Teaching Math 1

Running Head: TEACHING MATH IN GRADES 3-5 CLASSROOMS

Teaching Mathematics in Grades 3-5 Classrooms

Thomas L. Good

University of Arizona

This is an edited version of an invited paper presented at the National Mathematics Panel (NMP),
Stanford University, November 6, 2006. I appreciate the extensive editorial assistance of Alyson
Lavigne Dolan and Janaé Renteria in preparing the paper. This final paper was submitted to NMP
on November 15, 2006.
 Teaching Math 2

Abstract

Educational reform over the last 50 years has taken various forms, and many of the forms held

ideas in sharp opposition to earlier or later reforms (more structured environments vs. less

structured environments; teachers as presenters of knowledge vs. teachers as coaches; more

breadth vs. more depth; individualized student learning vs. students learning in groups and so

forth). One common denominator to these varied reform movements is that they were costly,

time consuming, and largely ineffective. In part, they failed because they typically were so

narrow that in their efforts to enhance normative practice they intervened so sharply that needed

components of any effective learning environment where eliminated or reduced sharply (in one

instance the role of practice and review was radically reduced such that the next reform had to

restore these fundamental elements). Variables like practice, review, fun, homework, class size

and feedback assume value only in a broader conceptualization of practice. To be successful,

reform needs to consider a broad range of factors and to recognize that good math teaching takes

many different forms as outcomes and contexts change. I see an understanding of normative

curriculum and instruction as the appropriate starting point for meaningful reform. Reform starts

with the reasoned adjustment of the normative classroom. Here I describe normative instruction

in grades 3-5 classrooms. I conclude that too little time is spent on mathematics, and that more

time needs to be added, especially time that leads to a meaningful focus on mathematics (as

Doug Grouws and I described some time ago). The current grades 3-5 curriculum has become so

crowded that even if more time were allocated for math, more coordinated decisions would need

to be made about the core curriculum. Expanding and improving normative practice is not

straight forward and will require much research and development. The quality of teachers'

mathematical content is critical as is their knowledge of how to teach math (what Lee Shulman
 Teaching Math 3

terms pedagogical knowledge). Research also is showing that it is critical that teachers not only

scaffold students' content learning but must do so in ways that scaffolds them emotionally and

socially (what Mary McCaslin terms knowledge and co-regulation of students as social learners).

Current practices in teacher education that under value pedagogical and social knowledge require

revision. I also argue that the view of teacher educators that devalues the role of teacher as an

explicit provider of mathematical knowledge needs to be reexamined and altered. One way in

which teachers make a difference in students' mathematical learning is through the active,

explicit teaching of mathematical knowledge. I believe that Shulman, McCaslin, and others who

argue the value of pedagogical knowledge and the need for social knowledge of students are

correct. However, this knowledge must be acted on and one way it can be is through active,

explicit teaching. Too many teacher educators fail to acknowledge this vital teaching role.

Changing normative practice is acknowledged to be a complex task; however meaningful

progress is possible especially if change is conceptualized as a succession of small coordinated

steps.
 Teaching Math 4

Introduction

I Thank members of the National Mathematics Panel (NMP) for the chance to share a

few ideas at this meeting. I attended all of the sessions today and have appreciated the rich ideas

that were presented. And, I realize that this is but a small fraction of the volume of input you will

receive. Good luck on your important task!

The Panel's scope of work is necessarily ambitious. We have seen the less than expected

outcomes of numerous reforms in American education over the past 50 years. Historically,

reform efforts have been so focused on such a small range of ideas that they mitigate against any

meaningful reform. Some reform has focused on curriculum, but left untouched the professional

development that might have helped teachers implement the intended curriculum. Too often, new

curriculum units have been put forth without data to show that they help students to understand

content better than did the previous curriculum. Over time, such new adjustments, quickly

followed up by new re-adjustments, have left many teachers with the perception that any

proposed change will soon be gone. Given this historical cycle of “out with the old and in with

the new”, it is understandable as to why teacher do not embrace in-service education and new

reforms.

I begin by locating myself and this presentation. First, I appreciate the need for a wide

and coordinated set of initiatives, if meaningful reform is to occur. I will not discuss many

aspects of the NMP’s agenda, however I note that much exciting work is taking place in the area

of curriculum development (Chval, et al., 2006a; Chval, et al., 2006b; Reys et al., 2005; Reys &

Roseman, 2004; Tarr, et al., 2006a; Tarr, et al., 2006b). Importantly, much of this work

recognizes that curriculum tasks are mediated by teachers and students, hence, these efforts move
 Teaching Math 5

beyond the “stand alone” curriculum approach of the past-an approach-that did not stand alone.

Valuable work also currently addresses the professional development needs of teachers. This also

is an important area of research and development that merits research and resources, and there

are many others far better equipped to address these issues than I am.

I am an educational psychologist, who has spent many hours observing teaching/learning

in math classes. I have come to believe that good mathematics instruction varies in terms of

curriculum goals, the pedagogical skills of teachers, and the mathematical knowledge of teachers

and students. Different instructional formats (individualized, small group, large group,

technology infused, and so forth) can provide effective learning environments. Students can learn

from other students as well as their teachers. There are no panaceas or preferred formats per se

(as some believe and advocate) that transcend all learning contexts. I have argued that the quality

of the teaching /learning format is vastly more important than the format per se (e.g. the quality

of small group instruction is vastly more important than its presence per se [Good, 1996].

My statement is not revolutionary but it is supported by considerable research evidence.

Whole-class teaching or learner-centered instruction can be dreadful or wonderful, yet reformers

often insist upon the superiority of one single format. Fads come and go only to return in

education. We have curriculum reform, then instructional reform, and so forth. Despite my

argument that good math teaching takes many forms, the history of reform suggests that at

different points in time only certain approaches to curriculum or teaching have been defined as

good teaching practice by policy makers, educators, or even foundations.

Reform De jour

I am sure that the NMP members realize that past reforms in American education have

had but little impact on classroom practice. Thus, a quick history lessons might be useful to all of
 Teaching Math 6

us. I briefly review but a few reform movements in American education: the Sputnik Crisis, the

Individualized Instruction/Open Classroom Movements, A Nation at Risk, and the current era of

No Child Left Behind. The Soviet’s launching of Sputnik was widely perceived to demonstrate

that science and mathematics instruction in American classrooms was so outdated and weak that

it left us at military peril. The policy response to this threat was to radically reform the

mathematics curriculum and to introduce abstract set theory (New Math) to whole classes of

students as a solution to our scientific problems. As we all know, New Math appeared only to

suddenly and quickly disappear. And it is arguable that we won the “space war” largely with

scientists and mathematicians who were trained in the 1940's--and who had not studied new

math. It is especially instructive to see that some felt strongly that New Math was arguably more

self-serving and political than driven by research evidence.

The purposes, effects, and “failure” of the New Math reform have been analyzed

extensively. Some comments are worth reexamination (see Appendix A and Moise, et al., 1965

for extended analysis). I especially like quote three in Appendix A which suggests that the New

Math was as much about advancing personal status and power as it was about advancing

scientific knowledge.

In the 1960’s educators became interested in creating more individualized instruction.

Whole class instruction was seen as outdated and many contended that a better future would be

created with use of emerging technologies that could individualize instruction and enhance

learning. Disappointment with individualized instruction soon set in quickly, and educators

advocated for a humanistic approach to education that would reduce student isolation and

dependency on teachers and curriculum materials (see Good & Braden, 2000 for extended

comment). The more humanistic, open classroom movement asserted the need for choice and
 Teaching Math 7

opportunity for self-direction that putatively would allow students to become more committed

and, in time, more thoughtful and creative learners (Barth, 1970; Silberman, 1970). The open

school movement also came and left relatively quickly, in part, because it was soon evident that,

given a smorgasbord curriculum (take what you want) many (high school) students made poor

curriculum choices (Powell, Farrar, Cohen, 1985). The “shopping mall” approach was soon

replaced with reform that called for more adult control of structure and more content.

In 1983, the report, A Nation at Risk, sounded the alarm that America was in economic

peril because our students’ education was inferior to that found in Germany, Japan and

elsewhere. This educational reform called for more instruction in core academic subjects, longer

school days, longer school years, more home work, and so forth. This “economic war” was soon

won by economists, business managers, psychologists and so forth who had graduated from

American schools long before 1983, and hence had not received the educational value of the

“more” curriculum.

Currently, we are in the midst of another educational reform as defined by federal law No

Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB was fueled by various claims including low student test

scores, especially in comparison to those in other countries, large ethnic group differences in

achievement, low quality teachers who are inadequately trained, out dated conceptions of high

schools that allow students to be lazy, and learning standards that expect too little from them.

Since we are in the middle of this reform I will leave it to history to judge NCLB’s effectiveness;

however, my tentative hopes are not high and I share many of the concerns that others have

expressed about the NCLB effects (Linn, 2005; McCaslin, 2006; Stipek, 2006).
 Teaching Math 8

Learning from Failed Reforms

Why have these reforms failed to meet intended effects? First, these reforms have largely

focused on discrete concerns: curriculum or teaching format, the quality of teachers'

characteristics or their practices, student motivation or volition (earlier induced through choice;

now through accountability and fear), school level reform or teacher level reform, teacher

centered instruction or student centered learning, enriched technology or not and so forth.

Second, such reform efforts failed because single variables or sets of variables do not have an

independent effect on student learning. Teacher characteristics are mediated by teaching

practices, which are mediated by student characteristics, which in turn are mediated by those

opportunities that students have to apply content concepts and so forth. The usefulness of a

variable depends upon both its quality and how it fits into a learning system.

Homework Helps

Consider the role of homework in stimulating student learning—is it needed or

irrelevant? Homework might be useful if it is a format for practice that is informative to students

and teachers about the degree of student learning (or the lack there of), and if the obtained

information is then used to plan subsequent instruction. If ungraded or poorly graded and not

used in subsequent teaching or testing, homework is at best irrelevant and if more and more is

assigned it can be harmful. Research demonstrates that the effects of homework on student

learning, and their attitudes toward learning and schooling, are extremely diverse (Cooper,

Robinson, & Patall, 2006). How would you answer this multiple choice question?

Research shows that homework has what effect on learners?

A. It lowers students' attitudes

 Teaching Math 9

B. It improves students’ achievement

C. It lowers students’ achievement

D. It improves students' attitudes

E. All of the above

Given my previous comments, the answer is E. This is because some research does exist to

support the "truth" of A, B, C, and D in one or more conditions. Further, meta analysis (Cooper,

et al., 2006) and careful analysis allow for some understanding as to when and why homework

does or doesn’t improve student achievement and attitudes. Clearly, the usefulness of homework

depends on several factors.

Math Should be Fun

Simple variables are popular among reformers who fail to consider context. For example,

another reform variable that has recently garnered much media attention is “fun”. Should math

be fun? Should it be personally relevant? The effect of fun on learning was examined in an

international study (see Brown Policy Center, 2006). Why should math be fun? Is there theory or

research to suggest that enjoyment and math proficiency are highly correlated? I enjoy signing

and listening to music but I do not sign well. Would you want me to sing to you now simply

because I find singing fun? I am a reasonable writer, but do I enjoy all the proactive reading and

rewriting that precedes a finished product? Did I enjoy preparing this paper? I did not. Does

homework need to be fun to facilitate learning? Clearly not, as Harris Cooper's review shows so

well. Apparently, some scholars have not studied the open classroom reform movement where

fun or, at least personal relevancy was argued- only to be rejected later- as a critical component

of a major reform to improve American education. My point is not to poke fun at “fun". I raise

this issue because I want to question why this variable was included in an international study.
 Teaching Math 10

The literature is replete with examples to suggest that fun is not an important variable. For

example Oakes (2005) reported that lower - track students in junior high school and high school

settings liked school and reported classes to be fun at the same level as did high - track students.

So, why explore a discounted variable when there are so many other important ones to study?

I could continue to examine the futility of single variable reforms but I hope my point has

been made. Single variables, have meaning only as part of an instructional system. My remarks

go beyond an affirmation of the complexity of reform and the need to plan reform strategies that

match the complexity of the problem(s). However, I submit that until we give up simple

conceptions of reform (e.g. more homework, more fun, more drill, and so forth) classroom

practice will continue to be what it is-and what it has been for sometime.

Improving Instruction

Now, I make a few suggestions about how mathematics instruction (coupled with better

teacher knowledge of math, better curriculum, better technology better testing, and so forth)

could be helpful in improving students’ mathematics performance. I comment on a few

instructional issues/opportunities in grade 3-5 mathematics classes. At first glance this scope may

seem too limited, however, I submit that we loose many students in the grade 3-5 window and

that unless we "fix" this problem our middle school and high school interventions will be much

less successful than if these issues were addressed sooner (Good & McCaslin, 2005; McCaslin &

Good, 2005).

Time Allocation

Arguably, the most important predictors of learning are the opportunity to learn and the

time needed to learn (Carrol, 1963). Given this important principle, it is critical to ask do we

allocate enough time for mathematics instruction in grades 3-5? I believe the answer is a
 Teaching Math 11

resounding no. Although many feared that the effects of NCLB would be to reduce the

elementary school curriculum to only the study of reading and math, these predictions were only

50% correct. There is striking evidence to suggest that the elementary school curriculum has

become a literacy curriculum. In one national study (NICHD, 2004), and in one large study in a

single state (McCaslin et al., 2006) it was found that time spent on mathematics instruction in

grades 3, 4, and 5 was about the same amount as spent in transition between subjects.

Robert Pianta and his colleagues (NICHD, 2004) describe what took place in a single day

in 780 third-grade classrooms sampled from about 250 school districts. They found that over half

the time available in the day was spent on literacy instruction. The ratio of time committed to

other activities were mathematics .29, transitions .24, science .06, technology .03, and free time

.008 (where students pursued tasks of their own choosing). In a study of grade 3-5 teaching in

one state, Mary McCaslin and her colleagues visited, 145 teachers were visited 447 times

(McCaslin et al., 2006). Observations were organized into 10 minute intervals, and overall 2,736

ten minute intervals of observational data were collected. Of these observation intervals 587

were devoted to instruction in math, 1642 intervals were devoted to reading and literacy. You can

do the math--clearly--students received much more instruction in literacy than in math.

Use of Allocated Time

The amount of time allocated for math instruction is further reduced by the fact that time

spent during the math period is not always spent on instruction. The research community has

long known that teachers vary enormously in their use of time and that in some cases as much as

50% of available instructional time is spent on various things such as announcements, "house

keeping" activities, and so forth (Berliner, 1979; Fisher et al., 1980; Freeman & Porter, 1989).

There is no evidence to suggest that math teachers as a group have become more efficient in their
 Teaching Math 12

use of instructional time. So the amount of time spent on mathematics may be considerably less

than that reported by Robert Pianta and Mary McCaslin and their colleagues.

Time Spread Across many Content Areas

Time issues have intensified for grade 3-5 teachers because in the last twenty years more

ambitious math content has been recommended for inclusion in grade 3-5 instruction. For

example, topics and activities like estimation, measurement, problem solving, statistics,

calculator usage, and computer usage have been added to the curriculum. These topics were

added to a full range of arithmetic functions and operations that were already in the curriculum

(e.g. division with remainders) and little if anything else was removed from the curriculum.

Although the breadth of the curriculum has expanded, time for mathematics instruction has not.

It is likely that some, if not many, teachers spend less time on computational instruction than

teachers did 20 years ago. Given this likely situation, it is not surprising that elementary school

students’ computational proficiency has dropped in an important way (Brown Policy Center,

2006).

This is not an argument against teaching more ambitious content; it is an argument for

increasing the amount of allocated time for math instruction in grades 3-5. If time cannot be

increased, then the curriculum must be reduced. Spreading the same amount of instructional time

over more and more content guarantees that teachers cannot touch, let alone teach, all the content

included in the math curriculum. Increasing the time on math instruction by even 15 minutes a

day is an easy and straightforward and inexpensive policy action that might have powerful

impact. Time in itself it not enough, however. Curriculum theorists must prioritize math topics

for particular grade levels.

 Teaching Math 13

Studying the Normative Instruction

Data from the NICHD study (2005) of third grade classes (as well as an earlier national

sample of first grade classrooms, NICHD 2003) revealed that the focus of instruction in most

classes was basic skill instruction. For example, the ratio of basic skill instruction to analysis/

inference opportunities was roughly 11:1. McCaslin et al. (2006) also found that the learning

focus in grades 3-5 was on basic skill instruction. Wiley et al. (2006) differentiated these general

findings to compare math and reading instruction. In mathematics, students were virtually never

asked to engage in tasks that involved higher order thinking and reasoning, rather students were

3 times more likely to engage basic facts and skills tasks than tasks that integrated basic facts and

related thinking.

Like the NICHD results, McCaslin et al. found that students did not make observable

decisions in the classroom largely because they did not have opportunities to do so. In our

research we found that in only 4% of observations were students allowed to make any choices.

And choices, when allowed, were in procedural areas rather than opportunities for autonomy.

Importantly, opportunities for choice typically were earned by students. In over 50% of the

occasions coded, choice was contingent upon successful completion of something else (e. g.,

when you finish your math, problems you can read your book). We will come back to this issue

later and discuss the potential value of increasing student contingent choice and argue that earned

contingent choice differs markedly from the “do as you please” choice opportunities associated

with the open classroom movement of the 1970’s.

Make Math Instruction Meaningful

Given that so much time is spent on facts and skills, it seems reasonable to argue that

mathematics in grades 3-5 could be taught somewhat differently and especially in a way that
 Teaching Math 14

focuses upon the meaning of the mathematics studied. Helping students to make sense of the

math they “do” is potentially a powerful strategy for increasing students' understanding.

Obviously this goal is exceedingly difficult to achieve in comparison to simply increasing time

for mathematics. The idea of meaningful instruction has deep historical roots in education as

seen generally in the writings of John Dewey and in mathematics specifically (Brownell, 1947).

There is a considerable and consistent literature supporting the notion that more time spent on

understanding ideas and concepts, as opposed to only practice and review, leads to better

understanding and retention (Greathouse, 1996; Fraiving, Murphy & Fusion, 1999). Review and

practice is of course critical for acquiring knowledge and retaining it, but practice is not enough.

Doug Grouws and I addressed the issue of how to make mathematics more meaningful so

as to increase students' learning in the mid 1970's. This research, supported by the National

Institute of Education, became known in time as the Missouri Math Project (MMP). The

conception of the research, methods, and findings can be readily obtained elsewhere (Good &

Grouws, 1975; Good & Grouws, 1977; Good, Grouws, and Ebmeier, 1983; Ebmeier and Good

1979). I make but a few comments about MMP here.

Doug and I addressed two goals in this project. First, we wanted to assess the degree of

teacher effects on student learning. We began MMP in an era (including scholars and policy

makers) that assumed that individual differences in teachers were unimportant determinants of

student learning. After establishing a strong correlational link between teaching practices and

student achievement, we then pursued a second goal--can these practices and beliefs be taught to

other teachers in ways that improved their students’ achievement in comparison to students in

matched control groups? We found that the treatment had an important impact on student

achievement. In today’s language – “The effect size was large”.

 Teaching Math 15

In building the treatment we drew upon our correlational work that described how

teachers who obtained high student achievement scores taught differently than did teachers who

obtained lower achievement scores from similar students under similar conditions. We also drew

upon a small but powerful set of basic studies in mathematics that showed that the ratio of time

spent on the meaning of the content should be greater than time spent on practice (Dubriel, 1977;

Shipp & Deer, 1960; Shuster & Pigge, 1965; Zahn, 1966). These data suggested that spending

time initially to provide a rich conceptual base allows for meaningful practice and increased skill

proficiency. Current practice in teaching mathematics at that time, however, was the reverse--

most time was spent on practice. Our goal was to see if we could increase the time that teachers

and students spent discussing the meaning of the math they studied and that they then applied

and practiced during seat work. The study demonstrated that teachers in general could implement

most aspects of the treatment, except for the development of a rich conceptual base prior to

application and practice. Clearly more work on the variable of how to develop mathematical

meaning was needed, but we had made at least a dent in the problem. Others have implemented

MMP and have consistently reported positive impact on student achievement in other

experimental studies, and some have adjusted the treatment for successful application with older

students (e.g. Sigurdson & Olson, 1992).

The publication of our findings was met with enthusiasm in many quarters (and indeed

too much enthusiasm in some cases as some concluded that this was the way to teach). Others

rejected our findings out of hand and criticized our conception of practice as too narrow. Some of

these concerns were legitimate but many were political; the notion of “active teaching” was no

longer on the preferred “how to teach” menu that teacher educators served. Although teachers

and policy makers were markedly favorable to our findings, teacher educators were dismissive.
 Teaching Math 16

Teacher educator’s view of what normative practice should look like differed from our findings,

and hence many of them decided to reject (or at least ignore) rather than to clarify these findings

through further research . There is no reason to relive the mid 80's and 90's but I do want to say

that our basic claim was that the MMP project was a good way (not the only way) to teach math

concepts. Further, by using two different ways to classify students and one analytical way to

measure teacher characteristics, we found that differences in teacher’s and student’s preferences

mediated treatment effects. Although largely ignored by critics, these published data showed that

the MMP treatment was mediated by teacher and student beliefs and those findings invited basic

research on how and why the MMP treatment could be modified to benefit more students. I

mention this because one criticism of MMP was that it was insensitive to teacher and students’

beliefs. My goal here is not to pull MMP off the shelf, but I do want to argue that the role of

explicit teaching has been woefully under utilized by many teacher educators. As important as it

is, however, explicit teaching is not enough.

Explicit Teaching is Not Enough

Effective explicit or active teaching is of course dependent upon teachers’ mathematical

knowledge and ways of teaching math--in ways that connect with students as learners and social

beings. Explicit instruction also is dependent upon teachers’ ability to listen to students, respond

to students’ questions appropriately, and scaffold student learning, as well as a myriad of social

communication skills (e.g. conveying a sense of community, developing we-ness, pace, clarity,

and so forth). These various dimensions that must be in place if active teaching is to be effective

are discussed in detail elsewhere (Good & Brophy, in press).

 Teaching Math 17

I discuss but one of these components here--the role of appropriate teacher expectations

for student learning--since it is so relevant to aspects of the current reform movement (such as

the need to reduce the black-white test score gap [see Ferguson, 1998]).

Teachers' expectations for student performance as a function of students' achievement

level, gender, ethnicity, social class and other student characteristics have often been found to

influence teachers' actions toward students. Teachers’ expectations can fuel differentially

inappropriate opportunities and have lowered student achievement (Brophy & Good,1970;

Fenemma & Sherman,1974; Rubie-Davies, Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006; Weinstein, Gregory, &

Strambler, 2004). For example students believed by their teacher to have less ability sometimes

receive fewer and less substantial academic opportunities than do their peers who are perceived

by teachers as having more talent. These students benefited from teacher confidence and

expanded opportunities and perform better than they would have if they had not received their

teacher’s higher performance expectations. A few of these differences in how teachers behaved

differently toward students believed to be high and low achievers are presented in table 1. Math

teachers need to ensure that low achieving students engage challenging work like problem

solving and not simply a series of drill and practice, work that is separated from a meaningful

understanding of what is being practiced.

Teachers Make a Difference

The belief that teachers make a difference have been argued on logical grounds (Good,

Biddle & Brophy, 1975) and overtime various researchers have shown empirically that teachers

have a major impact on students' learning of subject matter (Hanushek, Rivkin, & Kaim, 2005;

Nye, Kon Stantopoulop & Hedges, 2004; Sanders & Horn, 1994; Sanders & Rivers, 1996;

Rowan, Correnti & Miller, 2002; Good & Grouws, 1979; Good, Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983).
 Teaching Math 18

We now know that teachers make a difference in student learning and, of all the school

related variables, the quality of teachers’ teaching by far exerts the most powerful influence on

student learning. Teachers who know math well and who can teach well significantly enhance

student achievement. Although the claim that teachers make a difference now is accepted widely

among researchers, citizens and policy makers, this has not always been the case. As recently as

the early 1970's researchers and policy makers believed that the impact of schooling (including

teachers) on student learning was very small and that hereditary and home factors were the major

determinants of student performance (Coleman et al., 1966). And unfortunately even today, as

Rhona Weinstein has noted, some policy makers and educators still cling to a belief that

intelligence is largely fixed and not malleable through life experiences (Weinstein, Gregory,

Strambler, 2004).

Our data on variation in teacher effects on student mathematics achievement suggests

otherwise (Good, Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983). Active teaching can be done well or poorly.

However, it does seem that high quality explicit teaching is something that math teachers should

be able to do while also using other high quality instructional formats in appropriate contexts.

Also, active teaching can be used to scaffold students’ abilities to assume more responsibility for

their own learning (see Table 2).

What constitutes quality teaching remains under debate, in part, because of the ecological

complexity of teaching and learning-- the combinations of variables that affect student outcomes

likely varies with age and background knowledge of students, subject, cognitive demands of

assigned learning tasks, instructional format, teacher knowledge of subject matter and so forth.

Yet, I want to stress that in the past 25 years I have seen mathematics educators

increasingly argue for small group learning, learning communities, discourse communities and so
 Teaching Math 19

forth, but the role of math teacher as “presenter of knowledge” has been painted as a negative

practice. I acknowledge that encouraging students to be active learners is important and can be a

very effective learning format under many circumstances (e.g. Fraiving, Murphy & Fuson,

1999). However, I note that when students become collaborators and teachers of other students

they have to be able to play those roles. There is evidence to suggest that students can

communicate low expectations to peers more quickly and powerfully than do teachers. Many

students' knowledge of math and teaching are inadequate to scaffold or to co- regulate the

learning of their peers. Abdicating the teaching role to students is not a panacea.

To reiterate, in the past couple of decades explicit teaching has been a forbidden fruit

among teacher educators. When we look at the research evidence, however, either broadly or

specifically in mathematics student achievement is best enhanced by active explicit teaching--not

teachers as coaches, facilitators and so forth. I can understand the need to delimit the role of

active, explicit teaching. It is important to understand its weaknesses and to recognize the useful

role of the social construction of knowledge (Good & Brophy, in press). My role here, in part is

to rekindle interest in explicit teaching as an important aspect of a teacher's repertoire. If teachers

graduate from teacher education programs without extensive practice and informed feedback

about their use of active, explicit teaching models, they have been trained incompletely.

Students as Social Beings

So, beyond increasing the amount of time allocated to the teaching of mathematics,

making the focus more meaningful, and recognizing the need for teachers to teach explicitly in

some contexts, what else can be done to enhance students’ performance in math?

My fourth recommendation is to help teachers see that students are social beings as well

as academic learners and to be able to use that knowledge to enhance instruction (McCaslin,
 Teaching Math 20

1996; McCaslin & Good, 1996; McCaslin 2006). When Mary McCaslin, Barbara Reys, and I

coordinated a project on small group mathematics learning supported by the National Science

Foundation in the 1990’s, we conducted an intake interview with participating teachers. (Good,

McCaslin, & Reys, 1992) Teachers had volunteered to teach content (statistics, geometry,

estimation and problem solving) using small group formats. The interview assessed both

teachers' knowledge of mathematics and their social knowledge of students (what are fourth

grade students like?). We found that some teachers knew a lot about math and others a lot about

students. Very few teachers knew enough about both. Although there are many reasons for this

differential knowledge base (some teachers want to teach kids while others want to teach math) I

think teachers can be effective only if they have both types of knowledge. McCaslin (2004) has

provided a clear theoretical rational as to why this type of knowledge is important. More research

and development is needed to effectively being these ideas to practice.

To be effective, teachers need content knowledge, knowledge of students learning,

pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of students as social beings. These are different types of

knowledge than what other educators have called for in the past. Importantly, Tom Carpenter et

al. (1989) have shown how research on children’s thinking could be used by teachers to improve

student learning. More recently, Lee Shulman has logically pointed out that content knowledge

can be separated from knowledge of how to teach the content. Shulman (1986) called this

knowledge pedagogical knowledge “…in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the

subject that makes it comprehensible to others.” He pointed out the need for teachers to possess

knowledge about the type of examples, analogies, and so forth that make material accessible and

understandable to learners. Social knowledge considers issues such as students’ affiliative needs

within the social structure of the class or the group (McCaslin, et. al, 1994). More broadly it
 Teaching Math 21

concerns knowledge of students’ life experiences such as the media they consume and contribute

(Nichols & Good, 2004). There is increasing evidence that many students are more ambitious

and more adaptive than many policy makers believe (Nichols & Good, 2004; Schneider &

Stevenson, 1999), and this may be true of teachers as well.

Mary McCaslin (2006) has noted math content and students' interests may become fused

or confused; dividing the pizza correctly for some students is more about fairness than fractions.

Awareness of social knowledge may help teachers to make decisions about what type of data

topics to graph, what story problems to solve and, for a group learning project in measurement,

whether to develop a food court, a bank, or a ball park economy. I suspect if I had been teaching

students in St Louis, or Columbia Missouri, Detroit, or Ann Arbor Michigan last month during

the World Series I would have organized estimation lessons around ball park concession sales on

a cold night!

Researchers also have reasons to be concerned about students as social beings as they

recruit students to their research and then attempt to learn from them. For example, offering

students a sweat shirt as an incentive is not as unimportant a decision as it may seem at first

glance. Many variables will mediate the attractiveness of the shirt-- does it have a hood? Is it the

right color? Does it have a desired logo? is that logo readily available elsewhere? In our recent

research in Comprehensive School Reform schools, we found that the right pencil can be

attractive to grade 3-5 students, the wrong pencil an insult. Researchers also need knowledge of

students as social beings if they are to engage students in meaningful conversations and

interviews to understand students’ mathematical knowledge, their likely interest in math or

science as a career and so forth. Similarly, if they want to assess student problem solving abilities
 Teaching Math 22

knowledge of students as social beings might well aid in designing tasks that have appropriate

levels of task difficulty and authenticity.

Normative Practice Endures

We have seen that some aspects of normative practice require change (the focus on drill,

facts, and low levels of cognitive activity). How should we change practice to improve student

proficiency in math? Perhaps the starting point is to recognize that past change efforts have failed

in many respects. Students for the most part are not often spending time thinking about the

meaning of the mathematics they study. They are not finding, solving, or creating problems. For

the most part they deal with basic facts and skills. Technology is not used pervasively in

elementary education. Is this bad? Not necessarily so. Can it be improved? I think so. Obviously,

if this normative picture described all of K-16 instruction the situation would be dire. But it

doesn’t. We know that in algebra classes students spend much time solving problems. In

trigonometry classes students attend to relational aspects of math, and so forth. Thus, all issues

need not be addressed (let alone be resolved) in grades 3-5. Yet, clearly some reform in grades 3-

5 math instruction seems warranted.

Why might math teachers resisted reform recommendations? I suspect in large measure

they find that teaching traditional arithmetic consumes most of the available math time. With

limited time teachers may believe that large group instruction is more effective than formats that

require the grouping of students. This may be particularly the case when teachers engage

students in problem solving and dealing with more ambitious math like estimation and

probability.

Although teachers may find aspects of a reform attractive, they may see required changes

as attempting to do so much so quickly that it will not enhance their current practice. So why
 Teaching Math 23

spend time developing new lessons, and activities, and modes of evaluation? Typically, the new

curriculum or instructional method is touted in teacher education programs and some high profile

research occurs in a limited number of schools. But, by and large, as Larry Cuban (1984) has

long noted, the typical teacher continues practice that is largely unaltered by the prevailing fad.

This is costly for two basic reasons. First, each reform is costly. New textbooks and products are

produced and teacher education students spend much time learning an approach to math

instruction that is then abandoned in a few years. Second, in the majority of classrooms

instruction is not influenced. Part of teacher rejection of the new is that it arrives on the basis of

assertion not evidence. Hence, we conclude that change can involve too much as well as too

little; however, historically reformers have errored by attempting to do too much too soon. We

suspect that changing normative practice can best been seen as a series of small steps that allows

for major progress over time. And, these changes must occur with teacher support and the reform

process must encourage teacher thought and innovation-- not simple compliance (Randi &

Corno, 1997).

Changing Normative Practice

If our goal is to change (reform) the math curriculum in ways that increase time spent on

math instruction, make that time focused more on the meaning of math, allow and enhance

explicit teaching, and encourage teachers to acquire and use knowledge of students as social

beings, how would we proceed?

Based on our findings (McCaslin, 2006), we argued that many CSR classrooms could be

enhanced by the provision of more opportunities for students to apply knowledge and to

elaborate on facts, concepts, and skills to sharpen their understandings. We suspect that these

same issues apply in grades 3-5 instruction in non-CSR classes. More opportunities for student
 Teaching Math 24

choice also seem important so that students can learn how to make choices, develop their

interests, and meet the responsibilities that come with choice. Expectations for student

understanding and responsibility can be too high as well as too low, and achieving the

appropriate balance between breadth and depth, and other and self-direction is no easy task.

Instructional balance requires more research and development. Teachers involved in these

research and development efforts should know that they are involved in the search for balance.

As argued elsewhere even a relatively small shift in instructional practice that attempts to

balance discrete and elaborated knowledge could yield a notable gain in student learning and

understanding (McCaslin, et. al, 2006). What constitutes an enabling balance, however, likely

varies as a function of student prior knowledge (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004; Connor,

Morrison, & Petrella, 2004), subject matter grade level, and the type of learning outcome sought.

Further, it is useful to recognize that as educators attempt to enhance normative practices in CSR

classrooms, Van Horn and Ramey (2003) found that the most successful programs for younger

students were generally more structured. To move too far from normative practice too quickly

may be detrimental to students who, although exposed to instructional practices like those that

are normative nationally, may in fact experience those practices differently from their more

affluent peers. Efforts to improve their achievement will require adapting instructional practices

with students’ beliefs and understandings in mind. We envision a program of research on small

strategic changes in instructional practices (e.g. student question asking and problem finding)

that over time allow students more reflection, elaboration, and responsibility in their learning.

Conclusions

In this paper, I have argued that changing grades 3-5 teaching has been the focus of many

reform efforts. Yet, in many respects the instruction in these grades, in the majority of
 Teaching Math 25

classrooms, has not changed. Analysis as to why change efforts have had little impact have been

provided. Although many teacher educators have recommended against the use of whole class

teaching, it remains the dominant form of instruction that grade 3-5 teachers use. Suggestions for

reform have been made including more appropriate use of active teaching of math by teachers

along with more student centered formats. The crowded grade 3-5 curriculum has been noted and

increased time for mathematics instruction has been recommended. The cognitive level of

discourse needs to be improved in math classes and it has been suggested that teachers who have

good mathematical knowledge can enhance their effectiveness in teaching math to students by

developing further their pedagogical knowledge and the understanding of students as social

beings. Further a fledgling discussion has been initiated as to how to alter normative instruction

in K-3 classrooms, that in time can help students to become more committed to learning and who

overtime assume more responsibility for their learning.

 Teaching Math 26

References

Barth, R. (1970). When children enjoy school: Some lessons from Great Britain. Childhood

Education 46, 195-200.

Berliner, D. (1979). Tempus educare. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (eds.), Research on teaching:

Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkely, CA: McCutchan.

Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for

children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 61, 365-374.

Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: causes and consequences. New

York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Brown Center Report on American Education (2006, October). How well are American students

learning? With special selections on the nation’s achievement, the happiness factor in

learning, and honesty in state test scores. Washington: The Brookings Institution.

Brownell, W.A. (1947). The place of meaning in the teaching of elementary school arithmetic.

Elementary School Journal, 47, 256-265.

Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., Chiang, P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of

children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American

Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.

Carrol, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 722-733.

Chval, K, Grouws, D., Smit, M., Weiss, I., & Ziebarth, A. (2006, June). Understanding the use of

curriculum materials: A cross-site research study report. Missouri: Center for the study

of mathematics curriculum. University of Missouri Columbia

 Teaching Math 27

Chval, K., Reys, B.J., & Teuscher, D. (2006). What is the focus and emphasis on calculators in

state-level K-8 mathematics standards documents? Mathematics Education Leadership

Journal, 9(1), 3-13.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., et al. (1966).

Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Health, Education,

and Welfare.

Connor, C.M., Morrisson, F.J., & Katch, L.E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the

effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 8, 305-336.

Connor, C.M., Morrisson, F.J., & Petrella, J.N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension

instruction: Examining child X instruction interactions. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96, 682-698.

Cooper, H., Robinson, J., & Patall, E. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement?

A synthesis research, 1978-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1-62.

Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Consistency and change in American Classrooms 1890-

1980. New York: Longman.

Dubriel, J.B. (1977). Utilization of class time in first year algebra. Doctorial dissertation,

University of Missouri, Columbia.

Ebmeier, H., & Good, T.L. (1979). The effects of instructing teachers about good teaching on the

mathematics achievement of fourth-grade students. American Educational Research

Journal, 16, 1-16.

 Teaching Math 28

Ferguson, R. (1998a). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap.

In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.) The black-white test score gap (pp. 273-317).

Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.

Fisher, C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviors,

academic learning time, and student achievement. An overview. In C. Denham & A.

Lieberman (Eds.) Time to learn. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational

Research and Development.

Fraiving, J., Murphy, L., & Fuson, K. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in

Everyday Mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30,

148-170.

Freeman, D., & Porter, A. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in

elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 403-421.

Good, T.L. (1996). Teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E.

Guiton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.) York, PA: Spectrum

Publishing Services.

Good, T.L., Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York, NY: Holt,

Reinhart, & Winston.

Good, T.L., & Braden, J. (2000). The great school debate: choice, vouchers, and charters.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Good, T.L., & Brophy, J. (1980). Educational psychology: a realistic approach (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Good, T.L., & Brophy, J. (in press) Looking in classrooms (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon
 Teaching Math 29

Good, T.L., & Grows, D.A. (1975). Teacher rapport: some stability data. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 67, 179-182.

Good, T.L., & Grouws, D.A. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourth grade

mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 40-54.

Good, T.L., & Grouws, D.A. (1979). The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: An

experimental study in fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71,

355-362.

Good, T.L., Grouws, D.A., & Beckerman, T. (1978).Curriculum pacing: Some empirical data in

mathematics. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 75-81.

Good, T.L., & Grouws, D.A., & Ebmeier, M. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York:

Longman.

Good, T.L., & McCaslin, M. (2005). Theoretical analysis and implementation: a study of

comprehensive school reform programs in Arizona 2000-2005. Volume I: School contexts

and CSR leadership. Final report to U.S. Department of Education.

Good, T.L., McCaslin, M., & Reys, B.J. (1992). Investigating work groups to promote problem

solving in mathematics. In J. Brophy (Ed), Advances in research on teaching (pp.115-

160). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Greathouse, J. (1966). An experimental investigation of relative effectiveness among three

different arithmetic teaching methods. University of New Mexico. Dissertation

Abstracts, 26, 5913.

Hanuskek, E., Rivkin, S. G., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, students, and academic achievement.

Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

 Teaching Math 30

McCaslin, M. (1996). The problem of problem representation: The Summit’s conception of

student. Educational researcher, 25, 13-15.

McCaslin, M. (2004). Co-regulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student motivation:

Elaborations on Vygotskian themes. In D.M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big

theories revisited (pp. 249-274). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

McCaslin, M. (2006). Student motivational dynamics in the era of school reform. Elementary

School Journal, 106(5), 479-490.

McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1996). Listening in classrooms. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (2005). Theoretical analysis and implementation: a study of

comprehensive school reform programs in Arizona 2000-2005. Volume II: Classroom

practices and student motivation dynamics. Final report to U.S. Department of

Education.

McCaslin, M., Good, T.L., Nichols, S., Zhang, J., Hummel, C., Bozack, A.R., Burross, H.L., &

Cuizon-Garcia, R. (2006). Comprehensive school reform: An observation study of

teaching in grades 3 to 5. Elementary School Journal, 106, 313-331.

McCaslin, M., Tuck, D., Wiard, A., Brown, B., LaPage, J., & Pyle, J. (1994). Gender

composition and small-group learning in fourth grade mathematics. Elementary School

Journal, 94, 467-482.

Moise, E.E., Clanadra, A., Davis, R.B., Kline, M. , & Bacon, H. M. (1965). Five reviews of the

“new math.” Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 001370), p.14.

 Teaching Math 31

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network.

(2003). Social functioning in first grade: Associations with earlier home and child care

predictors and with current classroom experiences. Child Development, 74, 1639-1662.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network.

(2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and

student behavior. Elementary School Journal, 105, 305-323.

Nichols, S.L., & Good, T.L. (2004). America’s Teenagers myths and realities: Media Images,

Schooling, and social costs of careless indifference. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.

Oakes, J. (2005) Keeping track: How students structure inequality (2nd Ed.) New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics.

Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.

Powell, A., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. (1985). The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and losers

in the educational market place. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Randi, T., & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I.F.

Goodson (Eds.) International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (pp.1163-1221),

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Reys, B., et.al. (2005). The intended mathematics curriculum as represented by stats level

curriculum standards: Consensus or compulsion.

 Teaching Math 32

Reys, B.J., & Roseman, J.E. (2004). Instructional materials and curriculum. In F.K. Lester & J.

Ferrini-Mundy (Eds.). Research Catalyst Conference (pp. 133-140). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Rohrkemper, M., & Corno, L. (1988). Success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptive learning

and classroom teaching. Elementary School Journal, 88, 297-312.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R.J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about

teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study on elementary

schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.

Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher

expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,

429-444.

Sanders, W.L., & Horn, S.P. (1994). The Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS):

Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation

in Education, 8, 299-311.

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Research project report: Cumulative and residual effects

of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee

Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved from http:// www.

mdk12.org/practices.ensure/tva/tva_2.html

Schneider, B. & Stevenson, D. (1999). The ambitious generation: America’s teenagers motivated

but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shipp, D., & Deer, G. (1960). The use of class time in arithmetic. Arithmetic Teacher, 7, 117-121.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 19(2), 4-14.

 Teaching Math 33

Shuster, A., & Pigge, F., (1965). Retention efficiency of meaningful teaching. Arithmetic

Teacher, 12, 24-31.

Sigurdson, S., & Olson, A. (1992). Teaching mathematics with meaning. Journal of Mathematics

Behavior, 11, 37-57.

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: the remaking of American education. New York:

Random House

Stipek, D. (2006). No child left behind. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 454-465.

Tarr, J.E., Chavez, O., Reys, R.E., & Reys, B.J. (2006). From written to the enacted curricula:

The Intermediary role mathematics teachers in shaping students’ opportunity to learn.

School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191-201.

Tarr, J.E., Reys, B.J., Barker, D.D., & Billstein, R. (2006). Selecting high quality mathematics

textbooks. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 12(1), 50-54.

Van Horn, M., & Ramsey, S. (2003). The effects of developmentally appropriate practices on

academic outcomes among former Head Start students and classmates, grades 1-3.

American Educational Research Journal, 40, 961-990.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher-order psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (original work published in 1934).

Weinstein, R.S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M.J. (2004, September). American Psychologist,

59(6), 511-520.

Wiley, C.R.H., Zhang, J., McCaslin, M., & Good, T.L. (2006). Characteristics of math and

reading instruction in CSR schools. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the

American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.

 Teaching Math 34

Zahn, K.G. (1966). Use of class time in eighth grade arithmetic. Arithmetic Teacher, 13, 113-120.

Appendix A

From Good, T.L., & Braden, J.S. (2000). The great school debate: choice, vouchers, and

charters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Good and Braden took their quotes from Moise et.al
 Teaching Math 35

(1965), to represent some of the strong reaction that some mathematicians and scientists had

toward New Math.

Students are asked to learn operations with sets and the notion of subset, finite and

infinite sets, the null set (which is not empty because it contains the empty set), and lots

of other notations which are abstract and in fact rather remote from the heart and essence

of arithmetic. Yet on this abstract basis, students are required to learn arithmetic. The

whole theory of sets should be eliminated. On the elementary and high school levels it is

a waste of time. (p. 30)

There are other differences between the modern mathematics curricula and what I and

others would recommend. The modern curricula insists on precise definitions of

practically every word they use and, by actual count, the first two years of the school

mathematics study group curriculum asks students to learn about 700 precise definitions.

This is pure pedantry. The common understandings which students have acquired through

experience are good enough and formal definitions are usually not needed. After reading

the formal definition of a triangle, I had to think hard to be sure that it really expressed

what I knew a triangle to be. Another point of issue is symbolism. Because symbolism

has made mathematics more effective many naïve “mathematicians” now seem to think

that the more symbols they introduce the better the mathematics. What they have done is

to make a vice out of a virtue. (p. 30)

In many ways the new math movement has the character of the children’s crusade of the

middle ages. It is recognized as such by many responsible educators, but it is difficult to

 Teaching Math 36

stop because of the very large and tightly knit web of bested interest preying on the

mathematical unsophistication of the press, the public, and the foundations themselves.

Under these circumstances, I urge administrators to forget the prestige of the sponsors

and view with restraint and enthusiasm anything which does not really make sense to

them, rather than be Sputnik-panicked into the hysterical adoption of new programs.

(p.31)
 Teaching Math 37
Table 1 Teachers: Communication patterns with students believed to be more and less capable

Students believed to be Less

Students believed to be More capable capable
have: have:
TASK ENVIRONMENT
Curriculum, procedures, task Less opportunity to perform publicly
definition, More opportunity to perform publicly on on
pacing, qualities of meaningful tasks(supplying
environment meaningful tasks. alternative
endings to a story vs. learning to
pronounce a word
correctly).

More opportunity to think. Less opportunity to think, analyze

(since much work is aimed at
practice).

Less choice on curriculum

GROUPING PRACTICES More assignments that deal with compre- assignments
hension, understanding (in higher ability more opportunity to work on drill-like
groups). assignments.

LOCUS OF Less autonomy (frequent teacher

RESPONSIBILITY More autonomy (more choice in assignments, monitoring
FOR of work , frequent
LEARNING fewer interruptions). interruptions).

FEEDBACK AND
EVALUATION More opportunity for self-evaluation. Less opportunity for self-evaluation.

MOTIVATIONAL
STRATEGIES More honest/contingent feedback. Less honest/more gratuitous/less
contingent
feedback.

QUALITY OF TEACHER More respect for the learner as an Less respect for the learner as an
RELATIONSHIP individual with unique interests and
S individual with unique interests needs
and needs

Table 2. A Scaffolding Model of Teaching.

__________________________________________________________________
 Teaching Math 38

1. Pre-engagement. Guided by instructional goals and anticipating possible student

difficulties, needs, and strategies, the teacher selects an appropriate learning activity.

2. Establishing a shared goal. The teacher introduces the activity in ways that help the

students see its value and thus adopt the goal of accomplishing its intended outcomes.

3. Actively diagnosing learners’ understandings and needs. This requires teachers to be

familiar with the learning domain involved, including knowledge of students’ typical

trajectories of progress as they move from novice to more expert status.

4. Providing tailored assistance. This might include modeling ideal performance, providing

explanations, questioning or leading discussion, or coaching (cuing or prompting)

performance.

5. Maintaining pursuit of the goal. The teacher may need to support students to help them

stay with a difficult or complicated task by requesting clarifications, asking questions, or

offering praise and encouragement.

6. Giving feedback. This includes both summarizing the progress made so far and

indicating what still needs to be accomplished (including making students aware of

mistakes and helping them to remedy them).

7. Controlling for frustration and risk. This is done at a macro level by establishing a

learning community in which mistakes are appreciated as part of the learning process,

and at a micro level by giving feedback that helps students to cope with frustration and

overcome mistakes as they carry out the activity.

8. Assisting internalization, independence, and generalization to other contexts. This is

accomplished by fading assistance as students gain expertise, by engaging them in

activities that allow them to generalize what they are learning, and by providing cues,
 Teaching Math 39

feedback, or other coaching that helps them to develop strategies for addressing problems

or to recognize the implications and applications of what they are learning.

__________________________________________________________________

Source: This table appears in Good, T., and Brophy, J., Looking in Classrooms (10th Ed.) (In

press). Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA. Adapted from Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997).

Scaffolding scientific competencies within classroom communities of inquiry. In K. Hogan &

M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp.74-

107). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Teaching Math 40
Teaching Math 41