Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
http://www.jstor.org
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation
1995, Vol. 26, No. 2, 114-145
RECONSTRUCTINGMATHEMATICSPEDAGOGY
FROMA CONSTRUCTIVISTPERSPECTIVE
A CONSTRUCTIVISTPERSPECTIVE
The widespreadinterestin constructivismamongmathematicseducationtheorists,
researchers,andpractitionershas led to a plethoraof differentmeaningsfor "con-
structivism."
Althoughtermssuchas "radical constructivism" and"socialconstructivism"
providesome orientation,thereis a diversityof epistemologicalperspectiveseven
within these categories(cf. Steffe & Gale, 1995). Therefore,it seems importantto
describebriefly the constructivistperspectiveon which ourresearchis based.
Constructivismderives from a philosophicalposition that we as humanbeings
have no access to an objective reality,thatis, a realityindependentof our way of
knowingit. Rather,we constructourknowledgeof ourworldfromourperceptions
and experiences,which arethemselvesmediatedthroughourpreviousknowledge.
Learningis the process by which humanbeings adaptto their experientialworld.
From a constructivistperspective,we have no way of knowing whethera con-
cept matches an objective reality. Ourconcern is whetherit works (fits with our
experientialworld). Von Glasersfeld(1987, 1995) refersto this as "viability,"in
keeping with the biological model of learningas adaptationdeveloped by Piaget
(1970). To clarify, a concept works or is viable to the extent thatit does what we
need it to do: to make sense of our perceptionsor data, to make an accuratepre-
diction,to solve a problem,or to accomplisha personalgoal. Confrey(1995) points
outthata corollaryto theradicalconstructivistepistemologyis its "recursivefidelity-
constructivismis subjectto its own claims aboutthe limits of knowledge. Thus,
[constructivism]is only trueto the extent thatit is shown useful in allowing us to
make sense of our experience." When what we experience differs from the
expected or intended,disequilibriumresults and our adaptive(learning)process
is triggered.Reflection on successful adaptiveoperations(reflective abstraction)
leads to new or modified concepts.
Perhapsthe most divisive issue in recentepistemologicaldebates(Steffe & Gale,
1995) is whetherknowledge development(particularlyrelationalknowledge) is
116 ReconstructingMathematicsPedagogy
SOCIALCONSTRUCTIVISMAND MATHEMATICSPEDAGOGY
RECENTTHEORETICALWORK ON PEDAGOGICALFRAMEWORKS
Despite these factors, some importantwork has been done in recentyears with
respectto rethinkingmathematicsteachingon thebasisof a constructivist perspective
(in some cases withoutspecificreferenceto constructivism).This workhas focused
on identifying the roles of mathematicsteachers and describing the nature of
"pedagogicaldeliberations"(Ball, 1993).
The Professional Standardsfor School Mathematics (National Council of
Teachersof Mathematics,1991)envisionsteachers'responsibilities in fourkey areas:
* Setting
goalsandselecting
orcreating
mathematicaltaskstohelpstudents
achieve
thesegoals;
* Stimulating andmanaging classroomdiscourseso thatboththestudentsand
theteacherarecleareraboutwhatis beinglearned;
* Creatinga classroom
environmenttosupport
teaching andlearningmathematics;
* Analyzingstudentlearning,themathematicaltasks,andtheenvironment in
orderto makeongoinginstructionaldecisions.(p. 5)
Cobb, Wood, and Yackel (1993) elaboratethe teacher's responsibilitiesin the
mathematicsclassroom.The teacherhas the dualrole of fosteringthe development
of conceptualknowledgeamongheror his studentsandof facilitatingtheconstitution
of shared knowledge in the classroom community. Cobb et al. (1993) have
demonstratedthatclassroomconversationsaboutmathematics,facilitatedby the
teacher, result in taken-as-shared mathematical knowledge. They have also
described a second type of conversationthat focuses on what constitutes appro-
priateand effective mathematicalactivity in the classroom. Such discussion con-
tributesto the constitutionandmodificationof social normsfor mathematicalactiv-
ity, the contrat didactique3(Brousseau, 1981).
Much of the teacher'sresponsibilitiesinvolve planning.However, the planning
of instructionbased on a constructivistview of learningfaces an inherenttension.
Brousseauemphasizesthatstudentsmusthave freedomto makea responseto a sit-
uationon the basisof theirpastknowledgeof the contextandtheirdevelopingmath-
ematicalunderstandings.If the situationleads the studentsto a particularresponse,
no reallearningof themathematical ideasunderlyingthatresponsetakesplace.However,
"if the teacherhas no intention,no plan, no problemor well-developed situation,
the childwill not do andwill not learnanything"(Brousseau,1987, p. 8-my trans-
lation).Underthese conditions,studentslearnotherthings,such as how to respond
appropriatelyto the teacher'sleading questions.
Brousseau(1983),Douady(1985),Lampert(1990),andBall (1993)haveconducted
investigationsinto the natureof pedagogical thinking and decision making that
contributeto teacherplanning.Brousseau(1987) assertsthatpartof the role of the
teacheris to takethe noncontextualizedmathematicalideasthatareto be taughtand
embedthemin a contextfor studentinvestigation.Sucha contextshouldbe personally
meaningfulto the students,allowingthemto solve problemsin thatcontext,the solu-
tionof whichmightbe a specificinstantiation of the ideato be learned.(Ball's [1993]
Background
The teachingexperimentwas partof the Constructionof ElementaryMathematics
(CEM) Project,a 3-year study of the mathematicaland pedagogicaldevelopment
of prospectiveelementaryteachers.The projectstudiedthe prospectiveteachersin
the contextof anexperimentalteacherpreparation programdesignedto increasetheir
mathematicalknowledgeandto fostertheirdevelopmentof views of mathematics,
learning, and teaching that were consistent with the views espoused in recent
reform documents (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989;
1991). Data collection with 26 prospectiveelementaryteachers(20 of whom fin-
ished the program) proceeded throughouta mathematics course, a course on
mathematicslearning and teaching, a 5-week pre-student-teachingpracticum,
and a 15-week student-teachingpracticum.
Theresearchon themathematics courseandthecourseon mathematics learningand
teachingemployed a constructivist
teaching-experiment methodology,as described
by CobbandSteffe(1983)forresearchwithindividual subjects.We adaptedthatmethod-
ology to researchon classroom mathematics (in the mannerof Cobbet al., 1993).
The authortaughtall classes. Classes were videotapedand field notes were taken
122 ReconstructingMathematicsPedagogy
During whole-class discussion, students described how they had solved the
problem.Then,to focus discussionon the multiplicativerelationships,I askedthem
"5Much of the datafor this reportwas reportedearlierin Simon and Blume (1994b). The earlierarti-
cle focuses on the students'quantitativereasoning.This articlerevisitssome of the datato unpackthe
pedagogicalissues.
124 Reconstructing Mathematics Pedagogy
Karen has made some progress in justifying the use of multiplication. However,
Toni goes back to how one uses the formula appropriately. Her explanation is based
on her identification of the problem as an area problem and her knowledge of how
to measure length times width. Once again I attempt to refocus Toni (and, I suspect,
other students) on the underlying conceptual issue.
Toni: Whenwe're tryingto findhow manyrectangleswouldfill thatrectangle,we're look-
ing forthearea.Andwhenwe findareawe multiplylengthtimeswidth,andthecolumns
would probablyrepresentthe length and the rows would representthe width....
Simon: Why does thatwork,thatwhen we multiplythe numberof columnstimes the num-
ber of rows we get the area?
Molly: Well, I thoughtagain it referredback to when you're using a row to representthe
unitsin a group,andthe columnsto representthe numberof groups,andsince mul-
tiplicationis the same as repeatedaddition,that when you multipliedthe number
of unitsin a groupby the numberof groups,you wouldget the totalnumberof parts
in the whole.
Simon: And how is thatconnectedto this issue aboutthe corner?
Molly: Becauseit ... the comernot only representsa one, it'sjust one numberingof a group,
or it's also numberinga partof thatunit-a unit in thatgroup-so it's not, it's two
differentthings,just like when they were saying it's a row and a column, well, it's
two differentthings, it's a unit and also representinga group.
Candy: ...It makes it confusing to try to look at the length times the width.... You should
reallytreatit as so manysets or so manygroups,like nine groups..., thirteengroups
of nine. Thatway, you'renot even going to deal with the comerandyou won't even
have thatproblem.
Karen: Have we responded to Bill's problem about him thinking that he has double-
counted?
At this point, Karen brings us back to the original problem. For her, it is not enough
to decide whether one would be double-counting the corner rectangle; it is also impor-
tant to understand Bill's thinking, which led to his confusion.
Karen: It appearsto me thatBill's thinkingabout... countingby ones.... one representstwo
differentthings, but in his mind, at least from what he said, it appearsthathe only
sees one as representingone thing,andthatis a countingnumber.He thinkshe's already
countedit.
Candy's and Karen' s comments seem to demonstrate an understanding of how
the counting (vertically and horizontally) and the multiplication are related. I
push for further verbalization of the ideas involved to ascertain whether others in
the class have constructed similar meanings. Many now insist that we are really
counting rows and columns. I suspect that some of the students have latched onto
the notion of rows and columns in an unexamined way. The shift from counting
boxes to counting rows and columns does not in itself lead to a connection
between counting the total number and the multiplicative approach. I refocus my
questions on this connection.
Simon: So I'm not countingboxes at all?
Class: No.
Simon: OK. Isn't it a little mysteriousthatwe're never countingboxes here and we wind
up witha numberof boxes?Does thatbotheranybody?We didn'tcountboxes here,
MartinA. Simon 127
we didn'tcountboxesthere,andwe windupwithboxesattheend.Tammy?
Tammy:If eachboxrepresentsa portionof therowso we'rereallycounting
boxesbutwe're
justputtingthemin a set,insteadof individually.
Simon: OK,so whichwayareyouthinkingaboutthesetsgoing?[Pointsatdiagramon
theboard]Thiswayorthatway?Chooseone.
Tammy:Vertically?
Simon: So thisis a set?OK.So you aresayingthisis ninewhat?
Tammy:Nineseparateunitsinsideof a set.
Simon: ...OK. So hereI countednineboxesin a set andthenhereI'mcountingwhat?
Tammy: Thirteen.
Simon: Thirteenwhat?
Tammy:Boxesin a set.
[Ellen is shakingher head]
Simon: Ellen,youdon'tlikethat.
Ellen: If you'regoingto do it thatway,I thinkyouhaveto saythatyou'regoingto take
thecolumnasa set,nineboxesinoneset ... thenthethirteen intherowis thenum-
berof setsthatyouhave,so it's notactuallyboxes,it's thenumberof thatsame
typeof setthatyouhave.
Ellen'sfinalcommentevokedmanynodsof agreementfromherclassmates.I con-
sidered,however,thatfora studentto followanexplanationmightnotrequirethesame
level of understandingas would be needed to generate an explanation.Still, it
seemedclearto me fromstudents'verbalizations thatthenumberof studentswho were
seeing a connectionbetween multiplication countingthetotalnumberof rectangles
and
hadincreased.PerhapsProblem2 shiftedthediscussionfrommyproblem-justifying
the methodthatthe studentsbelievedto be valid-to a communityproblem-how to
accountforthe "doublecounting."Problem2 seemedto providea puzzlement,atleast
initiallyfor mostof the students.We cannotassume,however,thatall of the students
relatedto Problem1 as my problem,northatall of them owned Problem2.
Figure3. Constitution
of squareunits.
DISCUSSION
The discussion of the teachingsituationsis dividedinto two parts.The first part
examinesthe teacher'srole thatemergesin termsof the decisionmakingaboutcon-
tent andtask. This discussion,which focuses on the compositepictureof teaching
seen acrossthethreesituationspresented,leadsto thearticulation
of a modelof teacher
decision makingcalled the MathematicsTeaching Cycle. The second partof the
discussion highlightsparticularaspects of each of the situations(consideredsep-
arately),in an attemptto furtherelaboratethe role of the teacher.
132 ReconstructingMathematicsPedagogy
TheMathematicsTeachingCycle
The analysis of these teaching episodes has led to the development of the
MathematicsTeaching Cycle (Figure 4) as a schematic model of the cyclical
interrelationshipof aspectsof teacherknowledge, thinking,decision making,and
activity that seems to be demonstratedby the data.
The threeepisodes createa pictureof a teacherwhose teachingis directedby his
conceptualgoals for his students,goals thatareconstantlybeing modified.The orig-
inal lesson involving the rectangleson the table was not a randomchoice, nor was
it Chapter1 in someone'stextbook.The goal for anddesignof the lessonwerebased
on relatingtwo factors:the teacher'smathematicalunderstandingandthe teacher's
hypotheses aboutthe students'knowledge. I referto "hypotheses"aboutstudents
knowledge to emphasizethatthe teacherhas no directaccess to students'knowl-
edge. He must infer the natureof the students'understandingsfrom his interpre-
tations of his students' behaviors, based on his own schemata with respect to
mathematics,learning,students,and so on. It is implied thatthe teachercan com-
parehis understandingof a particularconcept to his constructionof the students'
understandings,not to the students'"actual"understandings.
As the teacher,my perceptionof students'mathematicalunderstandingsis struc-
turedby my understandings of themathematics in question.Conversely,whatI observe
in the students'mathematicalthinkingaffects my understandingof the mathemat-
ical ideasinvolvedandtheirinterconnections. Thesetwo factorsareinteractivespheres
of a teacher'sthinking(Ball's, 1993, "bifocalperspective"discussedearlier).
Steffe (1990) states,
Usingtheirownmathematical knowledge,mathematicsteachersmustinterpret
thelan-
guageandactionsof theirstudents
andthenmakedecisionsaboutpossiblemathematical
knowledgetheirstudentsmightlearn.(p. 395)
The teacher's learning goal provides a direction for a hypothetical learning
trajectory.6I use the term"hypotheticallearningtrajectory"to referto the teacher's
prediction as to the path by which learning might proceed. It is hypothetical
becausethe actuallearningtrajectoryis not knowablein advance.It characterizesan
expected tendency. Individual students' learning proceeds along idiosyncratic,
althoughoftensimilar,paths.Thisassumesthatanindividual'slearninghas somereg-
ularityto it (cf. Steffe,et al., 1983,p. 118),thatthe classroomcommunityconstrains
mathematicalactivityoftenin predictableways, andthatmanyof the studentsin the
same class canbenefitfromthe samemathematicaltask.A hypotheticallearningtra-
jectoryprovidestheteacherwitha rationaleforchoosinga particular instructional
design;
thus,I makemy designdecisionsbasedon my best guess of how learningmightpro-
ceed.Thiscanbe seenin thethinkingandplanningthatprecededmy instructional inter-
ventionsin eachof the teachingsituationsdescribedas well as the spontaneousdeci-
sions thatI madein responseto students'thinking.
Hypothetical
Teacher's learningtrajectory
knowledge Teacher's
learninggoal
Teacher'splanfor
learning
activities
Teacher's
hypothesisof
learningprocess
Interactive
constitution
Ae n of of classroom
Assessment activities
students'
knowledge
Teacher's Teacher's
hypothesis knowledgeof
of learning studentlearning
of particular
\ process content
Assessment of
students'
knowledge
IN SUMMARY
Constructivist views of learninghave provideda theoreticalfoundationfor mathe-
maticseducationresearchanda frameworkwithinwhichteacherscanunderstand their
students.However,constructivism alsoposesa challengeto themathematics education
communityto developmodelsof teachingthatbuildon, andareconsistentwith,this
theoretical Small-group
perspective. interaction,nonroutineproblemsolving,andmanip-
ulativematerialscanbe valuabletools in the handsof mathematicsteachers.Yet the
abilityto use thesetools is not sufficientto allow teachersto be the architectsof pro-
ductive learning situationsresulting in conceptual growth. Theoreticallybased
frameworksfor teachinghave the potentialto guide the use of these tools.
By what means can a teacher help students to develop new, more powerful
mathematicalconcepts?Novice teachers,who want theirstudentsto "construct"a
particularidea,oftenaskfortheideafromtheirstudents,consciouslyor unconsciously
hoping thatat leastone studentwill be able to explainit to the others(Simon, 1991).
Such an approachdoes not deal with a key question:If a groupof studentsdo not
have a particularconcept,how does a teacherworkwith themto fostertheirdevel-
opment of that concept?
MartinA. Simon 141
researchon children'smathematicalthinking,innovativecurriculummaterials,and
ongoing professionalsupportin orderto meet the demandsof this role.
REFERENCES
von Glasersfeld,
E. (1995).A constructivist
approachto teaching.In L. Steffe& J. Gale(Eds.),Constructivism
in education (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Wertsch,J., & Toma,C. (1995). Discourse andlearningin the classroom:A socioculturalapproach.In
L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivismin education.Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1995). Reflections on learningand teaching mathematicsin ele-
mentary school. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 401-422).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wood, T., Cobb,P., Yackel,E., & Dillon, D., (Eds.)(1993). Rethinkingelementaryschool mathematics:
Insightsand issues. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducationMonographSeries,Number6.
Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachersof Mathematics.
AUTHOR
MARTINA. SIMON,Associate Professor,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,Departmentof Curriculum
and Instruction,ChambersBuilding, 176, UniversityPark,PA 16802