates two routes to the same result is to look
at the problem of finding how many diagonals there are in an N-sided polygon.
The sequence obtained by separate drawings of triangles, squares or pen-
tagons, yields

numbers of N= Do akerts * 4-5 62 S27

diagonals 040 Oe. 2. S594 4
no shape
can be drawn

For example: NV = 6, number of diagonals = 9

Looking arithmetically/algebraically at the sequence may or may not get you to

a general formula, though I find most pupils can continue the sequence.
As an exercise in logic, directed questions can get most pupils to a formula as
follows. I would first ask for them to check that they had drawn 3 or 4
diagrams. Then ask if a polygon has N sides, how many vertices (corners) has it?
Followed by ‘To how many corners can you not draw a diagonal? It has, in my
experience, quickly become agreed by a class that it is 3, provided those partici-
pating are asked to justify their answers (2 is the first answer given usually), the
3 being the vertex chosen and the 2 either side of it. It then becomes clear that
there were N — 3 diagonals from any one of the points — hence V(N — 3) from
theNV points. The last step, to realise that you have to divide by 2 to get the right
answers, usually follows if you remember to check back and see if the answer
obtained here corresponds to that obtained by ‘experiment’.
The main reasons why I find this investigative method, and investigations
generally, extremely useful are because:

OH i
5 Developing Mathematical Thinking
1 they use, develop and make interesting the techniques of pattern spotting;
2 they practise logical thinking;
3 since often there is more than a single method of approach to a problem, or
different ways of working the results, they emphasise that different approaches
can be equally vital;
4 they teach mathematical processes and reasoning while appearing often to be
arithmetic based (i.e. using numbers) which are the symbols the pupils feel most
confident using;
5 they can practise together, involving friends or family. (Every few weeks I try
to set an investigation or puzzle for homework. It’s an excellent way of trying to
get my message across to parents, many of whom feel maths is just pages full of
sums. ;

The joy of discovery, the ease of recall of items discovered is not just a bonus
effect but a major reason for adopting this approach. I often remind a class how
many things they remember ever so easily simply because they discovered it for
themselves, or because they’re really interested, such as names of pop stars and
records or football results, while they forget so much that they get regularly
tested on, and would expect to recall more and more easily. It is why I don’t
always tell them the ‘answer’ for quite a while after I set an investigation, pre-
ferring to increase the number of hints, or to suggest some self-directing
questions they could use, if they are getting bogged down. What is amusing is
how often they can recall not just the method but the answer to investigations
done a year or more ago!

Stuck!
There are two expressions which are used too often by pupils in order (often) to
get out of thinking or working. ‘I’m stuck’ or ‘I don’t get it’ called out or stated
after a brief consideration of a question is not easily tolerated in my lessons — or
rather not when I consider it is simply a ‘get out’ from work. In themselves the
expressions are acceptable, but I need to train the pupils I teach to use them
only when it signifies a certain (not the initial) stage in a process of working
towards a result.
The obvious disaffection that being ‘stuck’ or ‘not getting it’ creates can be
avoided, or at least diminished by training pupils soon after you first meet them,
to listen carefully to questions you ask them when they say they are ‘stuck’.
They should then learn to ask themselves these type of questions even if you’re
not available. I tend to refer to them as self-directing questions. They will, if
you learn to pose and answer them, lead you through, round or beyond thinking
hurdles.
Early on with a new class, when I’m covering a topic like geometry (which
often worries the average or weak pupil), I try to devote a lesson or two to work-
ing through a whole set of examples on the board. Either I initially go through a
worked example, thinking out loud and confirming my thoughts next to the
‘official’ working on the board, then getting more and more pupils involved in
278
 ai “uahie
7 E04 4 sie
, —
cal ls
: ; 6 a
re ee
‘4 es ; 3 A : : oi wea ee
a eS ta} ‘ = 4% era e oe
= -o
Doing, talking and recording with a whole class in a comprehensive school —

____ the solution process of later questions; or, more frequently now that I’m reasonab-
ly confident in the process, straight away getting contributions from pupils. Either
way, the self-directing questions tend to arise quickly, if in batches, as follows:

1 What does the question tell you? What information is given? Would a diagram
help? Would a table, or a list, be helpful to display the information?
2 What do we need to find (or prove)? Is it anything I can get from the infor-
mation directly (or from the diagram or table)? Can I use symbols to shortcut
the work?
These stages require an enquiring, open mind, and also some patience. Some
pupils will ‘get there’ quickly, but for real success, I always allow a bit of
‘thinking time’ and wait for hands to go up — especially early on in any lesson. I
may pick on the shy ones, to encourage them to contribute. I am also quite
nasty to those that shout out. I like to emphasise we’re not in a race, or I'll get
one or two of those that I think don’t understand the impatient one’s comment
(even if correct) to ‘grill him’ to see if he can explain why his answer’s right. If
he can, he gets away with a mild rebuke, with a bit of praise, but if he can’t it’s
a useful demonstration that he must think out why as well as what, the answer
is, as he gave it. At this early stage, as later, I record all contributions so all can
see current ‘state of play’, and reward contributions (verbally) so all feel able
and willing to say something.
These two stages over, if the pupil(s) say ‘stuck’, I now consider it a legiti-
mate state. Prior to this the ‘thinker’ has opted out of really investigating»
whether he has the ability to answer the question. He has made a snap judgment,
one to give him an easy way out. The question now appropriate is such as:
3 Is there anything that is true, and looks relevant, that can be written down?
Own words or symbols, preferably with a reason, but ‘hunches’ are allowed,
(even if occasionally wrong). If there is no progress to a general result, can a few
simpler examples or special cases lead us to any further results (or even conjec-
tures) perhaps by looking at a pattern? Has a question like this been done
before? Has the textbook got any examples like this?

I accept that not all pupils will consistently be able to continue this process, so
it’s at this stage I get them to compare notes with a neighbour, and see if their
focal ideas can get them a stage further. I try to encourage them to question any
step the other pupil has made without reasons, and to ensure they are convinced
by any reasons given. Failing this, they need to challenge, in a friendly way, the
other pupil(s) with whom they are working. If they can get used to doing this,
then rather than competition between them (an unnecessary burden on the
thinking process, as in many school activities, in my opinion) they will learn co-
operation. I find that as they learn to respect their peers’ abilities and comments,
so they gain in self respect, and self confidence, recognising that their own —
opinions are sought and included.
I have a little bit of extra ‘inter-personal training’ to do to achieve this all
round increase in self respect and respect for others. Obviously discussion skills
play a part in the work, and some collusion between discursive subject teachers
279
_ Developing Mathematical Thinking
play a part in the work, and some collusion between discursive subject teachers ce
(e.g. English, History).and myself often helps to get them to practise giving an
opinion and respect another’s opinion or comments. I am quick to clampdown
on any ridiculing of ‘wrong’ answers. There is nothing so inhibiting as being —
publicly shamed, and I want to eliminate that form of ‘I’m stuck’ which says
really, either ‘there you are, I’ve failed again’ or ‘I’m scared to say, because]
might make a fool of myself’. When I start teaching about circles, I ask a simple ;
question, ‘How do I draw a circle?’ Some wit usually says ‘use a compass’ and
there is an inevitable titter around the room. I use this situation to point out
1 ‘compass’ vy ‘compasses’
2 it isa perfectly correct answer, whether we mean drawing round a compass or
using compasses.
3 there may be other methods which can be used without having either of these
pieces of equipment, such as ruler and pencil, the ‘envelope’ method.
3 draw line over other edge

2 place ruler edge against cross.

1 make a cross
Repeat for other positions of ruler, each time with one edge up against cross.

Nv
e

\
Se .

The lines are each tangents to a circle, centred on the cross, so the straight lines :
enclose or ‘envelop’ a circle. A small problem can arise, namely that a few pupils
will copy rather than write their own ideas down, when set to work in class. I try |
to apportion the blame between copier and copied, and ask who’s done the .
thinking? Share by all means but try to contribute equally, and don’t copy
unless you really understand what is going on.

280
 Doing, talking and recording with a whole class in a comprehensive school

Mark schemes
Very early in my taking over a new class, they will be told that arithmetic is the
least important of the skills I need of them, that answers need not always be
correct (indeed that I may well make some errors on occasion), but that the way
they get to the answers and the way they set out the reasons for their answers
are much more important.
One way I use to get this message across, that is, that process not product is
what really matters, is by adopting a marking scheme for their class, home and
test work, which emphasises their working especially at the start of a question.
This is so that they get used to reasoning, sorting out whether they know the
right process, rather than to hasty answers or guesswork. Intuitive ability is fine,
but few people can rely on it for a sufficiently high success rate to avoid the
need for learning to give step by step accounts of working, answers and reasons.
As I’ve said earlier, Iwork through a number of examples to illustrate the steps I
feel necessary in solving a problem, not so much teaching as getting the class to
listen and watch as I illustrate how I personally approach, evaluate, tackle, lay-
out and solve the question. Even when I begin to involve them in problem
solving as J record their comments I am careful to lay it out as I hope they will
learn to by illustrations of mark schemes for such work. The scheme shows
where marks are allotted for working or reasons (that is, ‘method marks’), and
(if and when examples can be found from their work) where I prefer someone’s
attempt with the wrong answer but the right process, to someone else’s who may
have the right answer but either hasn’t shown working, or has made an error, or
even two cancelling each other.

Checking
The last of the techniques I try to emphasise (if this section seems to be an after-
thought, it is the same attitude that the pupils display to it at first) is that they
should try to check their work. To compare theory with reality, to see if a result
is sensible, compatible with the information, of the right magnitude, fitting the
equation and so on. This largely removes the occasionally irritating chorus of
‘Sir, is this right?’ diminishes the ‘hands up’ and the queues at the desk, and
more importantly, from the point of view that the pupils’ benefit is more im-
portant than the teacher’s, it gets the pupils to realise that their efforts can be
checked by themselves. They also realise that conjectures can be tested, that
guesses can be investigated as being right or intuitive. Checking compensates
only slightly for the weighting of marks in favour of process, rather than
‘product’.

Conclusion
The most delightfully rewarding part of teaching for me has always been seeing
the joy on the face of a pupil who has ‘discovered’ some fact. It may be under-

281
Developing Mathematical Thinking

standing a simple idea, or the final result of a complex calculation, but the sheer
satisfaction is tremendous. It is only so if the pupil has been enabled or en-
couraged to reach the conclusion himself, and has not in response to a query
simply been fold.
I believe there’s an internationally used proverb:
‘Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day
Teach the man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.’
I adopt this philosophy, and adapt the proverb:
Tell a pupil the answer, and you satisfy him for the moment
Teach him how to find the answer, and you provide for him for a lifetime.

282
28 Doing, talking and recording in
remedial and other situations in a
comprehensive school
Sandy Carter

In this article I intend to refer to two classes that I am teaching this year. The
first is a small group of first years who are in fact remedial (many of them have
quite severe emotional problems as well as learning difficulties). The second is a
fifth year CSE group, many of whom are quite capable and may go on to study
O-level in the lower sixth.
When considering the first year remedial group it is as well to remember that
the majority of those pupils have lost a lot of confidence in themselves generally
and more specifically in their ability to cope mathematically. A great deal of
my time is there fore spent re-building this ‘lost confidenct’ as well as attempting
to put into operation any remedial help that is required.
On arrival at our school these pupils are usually assessed, as accurately as
possible, so that where necessary, individual programmes can be devised to
cope with certain pupil’s specific problems. In order to do this assessment I
rely on diagnostic tests and ‘pupil talk’. By ‘pupil talk’ I mean open discussion
between the pupils themselves as well as me. I find that through open discussion
I can learn a great deal about each pupil; their confused thought processes,
lack of knowledge and to what extent their confidence is actually lacking.
Talk enables us all to learn from each other and it can help to build up the trust
and rapport, that is in my opinion very essential. It is always my intention at
this stage to also show to the pupils that although I am very firm in my approach
to teaching I am also patient and willing to give to each of them as much time as
I can. I think that time is the most important thing that we can offer these
children. Very often they are in the state that they are in due to the fact that
time in teaching is at a premium everywhere. None of us have enough of this
valuable commodity.
As we are all aware, pupils need to be able to listen in order to gain anything
from talk, but many remedial pupils are unable to listen properly. This inability
to listen is probably linked to their lack of concentration. Like most areas
where there is a deficiency certain training can help overcome these problems.
I attempt to train those pupils by adopting various techniques that I have

283
 Developing Mathematical Thinking en: earetr tag
discovered work for me. An example of this iss that during a period of discussion .
it becomes a great deal easier for us all to participate and listen if we sit in a
group close to each other as opposed to being spread out around the room. I
tell the pupils that they must listen to what people have to say so that they ©
can grasp the points in discussion first time. I personally have no intention of
making statements to the group more than once; mind you this is my general
teaching philosophy anyway. I know that if the pupils see that I am prepared
to keep repeating myself they will be lazy when it comes to listening. If I give
a mental arithmetic test, the pupils know that I am prepared to say the question
twice and the answer only once.
I have discovered through experience again that I can train children to res-
pond to certain verbal signals. By this is meant that TF use just one word for
example, my favourite word seems to be ‘right’ and I can use this in so many
different ways by altering the intonation. When I say ‘right!’ sharply, usually
meaning that I am ready to proceed and need their full attention, the pupils
respond accordingly. If I say the same word softly the inference is that as far
as I am concerned all is well, and that I am pleased. Children learn to react to
my voice in this manner and I find I am able to use one word to transmit a ee
en
See
e
O
“ee

whole range of meaning that could in some instances be ‘wordy’, repetitive and
‘heavy going’ for both me and the pupils. I am sure that verbosity encourages —
pupils to switch off as opposed to listening. To sum up I suppose one could
say that pupils will listen if they consider that what is being said to them is
important, relevant and meaningful.
Whilst training children to listen, my ‘hidden intentions’ are to also pre- _—

- pare children to talk confidently and with greater understanding. It is important

that they have these qualities when talking so that their audience has the
*¥
necessary desire to listen. When these children talk I do not expect them to use
the high powered jargon that this subject can demand. On the contrary, I am
more than happy for these children to adopt a language of their own as long
as we are all on the same wavelength.
The use of apparatus can act as a good medium for this, because the pupils’
talk can develop from their actions. Recently, after struggling with some pupils,
trying to develop a greater understanding of the division concept, I resorted to
coloured counters. We pretended that we had fifteen sweets to be divided be-
ee
Be
ee
e
i
i
l|

tween the three of us. One particular pupil who had been sharing the sweets
later announced that the symbol + meant ‘shared between’. I encouraged this
by saying something like ‘Well done Angela; yes [Link] a very good description
of precisely what you did and an excellent new name for division.’ The same
situation occurred with multiplication whereby the phrase ‘lots of’ was used
and understood by many pupils.
An experience-I recently encountered with one of these pupils is probably
worth relating at this point. A little girl, who has obvious difficulties in under-
standing anything relating to maths, frowned very deeply every time I began to
speak. I could almost read in her face ‘This is maths, and I don’t understand
maths, so I’m not going to understand this.’

284

Sa
e
 «oe

ip Doing, talking and recording in remedial and other situations

My initial chat with Caroline was completely fruitless. She continually re-
_ peated, ‘I don’t understand, I don’t know what you mean.’ According to her
maths book she was able to cope with both addition and subtraction by using
an algorithm and most of her work was correct. I decided to use the abacus with
Caroline — hoping to get her to talk to me whilst we explored the possibilities
of the abacus together. Caroline was unable to talk freely unless I intervened
prompting, questioning, encouraging and eventually I abandoned talking in
terms of maths. We spent time talking just generally and Caroline became much
more relaxed. We then looked at her exercise book and discussed her success
rate for here was proof that she was capable of good, correct work — I praised
her accordingly. I moved Caroline back to the abacus and now she was much
more relaxed and as she began to talk her own natural language was used. As
she spoke she looked for my reaction. As I listened and nodded, praised, re-
assured, Caroline certainly began to gain more confidence and a good rapport
developed between us. The barrier began to break down — it was good. Praise
such as ‘Good girl’, ‘Well done’ ‘That’s nice’, ‘Oh I like that’, always seem to
go down well with this type of child. I wanted Caroline to see that there is no
wrong but that there are varying degrees of right. If she and I were communicat-
ing with each other and there was mutual understanding, then we had success.
Caroline has improved tremendously in both ability and understanding. She
still looks puzzled but only occasionally!
In order to have time to spend with children like this, I have to organise
the rest of the group for a twenty minute maths games session. This may in-
volve clock bingo, probability using dice or a banking game. I ask the pupils
not to disturb me and to solve any problems they may have through group
discussion. I do make sure that they have understood how to play the games
before hand. This usually works well, I find.
I use games a great deal in order to make mathematics fun and interesting.
One class game I frequently use is called ‘buggy’. I read about it in a journal
and decided to give it a try as a part of my ‘confidence building’ programme.
‘Bugs’ are repeated errors that children make and the game involves putting
onto the blackboard a series of these and for each one that the pupils can
correct they receive a house point.
Here are some typical ‘buggies’
ty 2207 2) 406 3) 476
+ 194 — 138 + 195
- 3911 332 1211
As the pupils become less inhibited and gain more confidence they begin to
‘openly’ identify with the ‘bugs’ and become prepared to talk about them.
I have had incidences when a pupil realises he has a ‘bug’ that has not been
mentioned and he will be quite happy to get up and show the class. This type
of lesson I would liken to group therapy, particularly as there is the opportunity
for pupils to disclose the fact that their difficulties are experienced by others
and many pupils do use this opportunity. I have actually heard a pupil say

285
 Testicle Mathematical Thinking

_ "Yes, did that like Simon except that I was worse because I did it when I was
adding as well’. I really believe that once pupils begin to recognise errors like
this they are beginning to think mathematically and also they are really getting
inside the subject.
Another game that has proved both successful and enjoyable is called the
‘Number Storywriting’ game. The pupils think of a sum and write it out on a ~
piece of paper for example:

ceil be
101
They fold the piece of paper and put it in a ‘hat’. Each pupil then choses a sum
from the hat and attempts to write a story about the sum that he has chosen.
The pupils in turn write their stories on the blackboard with the sum and if the
sum and the story match then they win a house point for their team. If they
don’t match then the other team attempt to re-write the story and gain a house
point bonus. A very interesting example of this ‘mis-matching’ was when one of
the pupils called John picked out the following sum 301 — 187 = 114. As his
story he wrote: ‘There were 301 soldiers and then 187 more soldiers came along.
Now 187 soldiers got shot, how many were there left.’ hd
leh
eia
His colleagues recognised his mistake and were very keen to help him. Pupils
such as John do not appear to feel embarrassment, resentment or shame. The
atmosphere that is created in the classroom is such that we are all tolerant of
each other’s errors including mine. Once again there is no wrong as such. I prefer
_ to suggest that if we are all looking for understanding then a story may be
written or spoken in an alternative way. =aOy
v5. a
ee
or
Pee
O
I find that audio visual aids can be a very valuable part of a lesson particularly
if I am aiming to achieve a certain ‘quality’ of talk. I regularly use a tape re-
corder which the children seem to enjoy. Taping, talking then playing back and
attempting to improve upon the first performance is really what we do together.
Pupils like to see if they can become better even to the point of competing
against themselves. To promote discussion we usually choose a topic, such as a
balance. A pupil may attempt to describe to the group the attributes they have
found or discovered about it — its versatility. When the tape is played back I
quite often find myself saying ‘look that bit’s good, can you hear for your- fh
ms
SS
er
Lee

self that’s what you did’. At this point the remainder of the pupils may take over
by saying ‘Oh yes I left out such and such’ or ‘I could have said . . . then it
would have sounded better I think.’ As the teacher and the adult in the situation
I usually take the opportunity to say ‘Great. You can see that there is nothing
wrong with your thinking there are just a few gaps but with a little help you
soon spot them for yourself.’
The fifth year became my responsibility at the beginning of their 4th year
and I had not taught any of them before. In this situation I always like to

286
A gt Cina CONE RE ae a i: fe _ bn + x A. z > 2 hg
OE. GU 2 NIginNena Goal ara . ser ws
Doing, talking and recording in remedial and other situations —

_ ensure that they perform well in their exams at the end of the two-year period.
I tell the pupils that I am prepared to and will work extremely hard as well
as giving all my efforts to encourage and help them to succeed but I expect
them to respond in the same way. Pupils need to be trained to work hard and
to learn all about effort.
I have found that the only way that I can really train them in this respect is
to make them really interested and keen so that they want to give the effort.
For example, if I offer a particular problem area to be solved by the pupils,
I will go along with them and help them all I can to the point where they can
really begin to grapple. Once they have reached this point I then encourage
them not to give up but to pursue their line of thinking in order to achieve
the final result. This is where the effort comes in. I attempt to get this attitude
going right at the beginning and I really work the pupils as hard as I can.
One problem I experienced at the beginning was that many pupils had a poor
attitude to homework. I began to give very low grades when homework was
not handed in, D, for example. This worked for a while, but was never one
hundred per cent successful so I hit upon the idea of involving the parents. I
started a scheme whereby the parents had to sign the homework — this sig-
nature was not only to confirm that the work had been completed at home
but also that it was considered to be satisfactory as far as the parents were
concerned. This I found to be a personal safeguard too. Faced with an irate
parent querying homework (as happens on occasions) I could very easily put
the ball in their court. This system has worked very well; as the exams draw
near the onus is now squarely on them.
This group as you can imagine are fairly bright, and I suppose, with this in
mind I was quite amazed when I received their first piece of written work for
marking. Nearly all of these pupils only put the answers down in their exercise
books; this concerned me a great deal. I needed to know why these pupils were
so concerned to omit any calculations and where they did their thinking. By
talking to these pupils it became obvious that the answers were the only import-
ant part. ‘After all you only need to know if the answer is right or wrong’ was
the response. The general opinion was that ‘you don’t show your workings out
‘cos it makes the book messy.’ I now had to stress the importance of showing
all their thinking in their books and give them the reasons why this is so
necessary.
One of the main reasons I give is the simple fact that I cannot see into their
heads to see what in fact is going on. I cannot always spend the time that I
would like to, talking to them to see how they are progressing and whether
confusions are developing that need sorting out early on, and so they must com-
are
municate all this to me on paper. Certain problems that they will encounter
going to be long and require logical reasoning and so to get into the habit of pro-
ceeding through their work methodically is a good thing. I also inform them that
I check their work thoroughly when I mark it and I like to see all their thought
processes at work just as the examiner will ultimately. All the time that they are
working I encourage them to confer with a colleague. I say to the pupils ‘Go

287
 4
vans hi

aah

Nepali’ Mathematical Thinking

through-the sum with James, see where you agree and where you differ.’ This _

encourages them to record their work fairly accurately. I also expect them to use
’

each other’s knowledge and only if they are experiencing real difficulties do I 4 4
E
help out. I do quite often, however, intervene and ask ‘an answer-only oriented
pupil’, ‘How did you get that.’ Of course they jump to the defensive and
exclaim ‘Why what’s wrong?’ My response to this is usually ‘I didn’t say any-
thing was wrong but I am interested in your thoughts.’ When I do this I make a
point of choosing correct answers initially so that I am not breaking any con-
fidences.
It took a long time to get these pupils to change their ways. Some resented
change while others had no idea exactly what I was expecting. I decided to
spend some time showing them how to set out their work and I prepared model
answer sheets for each exercise they attempted. I did this for about six lessons
and although some of them were beginning to get the idea, some were still not —
quite sure how much detail to put down or ‘where to put the odd little sum’.
I used the overhead projector to illustrate to them how I personally work
through a problem; how I set down any thoughts and how I attempt to reach a
logical conclusion. The pupils enjoyed this and I think for many of them this
was a better way of explaining my expectations. My doing, talking and recording
showed them a real example. In order to promote this idea I decided on an
incentive scheme. For each problem that the pupils worked through I devised
an individual mark scheme. For example:
Problem: Find 20 per cent of £180
j ze 2O gee
yeckR
700 i (1 mark)
s
—

1
ax ee (cancelling 1 mark)

Answer £36 (1 mark)

This is a simple example, but even if the pupils were able to gain a solution by
using mental arithmetic I still asked them to show their thinking and awarded
marks accordingly.

20 per cent of £1 means 20pin every £1 = (1)

So 20 X 180=3600 (1) =£36 (1).
I always award more marks for the calculating than for the answer. I do realise that
this involves a lot of extra work on my part but I feel it is definitely worth doing.
This group have never been very self-confident and seemed to need constant
reassurance from me which I found particularly demanding as well as taxing.
Generally my methods of reassurance take the form of constant praising, ques-
tioning and hopefully developing a good rapport. I try to show the pupils
that they are gaining a certain amount of success and that I approve by my
gestures and comments which I hope are always constructive. I have noticed

288
 ist =, 5.9 ro oes, 7 >? : ots, . _ . Se “

east) ten ; : ‘
“os 5eet
one ee =
Pa Set! Pier bee aso
bi Seated: Doing, talking and recording in remedial and other situations

‘ that if the pupils have a good working relationship with me then they tend to
; care about what I think; they want to please me because in turn they know I
generally respond favourably and that usually makes them feel good and ready
to tackle the next hurdle confidently.
: _ Before these pupils gained any confidence of any description, they would
never attempt a problem, they always turned to me and announced that they
were ‘stuck’; 26 pupils all being stuck at the same time is an impossible situation
and I needed to do something to resolve it. Firstly I decided to make a conscious
effort to use more open questions, to encourage the pupils to do some thinking.
I read that this type of approach was considered to be a good way of promoting
self-confidence and breaking down fears. There was definitely some improve-
ment, but I think that the moment they began to take responsibility for their
own learning produced the best results. In order to develop this I adopted
phrases such as ‘Be bold. Use your own thought processes. Go on, make a
mistake and I will prove to you that you were on the right tracks and if you
had continued you would have got the answer eventually.’ ‘Take responsibility
for your own learning, share it with others, learn from them, you have such a
lot to offer each other.’
Without a lot more directing, the pupils began to confer with one another
andI encouraged this while still keeping tabs on the noise level. In the early
stages this sometimes got out of hand. Then I would stop them and say — ‘Look
I can’t hear what Carol is saying and she is right next to me. How can you hear
one another. When you get loud, I must get louder so you must keep it down
so that we can all hear one another.’
From working in pairs, group work developed and recently I moved all the
desks around in my classroom in order to accommodate this new trend. Collec-
tive thinking seems to be very productive as long as the pupils are mature
8 enough to make the most of this type of freedom. Many pupils see asking a
friend as cheating. They have to be trained to turn to one another to confer.
. I encourage them by telling them that I do have the experience to distinguish
between genuine discussion and cheating and when I mark I can tell whether
there has been any cheating or not. If cheating does occur I have to come down
hard by saying something like ‘Now just a minute James, Charlie told you what
to do . . . you tell me what he said . . . why does Charlie’s idea work (James
has copied). See James that’s no good you’ve gained nothing. Charlie has done
all the thinking. Your job is to go on asking Charlie until you understand.
It’s good for him too. Make him be exact. If he can’t be, I'll come along and
help both of you.’
This new way of teaching has released me and now | am more able to spend ©
time with the ‘struggling pupils’ who need a lot of attention. Even so, Istill
tend to collect half a dozen or so pupils at a time for tutorials after school in
order to go over certain difficulties.
I have learned to accept talk as an essential part of my teaching style, but ,
I must admit I was not keen at first. I felt very threatened and I became most
anxious for fear of losing my control over the classroom situation. It was only

‘289
; Developing Mathematical Thinking

when Ibegan to see how successful the pupils were making it that I really
appreciated that the training had paid off. Quite often even when no answers
are available some conclusive evidence as to what the answer probably should
Ni
7+
be is derived from a general consensus of opinion. I sometimes hear a comment
like ‘Well why do you think I’m % out, Simon’. A general search now begins,
to look for the 74. Pupils check each other’s work. They tend to discuss the
different methods used to approach the problem. Some remember formulae,
others search out pattern formations. As the pupils become used to do, talk
and record methods they are convinced that all this talking really works and
the atmosphere in the classroom is one of quiet, busy talk. If this does not
remain at a low level I have no qualms about blowing up and threatening com-
plete silence and a return to the traditional approach. But most of the time
this way of working really makes for enjoyment all round.
One thing that pleases me most, and reassures me, is that before we adopted *\

this approach the pupils were probably only responsible for about 10 to 15
per cent of their own work, whereas now they are coping with a good 60 per
cent. This is where I want my pupils to be, learning through their own efforts,
not simply mine. ee
e
ose
P eS
G
E
eI

ee
=

290
abstracting 79—81 in secondary education 38—40
abstraction arithmetical competence 39—40
naming in 81 Assessment of Performance Unit
successive 85 (APU) 1
accuracy 155—156 first report of 54—67
addition 27—29 survey results 64—67
difficulties with 164—165, written items with results of
. 167-172 58—64
story problems 153—156 monitoring mathematical
young children’s 153—161 performance 54—58
age
conceptual ability and 113 behaviour, classifying children’s
understanding time and 203—204 79-81
visual imagery and 136—137
algebra 56.
Boolean 41 calculators, use of 44, 182, 184, 185
in secondary education 40—42 Cartesian product 197
indices 146 challenges of change 17
metaphor use in 145—147 checking work, pupils 281
modern and traditional 41, 55 child-centred curriculum 14, 15
teaching 205—209 classroom
transformations 143—145, 149 alternative structuring of 124—134
algorithms mental atmosphere 262, 271
nature of 180—181 noise level 262—263
place for 182 organising the 246
algorithms, standard written policy 256—257
nature of 178—179 ‘cloze’ procedure 148
out of-date teaching of 182 collaboration 22
use of 179—180 computers, use of 45—46, 237—245
analytic-synthetic activity 186—192 concepts 79
area communicating 81—83
ability to measure 104—105 contributory 85—86
acquiring the concept of 87—116 differentiation of 188—189
concreto-logic tests on 106, formation of mathematical
108—109, 110 19—86
measurement 29 identifying 238
order of understanding 98—103, order of acquisition of 87—116
105—106 primary 82
arithmetic 62 secondary 82
alternative teaching 182—185 time 201—204
computation 48—51 conceptual level
mental 47—48 communication skills and
metaphor use in 145—147 114-115
‘realistic’ 39—40 teaching at lower 86

291
Developing Mathematical Thinking

“concreto-logic 69 GCE courses

age and 113 ; algebra in 41
children’s ability to use, 104, . computer studies 45
106—109 use of practical material in 45 ~
conservation 69 general education trends 12—25
area to volume 93 geometric relations 211—217
understanding 88 geometry 56
see also Piaget deductive 42
CSE courses modern and traditional 55
algebra in 41 secondary school 42
arithmetical competence 39 structural approach to primary
computer studies 45 school 210—217
use of practical material in 43 graded assessments 48
wider topics in 53
cuisenaire rods 228, 229 Hadow report 9, 13, 14
curriculum HMIs 2, 7—9
content 18
development evaluation 121—123 individual assignments
non-replacement of group work
decimals, introduction to 29 35
definitions, use of 82 work-card 37
with examples 84 in-service education 16, 18
division 27, 179, 180, 194 in-service training 23
do, talk and record (DTR) 246—247 investigation, introducing new
first and second years and topics by 272—278
264—265
in a comprehensive school language 36, 66—67, 114, 191
271-282 barriers of expression 128
remedial situations 283—290 cognitive development and
parents view of 269 135-138
training middle-school children to mathematics and 70
258-270 potential of 46—47
doing and talking, in a primary role of 51
classroom 248—257 language of mathematics
children’s difficulties in 170—171
communication of 139—150
edges 218—225
teaching the 126, 127—128,
Education Act (1944) 13
130—131
educational and mathematical
Leach, Edmund 202
background, 1930—1950
learning
13-15
authority for 129, 132
enactive representation 135, 136
children and 19
errors, analysis of 190—191
mathematics 55
measuring 263—264
outcomes 56—57
formal knowledge 164—167 processes 18
four rules of number 14, 27, 35, 38, left-handed learning 120—123
39, 55, 67, 177-178, 181, 211 left-handed knowing 121, 122—123
fractional part 29 length, measurement of 29
fractions 58, 60, 63—64, 65 logic, understanding and 112

292
 i Mie Doe e ena eee ee UTS Wyre Me
See SN oes poy Gee
Ge Sora
=? 5?
Index
as
ae
5 swe
J
7 a pe : ; ayy . aw,
4

McMichael, Paquita 74 calculations of 181—185

marking work 266—267, 281 facts 37
removal of 261—262 line 183, 197
Mathematical Association relations between 211
committees (1938, 1946 and numeracy, notion of 2, 52
1950) 14
Primary Mathematics a Further oral work 46—47, 51 °
Report, (1970) 18, 20 organisation 20
Teaching of Mathematics in
Primary Schools, The, (1955) Papousek, Hanus 71—72
14, 18-19 performance, classifying 57
mathematical concepts, formation of Petrova, V.D. 186—192
79—86 Piaget 68—69
mathematical education, historical conceptual development 112, 113
context 5—26 conservation
primary level 6—11 concept of time and 204
mathematical English 140—145 order of achievement 87—88,
mathematicians 235-246 93
eee
a mathematics problem 174
informal 151 variance of results with 92—93
in primary education in England pre-operational stages 120
27-37 place-value 183, 195
in secondary education in play-work areas 121—123
England 38—53 Plowden report 8, 10—11, 15, 16
arithmetical computation polyominoes 216—217, 226—228
48-51 primary education, 1950—1980
classroom approach 46—51 15-18
content of 38—40 primary mathematics, content of
use of practical material 43—46 28—30 j
1950—1980 18—23 probability 55, 56
physical sciences and 29, 30 problem-solving 69—70
structure 55 analysis/synthesis teaching in
measures 55, 56 186—192
metaphor, use in mathematical children’s mistakes in 157—1 ote,
meaning 145—147 159, 160°" **
conflicts in 149 developing quantitive 154—156
modern courses 43 difficulties in 2
money, handling 29, 32, 38 in‘the-primary school 226—234
- multiplication 27, 179, 180 strategies 156—157, 158, 159,
tables 37 160, 168—172
aid to new studies 131 substantiation of 189
suggested reorientation in problems, thinking about 117—119
learning 193—200 progress, measuring 263—264
Pythagorus 42, 84
‘nature-nurture’ debate 137 reading ability, mathematics and 148
non-examination courses rectangles 221—225
algebra in 41 concept of 196—197
computer studies 45 rectangular array 198—200
wider topics in 53 rewards, encouraging children with
number 55, 56, 61 74-77

293
 ae children 255—256 ;
ai development of 72-74 sg 1f- ducai
ae 213,-214, 215 : féchnieal drawing 42
ing in’ period 948-255 telling the time, 29, 32, 201 204
tessellation 216 *
subject content 20
symbols, ee
of wome36, 66, 70,
volume
135, 139, 149,233-
—234 ability to measure 104-105
algebraic si207, 20 acquiring the concept of 87—1 16
juxtaposition “Gf 143
concreto-logic testson 106,
110-111
2 tangram 216 order in understanding 91— 101,
teachers
105-107
areas of professional judgement
rectangles to 219—222
227223.
awareness 132—133
centre 20—21 weight e
educational challenges to 18 acquiring the concept of 87— aE 16
expectations 228—232 concreto-logic tests on 106—108,
external structure supports 16—17 111
in-service support 13, 16 measurement 29 10
required levels of understanding 19 order in understanding 91—97, _
responsibility for informed choice | 102—103
15—16 work cards 28, 37